Melissa Anna Murphy

Boundaries to Socially and

Boundaries to Socially and
Environmentally Equitable

Enviromentally Equitable
Communal Spaces

Communal Spaces
Finding Common Ground for a Sustainable
Urban Existence in Multicultural Oslo
NTNU
Norwegian University of
Science and Technology
Faculty of Architecture and Fine Art
Department of Urban Ecological Planning

Master Thesis in Urban Ecological Planning

Trondheim, May 2011
Melissa Anna Murphy

Boundaries to Socially and

Enviromentally Equitable
Communal Spaces
Finding Common Ground for a Sustainable
Urban Existence in Multicultural Oslo

Master Thesis in Urban Ecological Planning

2011 Trondheim

Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Faculty of Architecture and Fine Art

Department of Urban Ecological Planning

"While abstract space remains an arena of practical action, it is
also an ensemble of images, signs and symbols. It is unlimited,
because it is empty, yet at the same time it is full of juxtapositions,
of proximities, of emotional distances and limits. It is thus at once
lived and represented, at once the expression and the foundation of
a practice, at once stimulating and constraining, and so on..."

- Henri Lefebvre in The Production of Space

Adivisor: Hans Christie Bjønness

 Abstract

Abstract

During periods of urban renewal, neighborhoods change at a rapid pace. Developers

and land owners with resources renovate and build newer and nicer to attract a
different market of residents to previously run-down neighborhoods. Through the
process, people of varying societal sectors become neighbors, suddenly having
(perhaps only) the element of public and communal space in common - despite
broad demographic differences. This thesis examines communal space within a
disparate, changing residential neighborhood of Oslo as a potential basis for creating
sustainable, mutually reinforcing social and environmental coexistences.

If sustainability is a goal in today’s cities, as generally defined by the United

Nations after Agenda 21 as the balance of equities between Social, Ecological,
and Economic components, then the question this thesis asks is - how can a
neighborhood in change promote sustainability and a harmonious coexistence of
its residents in the midst of urban renewal - where economic inequity is inherent?
Where is common ground for all residents of a place, and what are the potentials of
that ground for promoting a more sustainable urban existence - environmentally and
socially if not economically?

This study examines many of the equity issues faced by Oslo’s changing and
multicultural inner-east neighborhoods of Tøyen and Grønland - immigration,
gentrification, fragmentation, discrimination, social ignorance and fear, uneven
resources and participation. Such problems apply to many of today’s cities - inequity
here has been legislated out of the government but remains buried in the subtle
layers which compose and influence rental and real estate structures. Within these
structures, differences between people - exercised in the built environment and its
use - are creating limitations and boundaries to social and environmental equities.
The society is as fragmented as the divided yard spaces found in the study site and
residents often have no basis for identifying with their diverse neighbors despite
proximity and shared infrastructure.

i
Abstract

Equity and sustainability topics are a matter of values and depend on what people
see as important to their personal lives. Such values, however, differ between
residents and among stakeholder groups within neighborhoods - the lack of
communal values being capable of hindering the potentials for sustainable
coexistence. The research project is specifically guided by the question: How do
value disparities hinder social and environmental equity potentials of communal
spaces in a context of inherent economic inequity? From understanding privately
owned communal spaces as a part and potential resource of the greater city to
deriving local values and motivating factors in its management, the analysis attempts
to bridge societal sectors and city agendas. The fieldwork for this thesis revolved
around defining the values of stakeholder groups, noting where differences occur,
and then analyzing the boundaries being reinforced by found unaligned values.

Utilizing theoretical context including topics of Sustainable Cities, Urban Renewal

and Gentrification, Multicultural Neighborhoods, and Housing Theory, indicator values
of community, identity, diversity, shared space, nature, upkeep and participation were
selected. These indicator values serve as a basis for comparison of a selected range
of communal yards - what values residents and property owners claim to have, what
values are demonstrated by the built environment, and what values are demonstrated
by the usage of the built environment. Such values are derived from cases through
balancing principles from both architectural determinism and behaviorism thought.
The thesis hopes to identify causes of socio-spatial boundaries at work in the study
area which can then targeted in future planning measures to encourage more
equitable communal spaces despite the common context of economic difference and
income inequality.

ii
 Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

I would like to first express my gratitude to a two individuals who have directly and
indirectly impacted the course I have followed in my career which has led me to this
program - Darell Fields and Richard Alomar. Without their strong assertions of my
academic strength and their separate encouragements of better design through
exploration of sociology, history and other sciences, I would never have developed
the social and environmental consciousness that drives me today.

Many thanks to the U.S.-Norway Fulbright Foundation for funding the first year of my
study in Trondheim - a fulfilling experience without which this thesis could not have
been conceived.

A special thanks to the Mjønes-Olsen family for their interest in my work and
unending support in my decision to continue in Norway - not least of which to Rolf
Marius, the love of my life, my biggest advocator and motivator.

Much gratitude to Oslo Kommune's Plan-og Bygnings Etaten and Bydel Gamle Oslo
planners for their warm welcome, introduction to city and neighborhood planning
issues, and generosity of resources and time throughout my research.

Finally, a sincere thanks to the faculty of NTNU's Urban Ecological Planning

Program. Specifically to my advisor, Hans Bjønness, in guiding the multicultural
perspective and encouraging my anecdotal approach to research. In general, to both
professors Hans Bjønness and Hans Skotte - a great appreciation for you having
created the incredible experience afforded by this program to us students. Your
support, interest, and time devoted to the tumultuous formulation of our diverse
projects has been encouraging in the belief that we are capable of creating positive
change.

iii
Table of Contents

Table of Contents
Page Section Number and Title

i Abstract

iii Acknowledgements

iv Table of Contents

vi List of Figures

vii Executive Summary

1 1.0 Introduction to the Research

1.1 Just Another Immigrant, my story
1.2 Reason for the Study
1.3 Definitions

7 2.0 Context
2.1 Theoretical Context
2.1.1 Sustainable Cities
2.1.2 Urban Renewal and Gentrification
2.1.3 Multicultural Neighborhoods
2.1.4 Housing Theory
2.2 Locational Context - the Study Area
2.3 Spaces in Urban Ecology
2.3.1 Environmental Equity
2.3.2 Social Equity
2.3.3 Mutual Reinforcement
2.3.4 Spatial Challenges

30 3.0 Research Methodology

3.1 Research Question and Objectives
3.2 Design of the Research
3.2.1 Fieldwork Plan and Process
3.2.2 Initial Boundaries Identified
3.2.3 Conceptual Model
3.2.4 Data Types
3.2.5 Framework for Analysis
3.2.6 Indicators
Photo Introduction to the Study Area 3.2.7 Reliability of the Data

iv
 Table of Contents

3.3 Data Collection 103 6.0 Possibilities and Limitations

3.3.1 Mapping and GIS 6.1 Precedents for Positive Change
3.3.2 Direct Observation 6.1.1 Privately Owned Public Spaces - New York
3.3.3 Pedestrian and Vehicle Counts 6.1.2 Defining Units for Community - Copenhagen
3.3.4 Interviews 6.1.3 Miljøbyen Gamle Oslo - Oslo
3.3.5 Resident Surveys 6.1.4 Community Gardening
3.3.6 An Immigrant in Tøyen, Abdul’s story 6.2 Priorities for Future Proposals
3.4 Case Method 6.2.1 Kommune and Bydel Incentives
3.4.1 Case Selection 6.1.2 Property Owner Incentives
3.4.2 Case Narrative 6.1.3 Resident Incentives
3.4.3 Issues in the Case 6.3 Reflections on the Research
3.4.4 Reference Cases

114 7.0 Conclusion

68 4.0 Case Analysis 7.1 What Can Be Changed?
4.1 Physical 7.2 Future Study Potentials
4.1.1 Physical Variations Across Cases 7.3 In Sum
4.1.2 Values Derived from Physical
4.2 Usage
116 8.0 References
4.2.1 Usage Variations Across Cases
4.2.2 Values Derived from Usage
4.3 Values A 9.0 Appendices
4.3.1 The Value of Community 9.1 Grønnflåtefaktor Example
4.3.2 The Value of Identity 9.2 Interview and Conversational Source List
4.3.3 The Value of Diversity 9.3 Formal Interview Questions
4.3.4 The Value of Shared Space 9.4 Resident Survey Questions
4.3.5 The Value of Nature 9.5 Resident Survey Results
4.3.6 The Practice of Upkeep 9.6 Resident Suvey Advertising Poster
4.3.7 The Practice of Participation 9.7 Yard Usage Observation Charts
4.3.8 The Tøyen-Nedre Kampen Vel, their story 9.8 Pedestrian and Vehicle Counts
9.9 List of Data Gathered
87 5.0 Findings 9.10 Preliminary Data Sheets (Components)
5.1 Communal Spaces as Part of the City 9.11 Sample Study Area Real Estate Sales
5.2 Synthesis of Stakeholder Values 9.12 Sample Study Area Real Estate Rentals
5.3 Boundaries Identified 9.13 Study Area Real Estate Comparison to Oslo
5.3.1 Walls, Gates, Locks
5.3.2 Uneven Distribution of Power
5.3.3 Fear Amongst Residents
5.3.4 Disassociation of Residents with Spaces
5.4 Causal Relationships
5.4.1 Division of a Resource
5.4.2 Proprietary Decision Making
5.4.3 Lack of Communication Forums
5.4.4 Unclear Units of Community
5.5 Targets for change
5.6 Applicability Beyond the Study Area

v
List of Figures

List of Figures
page Figure Number and Title
4 Figure 1: A Chance Meeting in Tøyen, Jens Bjelkes Gate
8 Figure 2: Oslo Kommune study: ‘Potential meeting places in the inner city’
11 Figure 3: Urban Renewal Areas 1974-1977
15 Figure 4: The story of Tøyen’s intercoms - surnames from around the world.
19 Figure 5: Map of the Study Area - Tøyen - Grønland Neighborhoods of Oslo, Norway
20 Figure 6-7: Real Estate price variance maps - Sales and Rentals
22 Figure 8: Map of Oslo from 1949; Image Source: Haslum (2008, 153)
23 Figure 9: Tøyen Center
28 Figure 10: Social vs. Environmental or Social + Environmental
29 Figure 11: Categorization of urban spaces, urban renewal focus areas highlighted
31 Figure 12: Season and perspective changes over the course of the project
32 Figure 13: Initial Plan for the Fieldwork
34 Figure 14: Conceptual models surveyed
35 Figure 15: Conceptual model developed for this thesis.
38 Figure 16: Physical Checklists (left: environmental equity; right: social equity)
39 Figure 17: Usage Checklist
39 Figure 18: Observing Usages
40 Figure 19: Researcher Hypothesis and Indicator Values
41 Figure 20: Data Collection Methods, per Research Objectives
48-9 Figure 21-2: City Walks - Maps and Images
60 Figure 23: Tøyen's Local Mix Store
53 Figure 24: Aerial Map and photographs of Case Study Site
53 Figure 25: Residential Yards by Locked Status
55 Figure 26: Drawing of Case Site Lot
54-5 Figure 27: Intercoms from Case Site
59 Figure 28: The Story of the Entrances
59 Figure 29: Two commercial properties at the ground level on the block.
62 Figure 30: Curtains drawn to the yards of the case study.
63 Figure 31: Location Map of Reference Cases
64 Figure 32: Map and images from Magnus Gate - Reference Case 1.
64 Figure 33: Map and images from Gråbein Gårdene - Reference Case 2.
66 Figure 34: Map and images of Nonnegata - Reference Case 3.
66 Figure 35: Map and images of Pilestredet Park - Reference Case 4.
69 Figure 36: Comparative Maps of the Cases
70-2 Figures 37-40: Checklist Analyses and Partial Graffiti Documentation
85 Figure 41: Divided values in actions
88 Figure 42: Input to spaces found in Oslo
88 Figure 43: Urban Spaces in the Study Area per Management Entity
89 Figure 44: Publicly accessible green parks in the study area.
90 Figure 45: Population over potential green spaces - if residential yards were also greened.
91 Figure 46: Distribution of property accessibility
92 Figure 47: Figure-ground map of residential properties in study area.
92 Figure 48: Perception vs. reality of residential urban fabric in Tøyen
93 Figure 49: Open block potentials - pedestrian circulation and communal space
94 Figure 50: Indicator Values found per Stakeholder
95 Figure 51: Explanation of values tab graphic for the following sub-sections.
98 Figure 52: Graphic Illustration of causal relationships surrounding boundaries and values.
103 Figure 53: Privately owned public spaces in Manhattan
104-6 Figure 54-56: Precendent images from Copenhagen Cases
108 Figure 57: Miljøbyen beautified Gatetun, and bench in disrepair on gatetun (Sigurds Gate).
111 Figure 58: Local scale, resident neighborhood beautification in Nørrebro, Copenhagen
114 Figure 59: Summary Chart - desired ranges for equitable communal spaces
vi
 Executive Summary

Executive Summary
1.0 Introduction to the Research

If sustainability is a goal in today's cities, as generally defined by the United

Nations after Agenda 21 as the balance of equities between Social, Environmental,
and Economic components, then the question this thesis asks is - how can a
neighborhood in change promote sustainability and a harmonious coexistence of
its residents in the midst of urban renewal - where economic inequity is inherent?
Where is common ground for all residents of a place, and what are the potentials of
that ground for promoting a more sustainable urban existence - environmentally and
socially if not economically?

2.0 Context

Sustainable cities planning is often criticized for being overtly techno-managerial

and overlooking social equity issues. The case in Oslo demonstrates strong social
as well as natural ecology goals in sustainability planning, but disconnects can be
found between the city level of planning and the neighborhood or property lot level
of reality. In particular, neighborhoods undergoing upgrades under urban renewal
are subject to resident displacement due to rising real estate and rental prices. Most
vulnerable in this context are immigrant and low income populations who stop being
able to afford to continue in a place despite community ties or longevity. Hereby
upgrades in the name of raising the standard of living often only change the type
of people predominantly living in a place. Through the process, people of varying
cultures and societal sectors become neighbors, suddenly having - perhaps only -
the element of public and communal space in common - despite broad demographic
differences. While the act of living in a place typically encourages personal identity
with space and collective community, issues of difference and access interfere.
Breakdowns of neighborhood-based community contribute to resident fear and
seclusion through way of locks, walls, gates and other security implementations
along property lines. Those measures work to further divide residents of a place
along economic grounds.

Oslo's inner east neighborhoods have been traditionally working class, and currently
are in the midst of urban renewal. The study area in particular falls in the Tøyen
and Grønland neighborhoods - characterized by the densest population, highest
percentage of immigrants, large income disparities, and comparatively lower
vii
Executive Summary

standard of living to the rest of Oslo. The current condition of this area socially
and environmentally leads to questions of local urban spaces, how they function,
and the potential they may hold to better community. Through accessible, natural
implementations close to residential areas, local people can learn about processes
and collectively steward their environment - forming equitable community through
connecting noncompetitively with landscape. Residential yards became the focus
of the study for the reasons of current disparities observed and high potential for
community building due to proximity to residents' daily lives.

3.0 Research Methodology

Equity and sustainability topics are a matter of values and depend on what
people see as important to their personal lives. Such values, therefore, differ
between residents and among stakeholder groups within neighborhoods - the
lack of communal values being capable of hindering the potentials for sustainable
coexistence. The research is specifically guided by the question: How do value
disparities hinder social and environmental equity potentials of communal spaces in a
context of inherent economic inequity? The specific objectives of the thesis guiding
data collection are as follows:

To understand communal spaces in the study area in relation to the city’s
public space networks;

To determine the values of various stakeholder groups concerning the social
and environmental aspects of communal space;

To identify the effective boundaries at work in the study area through
analyzing observable symptoms of difference and inequity;

To understand the roots and effects of socio-spatial boundaries and value
differentials in the study area.

Utilizing theoretical context including topics of Sustainable Cities, Urban Renewal

and Gentrification, Multicultural Neighborhoods, and Housing Theory, indicator values
of community, identity, diversity, shared space, nature, upkeep and participation were
selected. These indicator values and practices serve as a basis for comparison of a
selected range of communal yards - what values residents and property owners claim
to have, what values are demonstrated by the built environment, and what values
are demonstrated by the usage of the built environment. Such value information is
derived from cases through balancing principles from both architectural determinism

viii
 Executive Summary

and behaviorism thought. Data and observations are understood within a framework
which separates urban space into the following components:

Physical - the concrete formal aspects and quality of built urban space

Use - the human activities occurring within space

Value - the cultural and personal priorities, motivations, and goals associated
with spaces and their management

These components were used to organize qualitative and quantitative data obtained
from a number of sources through a two month fieldwork period. The basis for most
information was direct observation and conversation based interviews, supplemented
by pedestrian counts and residential surveys. City observation walks and GIS
software were employed particularly early in the study to document and analyze
overall neighborhood scale conditions and define the scope of the thesis.

The specifics of the study were carried out using a case study of one residential
block with segregated yards of separate managements. This case was compared to
four reference case yards which demonstrate different physical and management
situations typical to and contrasting against the study area.

4.0 Case Analysis

Analyzing space components across the case study and reference cases
demonstrated a series of variations. The different situations are analyzed to derive
values, which are later double checked against survey and interview information and
more largely compared to the goals of community and sustainability planning.

Socially and environmentally relevant physical variations across the cases included:
The amount of planted area vs. hard surfaces
The amount of trees
Graduation from public to private spaces
Walking and staying spaces

Solid walls and diversity

Socially and environmentally relevant usage variations across the cases included:

Overall amount of users

Social gathering usages

Graffiti and space mis-use

In summary, the values information across cases demonstrated disparities in ix

Abstract

the indicator values of community, identity, diversity, shared space, nature and
the practice of participation. The practice of upkeep however was found to be
consistently appreciated across stakeholders and societal sectors, demonstrating a
commonality that can be seen as a potential spring board for positive change.

5.0 Findings

In understanding communal spaces as a part of the greater city, it was found that
the residential yards are an overlooked resource - making up over 20% of the land
(and more than half of the unbuilt land) in the study area. Significant opportunities for
better populating these spaces are missed in the enclosure, locking, discomfort and
inaccessibility of most yards, currently reinforcing an unsafe-feeling environment.

Values differ sharply among stakeholders. While at the city level, goals match with
sustainable community values, a disconnect can be seen from there to property
managers, owners, and resident renters. The latter group in particular often having
very little input to the management of the land around their homes.

The following socio-spatial boundaries were identified as limiting to social and

environmental equity in the study area:
Walls, Gates, Locks
Uneven Distribution of Power in Space Management
Fear Amongst Residents

Disassociation of Residents with Spaces

Each of these boundaries can be seen as the result of value disparities and as
causing further value disparities, contributing to a self-reinforcing cycle of inequity
for the yard spaces and surrounding neighborhood. The following causal phenomena
beginning this cycle were identified:
Division of a resource
Proprietary decision making
Lack of communication forums

Unclear units of community

Through understanding these causal phenomena as targets for change, city planning
entities, property managers, and/or residents themselves can be inspired to take
action and help to change Tøyen for the better - lessening the detrimental threats of
x
 Abstract

gentrification-driven displacement and social fragmentation, by supporting equity and

mutally reinforcing coexistences.

6.0 Possibilities and Limitations

The following precedents for positive change could be considered in part by Oslo
Kommune at the city scale:
Privately Owned Public Spaces - New York, NY, USA
Defining units for community - Copenhagen, Denmark

Resident - professional collaboration - Miljøbyen Gamle Oslo program

Incentives for positive change vary by stakeholder. The Kommune can see yard
upgrading as a part of their greater sustainability plan and as a mode to make city
infrastructure more efficient while promoting longevity. Property owners can see
increased efficiency in yard upkeep and potential for energy and other savings
through collectively available space. Resident incentives include amenities related
to space that can be directed for use as fits user group needs and desires - from
community gardening to play or exercise. Bettering the community overall and
making the area more conducive to longevity, identity, and stewardship over residents
moving away from neighborhood issues.

7.0 Conclusions

When holding a goal of urban sustainability, it is important that values are taken into
consideration at the same time (or even before) technologies and implementation
programs are determined. Without aligned values, various stakeholders will work
towards various goals - in many cases against sustainabile practices. Through
understanding small and large scale linkages, planners can work from the regional
and city scale down to the local and from the local level of a property plot up to
the city. The important factor herein is remembering that the goals at any one
scale must be reinforced by those in levels above and below. The case study of
this research demonstrates clearly how small scale cycle interruptions - common
practice departing from city sustainability goals - have supported patterns of inequity
- bounding and limiting the potentials of sustainable urban existences in Tøyen.

xi
xii
 1.0 Introduction to the Research

1.0 Introduction to the Research

During periods of urban renewal, neighborhoods change at a rapid pace. Developers

and land owners with resources renovate and build newer and nicer buildings to
attract a different market of residents. Through the process, people of varying
societal sectors become neighbors, suddenly having the element of public and
communal space in common - despite other underlying differences. Between
rising real estate prices, changing rental trends, and residential turnover rates,
economic inequity is an unavoidable factor of urban renewal. This inequity dually
affects the social and ecological states of a neighborhood as gentrification causes
fragmentation and dispersal of community while inhabitable spaces are upgraded.

If sustainability is a goal in today’s cities, as generally defined by the United Nations

after Agenda 21 as the balance of equities between Social, Environmental, and
Economic components, then the question of this thesis is - how can a changing
neighborhood promote sustainability and a sustainable coexistence of its residents in
the midst of urban renewal - where economic inequity is inherent? Where is common
ground, and what are the potentials of it for promoting a more sustainable urban
existence environmentally and socially if not economically?
1
1.0 Introduction to the Research

This study examines many of the equity issues faced by Oslo’s changing and
multicultural neighborhoods of Tøyen and Grønland in bydeli Gamle Oslo. Such
problems apply to many of today’s cities - inequity here is buried in the subtle layers
which compose and influence rental and real estate structures. As the United
Nations Habitat’s Planning Sustainable Cities: Global Report on Human Settlements
(2009, 202) explains the global urban issue of income inequality, “The challenges for
planning in addressing this issue are particularly difficult, as urban planning cannot
counter market forces.” Fortunately, governance in the global north has become less
discriminatory in the past century, but differences between the goals of governing
bodies and day to day life persist. Subtle inequities exist which contribute to rifts in
the social and environmental ecologies at local scales despite city-scale planning
measures striving for social, environmental, and economic equities under the greater
goal of sustainability.

Habitat’s (2009, 202) advice to planners in the matter of income inequality is that
“planning has to seek ways to promote social integration and cohesion, perhaps
through a quality public space system.” In that spirit, this study is based on an
understanding that natural ecologies, effectively inserted into cities with urban
planning support can create social inclusion through connections to the shared,
lived-in environment. This research examines the values towards and affected
by residential communal spaces - outdoor areas intended to be shared - in
neighborhoods of change and diversity. It builds upon both theory regarding the
capacity of natural environments to bring people together across societal differences
and reality regarding the quality variations in built form. The site of the study holds
a broad demographic of residents and range of spaces. The goal of this study is to
understand socio-spatial boundaries in order to propose techniques for equitably
connecting a fragmented society and promoting community value of natural
processes beginning at the urban scale of “home”.

i Bydel is a Norwegian term describing a city district and its immediate decentralized jurisdic-
tion. The Bydel has a council who represents the residents at the local level and then informs the next
level of government, the city, or “Kommune,” (Bydel, 2010). “Bydel” will be used in the rest of this text
describing city districts and their administrations.

2
 1.0 Introduction to the Research

1.1 Just Another Immigrant, my story

It had been a few weeks since I moved here - to Oslo, to Tøyen. At the grocery store
(the larger option in the neighborhood boasting lower prices) the woman in line in
front of me wears a burqa. It is a common sight here and I am getting used to it, but I
cannot help myself from wondering about her. Where is she from, how long has she
been in Norway, does she speak the language, what will she be making for dinner?
The differences between us seem accentuated by this one, highly symbolic piece of
clothing. We leave the store with our bags and walk in the same direction for a bit, until
she turns down a street consistently peppered with various others donning hijab and
headscarves. I continue to my own rented apartment.

At my front door, I greet my neighbor on his way out but still in his business-casual
dress from the workday. Our building is an old one - solid, possessing character. The
apartments inside have been recently renovated to achieve a clean and modern look
- energy saving appliances and all. When I take out the trash in the evenings, I must
unlock a massive gate leading to the courtyard - a modestly sized space with potted
plants and views to greener neighboring lawns. A small table and some potted plants
render the asphalt plot as nearly cozy. From this space I have coffee and waffles and
watch more neighbors come and go. I cannot but acknowledge that we are all the
same - young professionals seeking reasonable rent and comfortable rooms. There
are no burqas or bright headscarves in my building.

I remember seeing the apartment for the first time. We arrived a little late and there
was a room full of visitors who were just leaving. My boyfriend was the only native
Norwegian entering a room that well displayed the diversity that the city of Oslo hosts.
Tøyen after all, is known for being multicultural - and for having cheap rent compared to
similarly central neighborhoods. The 8,500 kroner/month rent for a 70 square meter,
renovated apartment piqued our interest even if such a price was a bit high for the
neighborhood. The well dressed realtor did little to hide his eagerness to speak to us,
and it was shortly after the door closed on the last other visitor that we were informally
offered the apartment. This approach was not overly surprising - we had sensed similar
interest at previous showings and had already turned down one apartment despite
the tight market. It seemed to follow as we are a clean, polite young couple with good
educations, a steady income, and the added benefit of northern European genes.

A week after accepting the apartment, we read in the local newspaper that young
adults from minority backgrounds and students are having excessive difficulties in
the rental market. I think back to our visits to other apartments and realize that our
demographic is the competition in this market. Not yet established enough to buy, still
saving and unwilling to spend too much on rent thereby drawn into neighborhoods
characterized by increasing disparity and change. I think again of the woman in the
burqa and my architect’s mind is drawn to the long block of lesser kept modernist
housing where she turned. Those blocks have few balconies and no courtyards - that
era of Oslo housing in these parts focused on function - quantity over quality. I do not
know how big or light her apartment is, or when it was last renovated. It is certain that,
unlike the pattern of residents found in my building, those of neighboring buildings are
3
1.0 Introduction to the Research

not all the same. Only a few blocks or doorways separate us, we are one community
yet we share little beyond the sidewalks and buried infrastructure.

Going back to the gate on my building’s courtyard, I wonder why it is locked. Why are
other members of the community not invited to share ‘our’ communal space? I walk
down local streets where the only trees and greenery to be glimpsed are tucked behind
other buildings, locked within large gates, buried in courtyards. While I appreciate that
my back window has a view of some trees, I fear that it is unfair to the rest of the
community. Some others have no yards by their homes; others have more beautiful
ones than mine. I pay more and more attention to the individual people in my community
and I wonder just how different are our parallel and adjacent lives.

Mostly, I am quiet in public, though I make a point of smiling to the people I pass on
my street. At our transit stops, diverse visitors and tourists often ask me for directions
- I respond to them as best I can. In stores, I greet shopkeepers and rehearse well
practiced phrases hoping not to be caught off-guard with questions outside of the
routine. Even though I too, am shut out of the locked courtyards of Gamle Oslo, I
feel somehow integrated into this disconnected community - another fragment. By
all outside appearances - red hair, fair skin and blue eyes - I am often mistaken for
Norwegian but, as is revealed by the color of my passport and my difficulty pronouncing
ø, æ, and å’s in conversation, in actuality I am just another immigrant here.

I am in Tøyen to research, but I am also here to live. The observed fragmentation of the
community and subtle inequities apparent in the details of the urban fabric show that
the densest residential neighborhoods in Oslo do not conform with the city’s greater
agenda of social, environmental, and economic equity.

Figure 1: A Chance Meeting in Tøyen, Jens Bjelkes Gate

4
 1.0 Introduction to the Research

1.2 Reason for the Study

This study began as a research of urban spaces and how they are shared in the
context of a neighborhood characterized by change and social disparities. Early
experience of the place through fieldwork demonstrated that the shared public
spaces are more symptomatic of anonymity than of inequity. Meanwhile, a plethora
of privately-owned residential spaces were found which are not being shared.
Turning the research focus away from public open spaces to these residential
communal spaces came with a realization that the spaces function only to the
extent of limitations imposed through boundaries (- both physical and socio-spatial)
surrounding and attached to them.

Currently, sustainable city goals, design practices, and marketing trends have
influenced a popular emphasis towards the natural ecologies and environmental
equity during urban upgrades. These upgrades of buildings and spaces come
with added costs which contribute to rising real estate prices and shifts in rental
economies. Simultaneously, as new demographic groups move into upgraded areas,
the social differences between existing and incoming residents creates rifts - forming
fragmented communities. The resident groups share infrastructure - the networks of
streets and sidewalks, the transit stops, the utility lines, grocery stores etc - but at the
level of the city closest to home, commonalities diverge. At the private level, upgrades
happen alongside higher real estate prices, benefiting higher income residents and
increasing the sense of difference between neighboring properties of varying value.
Aspects of place which are typically shared between members of a community
thereby segregate - physical divides begin to mimic the social. The resultant risk of
this trend is that as cities focus on environmental and natural ecology upgrades, they
may be inadvertently downgrading social congruencies.

“The major function of the communal spaces is to provide the arena for life
between buildings, the daily unplanned activities - pedestrian traffic, short
stays, play, and simple social activities from which additional communal life
can develop, as desired by residents.”

-Jan Gehl (1996, 47)

5
1.0 Introduction to the Research

The decision to strive towards sustainability, especially in terms of social and

environmental equity, is a matter of values and of which goals are defined as
desirable. Values and desirability however are subjective and differ between residents
and between stakeholder groups - the lack of communal values therefore hindering
potentials for communal life and mutual understanding. As such, the fieldwork for
this thesis revolved around defining the values of stakeholder groups, noting where
differences occur, and then analyzing the boundaries being reinforced by found
unaligned values. The thesis hopes to identify causes of socio-spatial boundaries
at work in the study area which can then be targeted in planning measures to
encourage more equitable communal spaces within the context of economic
difference.

1.3 Definitions

The following definitions are intended for terms used throughout this thesis. They
are derived from a diverse collection of literature, including UN Habitat reports and
academic writings on place, urban ecology, and multiculturalism.

Sustainability - a balance of Social, Environmental, and Economic equities to ensure

healthy resources for current and future generations

Communal space – occupiable, shared outdoor land

Values - cultural and personal priorities, motivations, and goals herein associated with
space and its management

Economic Inequity - an imbalance of monetary resources, including income disparity

Social Equity - the capacity in a setting of equal human rights for community, non-
competitive inclusivity across societal/demographic sectors

Environmental Equity - the balance of natural ecologies (including the natural

functions and capacity of land to manage rainwater with permeable soil and
sequester carbon dioxide with vegetation)

Environmental ecology or Natural ecologies - here is ecology in the city (Pickett,

2001): systems and cycles of the natural environment which ensure its longevity

Environmental stewardship – reinforcing human awareness and communal caring

for the environment

Urban Ecology - here is ecology of the city (Pickett, 2001): human communities
forming systems which can contribute to social equity
6
 2.0 Context

2.0 Context
The context of this project is divided into sections of theory and place - zooming in
on aspects of each to illustrate the realities at play and provide introduction to the
fieldwork methodology and findings which will be described in later sections.

2.1 Theoretical Context

This study falls among broad planning themes and theory relevant to many
globalizing cities in the western world. In the larger picture, this thesis considers a
neighborhood of a city considered to be at the forefront of sustainable city planning
in the midst of globalization and immigration-driven growth.

Beyond urban renewal, gentrification, and income inequality, the study area also is
characterized by multiculturalism. The residential nature of the study and changing
real estate structures bring into question the meaning of residing and identifying a
place as a home. Understanding in particular the parts of these issues and theories
as relate to equity thereby provide a theoretical basis for the study.

2.1.1 Sustainable Cities

Following Agenda 21, along with environmental and decentralization movements

many localized, sustainability-driven plans have spurred including the concept of
“sustainable cities”. Mahadevia (2002, pg. 136) explains the purpose of Sustainable
Cities programs as attempting to combat “increased consumption and ecological
degradation” which occurs alongside urbanization. Oslo has followed suit in creating
a master sustainability plan along with a number of kommuneii and bydel initiatives
driven towards ecological, social and economic equity.

ii “Kommune” is a Norwegian term describing a city- or municipal- level of government, above

“Bydel” (or district) and below “Fylke” (or county). The Norwegian term will be used throughout this
thesis to describing the city of Oslo and its municipal level of administration.
7
2.0 Context

In regards to sustainability planning for public spaces, Oslo Kommune (2009) has
developed a legal plan for the city to focus on the provision of the following (quoted
from document in English):

a broad range of different types of spaces for all kinds of people

the social aspect - places to meet, local identity

mixed use for better safety and human interaction

avoiding privatization of urban space

focus on children and elderly (with reduced mobility)

good processes when developing spaces

showing good examples, linking design and mixed use

extensive use of water, art, lighting, vegetation, etc

The physical plan attached to the Kommune document defines existing public
spaces, proposed locations for new ones, areas in need of public spaces and rules
for new development to include larger public areas (Oslo Kommune, 2009). While
much of the inner city of Oslo is shaded as being in need of additional public space,
the survey of potential public spaces is limiting. As this section of the city is most
densely developed, very little open, undeveloped land is to be found. This study

STUDY SITE

Map
M
Maap so
ssource:
our
ou
urce: Os
O
Oslo
lo K
Kommune
om
mmu
m ne - Kommunedelplan
Kom
ommu
mune
nede
delp
lp
pla
lan for
for torg
fo tto
org
rg og
og møteplasser
møtte
møte
mø eppllaassse
ser (2009:15)
(200
(2 009:
9:15
15)
Figure 2: Oslo Kommune study: ‘Potential meeting places in the inner city’

8
 2.0 Context

therefore focuses on the existing urban fabric, realizing a missed opportunity in the
Kommune-mapped potentials: currently under-used residential yards.

Oslo Kommune’s overall goal for spaces in the sustainable city program is to provide
an equal number and quality of vegetated (green) parks and social, public plazas to
all residential neighborhoods. As the kommune planning office is primarily concerned
with protecting certain lands from development and demanding portions of newly
developed land to be preserved for public space, their capacity falls short in densely
developed neighborhoods - new, officially public land for parks cannot simply be
created (Riis, interview). Herein, the domain of planning efforts at the city level is
limited and dense neighborhoods of privately, previously developed land escape
regulation under contemporary rules attempting to guide city-wide sustainability.

Further critiques of city sustainability programs point to imbalances between

environmental, social, and economic goals in cities despite an original intent of
balance between those three components. Mahadevia’s argument (2002) against
most sustainable-city plans is that they rely on “techno-managerial” implementations
and often forget the social and human development, or social equity dimension of
holistic sustainability. Looking at the case in Oslo, one might argue that social equity
goals are in place, but perhaps that techno-managerial approaches are most easily
enforced under current governmental structures. Therefore, an imbalance of equity
in the social realm still exists and stands able to fracture ties between the city goals
and the lives of the residents - making universal resident support of sustainability
difficult.

2.1.2 Urban Renewal and Gentrification

Gentrification is generally defined in the dictionary (Webster 2011) as “the process
of renewal and rebuilding accompanying the influx of middle-class or affluent
people into deteriorating areas.” Webster (2011) goes on to mention the negative
implication often cited that gentrification processes result in the displacement of
poorer residents. Gentrification in today’s cities often becomes interconnected with
sustainability planning at the neighborhood level during urban renewal. At one end,
upgrades in the name of revitalization and environmental sustainability can begin
9
2.0 Context

gentrification trends, and on the other, gentrification then fragments social groups
through displacement and disparity, potentially resulting in the need for revitalization.
Many sources point to the concept that gentrification often results in the loss of
the characteristics which first attracted members of the upper class in moving in -
including uniqueness, diversity, affordable rents among other qualities. In all cases,
gentrification can be understood as a force which deteriorates the concepts of
resident identity through longevity, community and social equity through difference -
thereby threatening local sustainability in its most holistic potential.

Looking into the details of urban renewal which lead to gentrification, the first
concept to understand is that the by-product of area upgradations is not only the
general rise in quality of the built environment, but also a simultaneous rise in real
estate market values. Such market increases affect rental structures across urban
renewal areas - some properties convert to condominium units and others simply
raise rental prices in accordance with what the new market can afford.

Jonny Aspen (2008) writes specifically about the impacts of gentrification and
immigration on Oslo neighborhoods and points to outdoor area improvements as
illustrative of common urban renewal to gentrification cycles. He underlines the trend
of upgradation preference given to the most private typologies of outdoor space -
adding and improving private courtyards and terraces on residential buildings while
less attention is directed at larger, neighborhood and city scale parks (Aspen 2008).
The more closed and privatized such upgradation implementations are, the more
likely they are to contribute directly or indirectly to trends such as gentrification.
Privatized community improvements alter the outward appearance of a place, often
increasing land values. This, in turn, raises rent prices and over time effectively
causes a change of demographic – typically to a more wealthy social class. While
such upgrades directly benefit the housing stock, the privatized focus bars concepts
such as social inclusion or large-area natural ecological greening. Gentrification
thereby takes the harshest toll on low-earning immigrant and ethnic groups, forcing
communities apart as individual families seek more affordable living conditions
elsewhere (Aspen, 2008). Despite gentrification trends, planners can potentially
quell displacement through supporting the formation and strength of place-based
communities across societal sectors, as will be exampined in the Copenhagen
precedent discussed at the end of this thesis.
10
 2.0 Context

The eastern, historically working-class neighborhoods of Oslo have seen a

long history of urban renewal projects. Beginning prior to the 1950s, being a
predominantly industrial area, the condition of workers’ residences spurred the city
to first initiate Urban Renewal plans. An original desire to preserve older wooden
houses near the city center then spread to upgrade (or clear and rebuild) low quality
residential areas - slowly changing the nature of these neighborhoods. Plans and
planning trends jumped from clearance to renewal and rehabilitation around the
1970s, and work was done to better specific residential neighborhoods in the
following decades (Aspen 2008).

Figure 3: Urban Renewal Areas 1974-1977 – Map Source: Statistical Yearbook of Oslo 1977.
[Online] Available at: http://img.kb.dk/tidsskriftdk/gif/gto/gto_0083-IMG/gto_0083_0053_1.jpg

Attention to this study’s focus area of Tøyen and its relatively low standard of living
was first addressed by planners in a large urban renewal project beginning in 1979.
At this time, many buildings from the turn of the 20th century and before were
upgraded to both preserve some historic qualities and better living conditions by
opening courtyards, enlarging apartment units and standardizing bathroom and
11
2.0 Context

kitchen facilities (Aspen, 2008). Other old areas in lesser conditions were cleared
to make room for new development, such as the complex of high rise buildings
forming today’s Tøyen center. Since this, the Kommune and Bydel have periodically
invested money into small sweeps of neighborhood improvement including traffic
calming measures and street redesign in the 1990s, again encouraging the health,
safety, and beautification of areas (Huse, 2010). New private development has
infiltrated the original (early 1900s) urban fabric, leaving today’s Tøyen to appear
as a patchwork of period-driven building styles and forms - holding both disparity in
aesthetic and real estate value as attachments to the waves of change. A sampling
of local real estate ads in the appendix of this thesis documents the ongoing trend in
apartment renovations and breadth of pricing in the area.

2.1.3 Multicultural Neighborhoods

Gentrification is only one threatening issues faced by neighborhoods characterized

as multicultural. In globalizing cities, issues pertaining to multiculturalism and growing
minority populations abound. Challenges include the integration and participation
of new groups into existing institutions, forming communities across demographic
boundaries, and latent dual-direction racism stemming from perceived inequalities
and mutual misunderstandings.

Oslo, like many other world cities, is in the midst of a drastic demographic change,
largely due to immigration patterns. It is estimated that one in four residents of Oslo
have immigrated to Norway and 33% of the city is composed of ethnic minorities
(City of Oslo, 2010). Aspen (2008) writes in his study that 90% of the population
increase in Oslo over the last 20 years can be attributed to non-western immigration,
bringing a flurry of new cultures and backgrounds into the Norwegian setting. This
phenomenon has demanded change at the municipal level, and the city has worked
over the past decade to define itself as an open and accepting intercultural city. The
policy called “OXLO” or “Oslo Xtra Large was created in 2001 with a mission stating:

“Oslo is a city where all citizens are of equal value. The citizens of Oslo are its
future and its most cherished resource. We are citizens with different ethnic,
cultural and religious backgrounds, and have all the same fundamental rights,
duties and responsibilities...” (City of Oslo, 2010)
12
 2.0 Context

While the city policy is a good start, integration is difficult. Subtle segregation
continues within neighborhoods and community groups. Oslo residents still
encounter weekly news stories about religious intolerance, discrimination and
reverse discrimination. Moreover, immigration and multicultural communities in
Oslo are concentrated to specific neighborhoods, which then face gentrification
repercussions. Aspen (2008) comments regarding location patterns of immigration
settlement that:

“the non-western immigrant population is mostly located in inner and outer

eastern parts of the city. The tendency is that the number of immigrants is
leveling out and even decreasing in the inner parts of the city undergoing
gentrification, and that an increasing number of the immigrant population
settles down in the old and new dormitory towns in the north-east and south-
east.”

The relatively new multicultural quality of such Oslo neighborhoods demands local
and national strategies to encourage understanding and peaceful coexistence amidst
diversity. There are many arguments for the benefits of multiculturalism in urban
areas, but much debate continues over how to support such goals. Kristen Good
(2009, 3-4) notes in her introduction to a study of multiculturalism in Canada, that
scholars such as Robert Putnam have “found that increases in immigration-induced
ethnic diversity reduce positive community attributes.” However, she goes on to
explain that “the Canadian experience suggests that the effects of ethnic diversity
and identity politics are not predetermined, and that an explicitly multicultural form of
democratic citizenship is viable.” At the neighborhood level, multicultural communities
can enrich and make an area more vibrant if outside forces celebrate rather than
oppress cultural differences.

For this kind of enrichment through diversity, people of minority groups must feel
confident in being accepted and respected among others. Later sections of Good’s
book cite sources describing how diversity from immigrant communities has been
proven to enhance and improve cities in their economic and social functions, but
achieving such benefits takes a great deal of political will. Residents holding personal
freedoms, upholding aspects of mutual understanding, and exercising the right to
participate in government all contribute to healthy multicultural neighborhoods -
where all members can identify with a shared place as a home, despite ethnic or
13
2.0 Context

cultural differences. The situation facing multicultural cities is clearly a complex one,
but many scholars agree that local - city or neighborhood level implementations have
the capacity to democratically give power to minority groups and create harmonious,
heterogeneous societies.

The biggest debate in multicultural literature from European cities seems to be a

discussion of cultural pluralism - how to allow and encourage minorities to maintain
aspects of their cultural heritage while integrating into a new, ideally mutually
respectful environment. Cultural pluralism is the basis for ethnodevelopment thought,
as described by Bjørn Hettne (1995) in the recognition of both the importance
and fragility of traditions and heritage. The goal of pluralism is that different groups
in a multicultural setting are encouraged to maintain their individual cultures, but
live harmoniously among others - forming a heterogeneous society. Many theories
follow this, regarding the benefits of moderated integration, but standing against full
assimilation - the very process through which many past generations of immigrants
have lost a great deal of their traditional heritage upon relocating (Bjønness 2009,
5). Ethnodevelopment, as a solution for balancing such matters, calls for planners
to identify common ground across different cultural or ethnic groups and work
under context specificity to sensitively address potential conflicts and the concept
of identity - personal, cultural, communal (Hettne, 1995). The challenge seems to
be encouraging new comers and minority populations to identify with their current
city and neighborhood as a home and their current neighbors as their community,
embracing diversity so as not to destroy or erase the unique qualities of different
backgrounds.

Kristen Good (2009, 7) points to three stages of adopting official multiculturalism

which has worked in Canada for moving towards this balance. The stages begin
at the recognition of demographic change, continued by local policies supporting
cultural distinctiveness, and then arriving at a policy to address “systemic barriers
to the incorporation of immigrants and ethno-racial minorities” into institutions. The
point here is to celebrate the differences and still provide a common ground for
incomers to integrate with standing communities and practices. In additional detail,
Good (2009, 18) describes the benefits of introducing “Urban Regime” - public
private partnerships where local people are given an amount of collective control

14
 2.0 Context

over local resources. Through such programs, empowerment of the marginalized

is planned by equalizing the distribution of resources and power in government.
Resident groups can then hold personal stake in shared resources and build
community through participation. This thesis in part, will endeavor to understand
shared urban space as a local resource with uneven power distribution in cities and
explore the extent of power residents from varying social sectors hold.

Multiculturalism, culture sensitivity, and potentially excluded groups are important

considerations in place identity and in the sharing of urban spaces, as cultural
differences can alter the perceptions and usages of space. For example, covenants
of the Islamic religion are interpreted by some to discourage both men and women
from loitering in public places and can be read as discouraging women in particular
from spending unnecessary time in the public realm. Al-bishawi (2008) wrote an
extensive dissertation on the privacy issues of Muslim women in regards to the
physical design of public space addressing concepts of screening and indirect
viewing which are not commonly addressed in European cities. The ignorance or
lack of consideration for such cultural factors therein can play a part in how welcome
different members of a multicultural neighborhood feel in and to what extent they are
able to identify with spaces presumably designated for their use.

Figure 4: The story of Tøyen’s intercoms - surnames from around the world.
15
2.0 Context

2.1.4 Housing Theory

Studying aspects of residential neighborhoods and their contained spaces, the

concept of home and issues of personal and communal identity deriving from
housing become significant. Hans Skotte (2004, 16), referring to Turner, defines
housing as embodying the activities which are “important to personal life - those
which can act as vehicles for personal fulfillment.” As such, Skotte (2004, 17) writes,
housing is an integral part of society, significant both for self identity and in creating
social units. This latter comment is especially critical to urban areas where density
limits the amount of space residents can consider their own, and as such, identify
with personally.

In understanding the symbolic nature and significance of housing, the message

of Skotte’s thesis (2004, 20) is that housing can “promot[e] social cohesion, well
being, and self dependence.” Herein, the physical structure of housing is surpassed
by the opportunities lent by it to the residents. In multi-family housing, such as urban
apartment buildings, the structure provides an envelope to house the lives of its
residents. While each life, each apartment, may be separate and different, the exterior
structure and surrounding built environment become a common factor that each may
relate to and benefit from collectively.

Historically, such collective forms have been exploited to create density through
the sharing of resources - quite notably so in the courtyard building (/urban
planning) typology. While housing can be seen as a physical “imprint and imprinter
of worldviews and values, status, aspirations, and daily practices,” there stands a
threat of anonymity in collective housing - particularly in the need of urban areas to
bring diverse concepts and goals together (Skotte 2004). In the absence of external
institutions encouraging identity and participation, residents in shared spaces
have less opportunity to express themselves individually, lessening the connection
potential of personal expression through form and place. Scholars writing about
the goal of collective living and the necessary goal of “creating trust and good
neighborliness” name aspects of “strategic location, participation in decision making,
mixed income groups and tenures” as important (Skotte 2004, 20). Those institutions
can aid in tying people collectively to space - providing it with the personal meaning

16
 2.0 Context

to be considered as place and neighborhood beyond simply remaining a detached

area for dwelling.

Modern urban decision making and participation in regards to residential properties

vary by city and tenure types. In Oslo, three major forms of ownership dominate
the real estate market for apartments - cooperativeiii, condominiumiv, and freeholdv
(Fokus, 2011). Low income and public housing are often grouped in a fourth
category of bond housevi (Fokus 2011), but the cooperative and condominium forms
are most relevant here per applicability. For lack of confusion with additional external
social and environmental issues, focus is limited these two ownership forms.

As forms of shared ownership, the cooperative and condominium schemes lend

themselves to different levels of resident participation through economic and legal
structuring. Cooperatives are governed by a democratically derived method where
apartment owners elect a leadership board who then sets the property’s budget and
makes property decisions throughout the year. This system is designed and legally
implicated to have apartment owners living in the owned property, but that aspect of
locality is changing in recent years as more owners wish to move and rent properties
(Fokus, 2011, Larsson, interview). While condominiums are also characterized by
apartment owners holding shares in the overall property, liability differences from the
cooperative form lead condominium groups to typically pay an external management
company to hold the responsibility of property wide decisions and upkeep. Apartment
owners in a condominium form have no legal obligation to living at the address,
so the ownership form is more conducive to creating investment rental properties
(Fokus, 2011).

Both the cooperative and condominium ownership forms depend on the concept
of sharing in charging fees or rent to tenants for overall property maintenance, but
the structures simultaneously reduce the necessity of direct democratic resident
participation in property decisions. This distancing effect is quite notable in the

iii Norwegian term: Borettslag

iv Norwegian term: askjebolig/sameie
v Norwegian term: selveier
vi Norwegian term: obligasjonsleilighet
17
2.0 Context

event of apartment rentals by owner where the tenant resident is only connected
tangentially to property decisions through his/her immediate landlord - who in turn
may or may not be actively involved in building decisions. Such inconsistencies
in participation weaken resident identity with the property housing them and
encourage tenants to exercise mobility over steadfast stewardship to a place.
Raymond (2010, 422) defines place identity as “those dimensions of self, such as
the mixture of feelings about specific physical settings and symbolic connections
to place that define who we are.” He speaks of place identity as growing over time
during residence in a given place when the setting can be seen as supporting the
“self identity” or “functional goals” of an individual (Raymond 2010, 423)- implying
the necessity of participation, longevity, and choice. Skotte (2004, 35) echoes this
concept in regards to stating that housing carries a “message on behalf of greater
society or, especially, on behalf of its owner as part of that greater society.”

Such a relationship thereby requires both individual identity with place and
communal, societal identity surrounding a place. Raymond (2010, 423) is clear
in citing the benefits of such relationships between person, society, and place
in studies having demonstrated “significant positive relationships between place
identity and the willingness to engage in pro-environmental behaviors and place
protective actions.” Herein, housing and identity theory together point to the
potential of bettering communities and communal environments through personal,
participation-driven links between residents and place. As part of encouraging such
a self reinforcing cycle, residential spaces to be shared between tenants take on a
significant role; they need to be identifiable personally with each resident and still
suitably and symbolically serve the greater community.

2.2 Locational Context - the Study Area

Within Oslo’s population of approximately 600,000, the topics outlined above crash
together particularly in the neighborhoods considered inner-east. Bydel Gamle Oslo
makes up the predominant part of the inner-east and is the only bydel of the city
which has a residential density (at 4,583/km2) qualifying as urban (Bydel 2010).
Along with this density comes the highest crime rates and the highest concentration
of ethnic minorities in Oslo (Huse 2010), focusing the contextual issues described
in the sections above. The study area for this thesis falls in the heart of Gamle Oslo,
covering the neighborhoods of Tøyen and Grønland.
18
 2.0 Context

GIS Data (c) PBE, Oslo kommune 2010

Figure 5: Map of the Study Area - Tøyen - Grønland Neighborhoods of Oslo, Norway

The financial state of this area proves interesting as it simultaneously houses some
of the lowest rents within inner city Oslo while looming contemporary, large scale
developments approach its borders. Scattered new and renovated real estate in the
area boasts of large balconies, trendy interior designs and reminds potential buyers
of the downtown location with proximity to the Bjørvika neighborhood development
underway. The wide range of realty prospects (both in sales and rental units) is
mapped in the following figures.

Tone Huse (2010, 13) introduces the area in her book, Tøyengata with the following
statistics:

“Vi er i bydel Gamle Oslo, Oslo indre øst. Vi er på abeidernes side av elva,
på innvandrernes kant av byen; vi står i kjernen av et byrom hvor beboernes
forventede levelalder er nesten fire år lavere enn for Oslo-folk flest, hvor
gjennomsnittlig årsinntekt er nær 70 000 kroner lavere enn for byen sett
under ett. Av bydelens barn vokser ett av tre opp som fattig.» - Huse

19
2.0 Context

30.000 NOK/m2

40.000 NOK/m2

6.800 NOK/m2

9.400 NOK/m2
41.000 NOK/m2 38.000 NOK/m2

39.000 NOK/m2

34.000 NOK/m2
33.000 NOK/m2
36.000 NOK/m2 35.000 NOK/m2

34.000 NOK/m2
44.000 NOK/m2
37.000 NOK/m2
23.000 NOK/m2
16.000 NOK/m2
47.000 NOK/m2

Figure 6: Real Estate price variances over study area - Sales - data from finn.no in March 2011.

198 NOK/m2
211 NOK/m2

220 NOK/m2

200 NOK/m2 160 NOK/m2

158 NOK/m2
191 NOK/m2
166 NOK/m2

209 NOK/m2
330 NOK/m2 261 NOK/m2

264 NOK/m2 178 NOK/m2

262 NOK/m2
161 NOK/m2

300 NOK/m2

Figure 7: Real Estate price variances over study area - Rentals - data from finn.no in March 2011.
20
 2.0 Context

Huse’s title considers the area as a “newly rich piece of Norway” and her introductory
chapter continues by way of explaining the new, expensive housing units and trendy
restaurants coming to the area despite the current demographically lower standard
of life there. The area can be seen as illustrative of early gentrification stages,
begging urgent measures to bridge societal sectors if a sustainable coexistence is
to be achieved rather than allowing traditional segmentation and displacement. The
ethnic and economic diversity present in the study area in Bydel Gamle Oslo, along
with the existing social fragmentations demonstrate the need for study and presume
a high potential for community building through prioritizing shared spaces.

Historically, the inner east (as marked by the Akerselve river), has housed the
working class and today inherits a wealth of diversity in economic and social
structure. The development of the study area largely took place around the turn of
the century focusing on industry and workers’ housing. The oldest parts of Tøyen’s
urban fabric are significant in that they demonstrate the planning theory of their
(turn of the century) time. Hilde Haslum (2008, 150-153) writes of the changes that
were occurring in architectural and planning theory during the early 1900s - as was
thereafter implemented in the area from Tøyen west to Majorstuen:

“The architectural system of the growth belt of 1900-50 was developed as

an answer to the critique of the sanitary conditions in the 19th industrial
city: i.e. as attempts to combine new social and hygienic ambitions within
the framework of building social housing. In the Norwegian discourse on the
problems of the 19th city, Grünerløkka was the most frequently used example,
illustrative of despised urban form that stole air, light, play and life from the
residents. People were now to be rescued from the dark, dirty and unhealthy
backyards,” - Haslum

The ‘rescue’ here came in the form of the courtyard planning typology - organizing
built residential blocks around large, shared, open areas for access to air, light and
communal space. A map of Oslo from 1945 shows the prevalence of the courtyard
building type, particularly in the Tøyen area.

21
2.0 Context

Study Area
Figure 8: Map of Oslo from 1949; Image Source: Haslum (2008, 153)

Socially, the area has seen a significant trend of older people and young Norwegian
families moving away from Tøyen and Gamle Oslo in general. Local politicians
are worried about this trend, as families and aging communities bring more tax
revenue to the area than immigrants or young adults (Riis, interview). A Tøyen
resident for over 20 years, Tony Larsson, describes the situation from his personal
point of view, “I cannot grow old here, this (Tøyen) is not a place to grow old.” He
identified frustrations and worry that the neighborhood is becoming a ghetto full
of discrimination and overlooked by the Kommune - views echoed in the 2010
Aftenposten article “Moralkontroll i Oslos Innvandrergater” - ‘Moral control in Oslo’s
immigrant streets’ (Bjørg).

Tøyen center holds several adjacent, high-density apartment blocks of public housing
owned by Oslo Kommune. This 1980s planning construct represents an outdated
planning strategy of centralizing and localizing immigrants, handicapped people,
drug addicts and other groups. In decades since, cities have begun re-examining
such strategies as many product areas today host higher crime rates and ghetto
reputations. Many residents fear the same dreary future for Tøyen, sensing that it
may be too late for the Kommune to mitigate and disperse such populations.
22
 2.0 Context

Figure 9: Tøyen Center

Today, many new immigrants and people seeking refugee status are given housing
in this area and argument can be made that they adapt more easily here, given
the diverse population, local mosques and international food stores that other
parts of the city do not offer. The counter effect is that some sectors of centralized
immigrants bind together along strong ethnic and cultural lines rather than
intermixing. Gamle Oslo has further seen problems with some groups forming around
religious extremists who then act as “moral police,” territorializing certain areas and
discriminating openly against homosexuals and women without hijab (Bjørge, 2010).
Discrimination in any direction is against Norwegian law, and resident interviews
show that many people feel that such groupings contribute to increasing hostility in
the local public realm. Minority groups, such as Oslo’s homosexual population speak
out for more integration, that all minorities should bind together instead of fight each
other (Bjørge, 2010).

2.3 Spaces in Urban Ecology

In tying the context and related themes together, the perspective of urban ecology
proves relevant to this study - understanding both human and environmental
systems, how they function separately, and how they affect and potentially support
each other in the greater scheme of the city. As an urban ecological study, the
themes presented in this thesis lie between ‘ecology in the city’ - or the, ”ecological
structure and function of habitats or organisms within cities,” and ‘ecology of the
city’ - taking an ecological perspective on a city in its entirety. In this, eco-systems -
23
2.0 Context

including human and natural habitations - at the neighborhood-scale are understood

cyclically and dually as effecting adjacent local components as well as impacting the
larger cycles of the city around (Pickett, 2001:130). This study is largely guided by
the concept of promoting holistic sustainability through identifying interruptions in
such cycles in order to encourage more mutually benefitting overlap in local social
and environmental ecologies.

Accessible social and natural spaces within cities provide the significant
opportunities for locally promoting sustainability goals. Natural, planted spaces
provide comfortable environments and neutralize settings in a manner that can
encourage social interaction across demographics. Public, open spaces in cities
serve the important social function of collecting people. Smaller scale, communal
spaces function further in potentially encouraging individual and social identity at
the urban scale immediately surrounding home. Where the characteristics of natural
and communal in urban spaces converge at the neighborhood scale then presents
a significant opportunity for breeding more sustainable urban existences - where
environmental and social equities can meet to serve everyday life. Human and
environmental communities can be linked through the common factor of space,
crossing societal sectors in the establishment of communal identity and stewardship
relationships.

In natural environments, humans can learn about the processes of the natural
environment (vegetation, water, CO2 sequestration, etc) and contribute collectively
to the quality of natural surroundings - understanding first hand their impact on
land. The act of working together and caring for the natural environment in return
reinforces social bonding with the aspect of having a common goal and shared
priority. In this manner, simultaneously encouraged social and environmental equity
relationships have the potential to overpower standing economic and economically
derived inequities in cities. Finding space for this type of interaction in urban areas
challenges commonly accepted definitions of urban public space, demonstrating
a need for cities to examine land use at the local scale, regardless of ownership
structures and question how the larger goals of the city are being supported or
broken down at the local, neighborhood scale.

24
 2.0 Context

2.3.1 Environmental Equity

Open land, left undeveloped is ruled and maintained through natural ecological
processes. Such areas benefit the urban environment by working against many
pollutants and aspects of discomfort inherent to human density. Vegetation areas are
inherently able to cool spaces, process carbon dioxide, filter airborne particulates,
buffer noise, and cleanse storm water while recharging ground water reserves.
The results of such natural operations are typically included as benchmarks for
sustainable design and environmentally sustainable cities; rating systems such as
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) are based upon similar
goals in the realm of site design (USGBC, 2010). Agenda 21 and its offspring
programs include sustainability goals of increasing health and air quality, reducing
pollution for future generations, and lessening electrical demand for heating and
cooling needs - undeveloped land holds the potential of working towards and
accomplishing these goals.

All open, preserved, and vacant land parcels can contribute positively to the natural
ecological balance of urban areas. Recent trends such as “guerrilla gardening” and
localized carbon dioxide sink studies which replace asphalt with gardens or even
free-growing weeds demonstrate that vegetation does not need to be planned,
or even maintained in all situations, in order to incrementally better its environs.
This factor is significant to note among technology and techno-managerial driven
mindsets - not all measures working towards sustainability have to increase budgets
for installation, maintenance and upkeep. News stories coming out of cities ranging
from Cuba to Germany of informal urban gardens despite underground infrastructure,
gaining social momentum and eventually becoming a small neighborhood sources
of income. One could argue that the lesser a financial and upkeep commitment
sustainable implementations are, the more widely (and equitably) used it could
become if supported and advertised through the proper avenues (Brekke, 2010).
As land ownership and upkeep labor play a significant role in the use of urban
land around buildings, further study potential exists in considering various types of
potential natural spaces – beyond traditionally designated and preserved park and
recreation areas.

25
2.0 Context

2.3.2 Social Equity

Within the globalizing environment of contemporary world cities, it is more important

than ever to residents from different backgrounds to cohabitate with mutual
understanding. Urban areas collectively hold differences in income, citizenship status,
age, culture, etc – and public spaces take on a special significance in the challenge
to serve and to be shared by all. In the midst of such social differences, territorialism
and segregation, whether enforced by locals or by planning authorities, can work
against equal, communal senses of “belonging,” dissolving hopes for social inclusion.
Truly public and communal spaces however can combat these threatening forces by
providing an arena that crosses and bridges societal sectors. The social coherence
potentials herein of urban landscape and shared spaces have been ascertained over
recent centuries by designer-scholars from Frederick Law Olmsted to Jan Gehl.
Social stratification stemming from employment, age, education, ethnicity, or religion
can be surpassed in inclusive public spaces (Gehl, 1996). Frederick Law Olmsted
writes over a hundred years ago, in regards to his parks work in New York City:

“Consider that New York Park and the Brooklyn Park are the only places in
those associated cities where, in this 1870th year after Christ, you will find a
body of Christians coming together, and with an evident glee in the prospect
of coming together, all classes largely represented, with a common purpose,
not at all intellectual, competitive with none, disposing to jealousy and spiritual
or intellectual pride toward none, each individual adding by his mere presence
to the pleasure of all others, all helping to the greater happiness of each. You
may thus often see vast numbers of persons brought closely together, poor
and rich, young and old, jew and gentile.” (Beveridge, 1983)

The New York context in the late 1800s was facing many issues seen
contemporarily in other world cities - immigration, multiculturalism, diversity, and
dwindling amounts open urban space. In this century, Gehl speaks of the potential
held in public space for “low intensity contact.” He says, “Low intensity contact
is a situation from which other forms of contact can grow. It is a medium for the
unpredictable, the spontaneous, the unplanned.” Herein, he calls to attention not
only the social importance of public space, but the unique social opportunities made
possible through the flexibility of space usage (Gehl, 1996). Through flexibility and
accessibility, the interactions of those using urban spaces over time can breed more
socially equitable communities.

26
 2.0 Context

What is more to recognize today is that the definition and priorities of open space
can vary across cultures and age groups. The concepts and values of community,
space, and nature differ between people – a phenomenon which can often be
observed in practice with how small groups and individuals use space. From
picnicking, to tai chi, studying, dog walking, and even worship – spaces without
formal design can be appropriated for any number of uses if accessibility allows. It
remains to be studied if themes in unplanned use of public spaces can better inform
the flexibility and openness needs for more successful social spaces in the future,
or which spaces best meet the needs of different groups. This study will focus on
those spaces closest to homes in the goal of crossing boundaries of diversity and
providing space for locals regardless of demographic to relate to individually and
then collectively as a community developed around place.

2.3.3 Mutual Reinforcement, a New Infrastructure?

As Gehl, Olmsted and others write of the social benefits of urban public space, there
is an additional, common, interdisciplinary theme found their work which connects
the environmental and social importance of spaces. Herein, the study relates to the
field of Deep Ecology and tying sociology, psychology, and biology to thought on
place and spatial design. Deep Ecology allows study of the relationship between
society and nature. Nature, especially the contrast of it when found within urban
space, holds the capacity to neutralize a setting. Through natural surroundings and
the innate relationship of humans to nature, aspects of ownership and psychological
barriers that burden urban locations are removed. Related studies in the realms of
health, philosophy, and psychology, along with the entire transcendental movement
connect ideals of human well being, happiness, and social equality to the experience
of natural elements (Shepard 2003). Hereby humans are understood to possess an
innate, subconscious appreciation of natural environments – aspects of which are
often forgotten and difficult to find in areas of dense urbanization (Naess 1989).

Most significantly is the often lost societal connection to, and knowledge of how
natural processes work. A general detachment from the pre-human-impact state of
the natural world stands, creating difficultly in linking personal human actions with
environmental impacts (locally and globally). With this disconnect the promotion of
a sustainable consciousness and sustainable practices is extremely challenging.
27
2.0 Context

Figure 10: Social vs. Environmental or Social + Environmental

Moving towards reconnecting humans to nature, there is a good case that when
people are exposed to how nature works and relate personally with surroundings,
they become motivated to work towards its longevity (Raymond, 2010; Shepard,
2003). Observational experience and longevity of exposure are needed, directing
the concept of inserting natural ecology into everyday life. In cities then, public, local
(and thereby social,) naturally ecological environments could allow urban spaces to
function as another level of infrastructure - aiding the sustenance of the city while
passively educating residents.

2.3.4 Spatial Challenges

Determining the availability and then arranging accessibility for open spaces in
urban areas proves a major challenge in the attempt to reintroduce nature to cities.
Contemporary policies regarding land ownership and land use further increase
the challenge in adopting these goals. This study recognizes that the contiguous
privatization of land that characterizes urban areas works against holistic ideals of
equity and equitably shared responsibility of space – walls and fences separate
public from private areas, reinforcing differences and the threatening the concept
of each and every resident belonging within a local community. On top of this,
development pressure and fear of maintenance requirements often lead to urban
land owners towards practices that reduce upkeep input and result in inhibiting
natural ecologies - from the removal of trees to the paving of lots.

28
 2.0 Context

Categorization of Urban Spaces

Balconies •
Small

Yards/Roofs •
Environmental (parcel size)

• Courtyards
• Traffic Islands
• Pedestrian
‘Gatetun’
Streets
•Vacant
Lots
•Neighborhood Parks
•City Parks
Large

Open Closed
Social (access)
Figure 11: Categorization of urban spaces, urban renewal focus areas highlighted in orange

In urban areas, public spaces acquire an elevated level of importance due to

the limited amount of the resource of open, public and unbuilt land. Additionally,
accessibility boundaries grow around privatization and market development
competition to drive up land values. The inherent density of cities limits concepts
such as outdoor recreation, the enjoyment of nature, and social uses of natural
spaces. Scholars and designers alike, from the industrial revolution onwards, have
written volumes on urbanization-derived threats and the detriments to human and
societal psyches stemming to detachment from the natural world. Despite difficulties
in justifying open land in inflated real estate markets, the combined availability and
access to open public land is important for humans to gather on an equal basis - a
basis for a sustainable urban existence.

In understanding various urban space types as holding varying amounts of social

and environmental potential, the researcher developed the chart above during the
proposal phase of this study. This chart and categorization of spaces was utilized
dually in understanding which open spaces have traditionally been upgraded during
urban renewal waves in Oslo (leading to gentrification) and in guiding initial space
observation planning which eventually resulted in determining the study focus of
residential communal yards.

29
3.0 Research Methodology

3.0 Research Methodology

“‘The fact remains that communal or shared spaces, the possession or

consumption of which cannot be entirely privatized, continue to exist.’ The
‘publicity’ of a [communal space] is not a question of who owns it exactly, but
of the sense of public life it engenders.”

- Tonkiss (2005, 67) quoting and commenting on Lefebvre.

In setting out to understand the “sense of public life” engendered by the communal
spaces of Tøyen, a methodology was developed by the researcher based on thought
from both architectural determinism and behaviorism. Observation and mapping
of the physical qualities and amenities provided by urban spaces provided a sense
of how the built environment of the city guides resident behaviors. Simultaneously,
observation and interviews with residents of how they use (or wish to use)
urban spaces provided commentary on the performance of spaces. Using both
approaches together allowed the researcher to extract and deduct values of different
stakeholders from understanding various aspects of space and of life within spaces.

3.1 Research question and Objectives

The following research question guides this study, with research objectives detailed
thereafter.

How do value disparities hinder social and environmental equity potentials of

communal spaces within a context of inherent economic inequity?

The research objectives for this project analyze the actualities of communal spaces
and life in the study area to deduct values of stakeholders which can be compared to
30
 3.0 Research Methodology

Figure 12: Season and perspective changes over the course of the project

those of sustainability, community planning theory, and equity goals. Specifically, the
objectives are:

To understand communal spaces in the study area in relation to the city’s
public space networks.

To determine the values of various stakeholder groups concerning the social
and environmental aspects of communal space.

To identify the effective boundaries at work in the study area through
analyzing observable symptoms of difference and inequity.

To understand the roots and effects of socio-spatial boundaries and value
differentials in the study area.

The sum of these objectives as a series of causal relationships will be analyzed

in order to inform where planning practice or local initiatives might be capable
of intervening to creating more equitable and equitably used communal spaces -
working towards a sustainable urban existence despite economic inequities.

3.2 Design of the Research

The design of the research here provides information organization and analysis
methods utilized with the various information collected during the fieldwork.
31
3.0 Research Methodology

3.2.1 Fieldwork Plan and Process

The original fieldwork plan provided a rough guide for the eight week period of
fieldwork. Specifics of data collection are described in a later section of this thesis.

Figure 13: Initial Plan for the Fieldwork

As planned, the first half of the fieldwork was characterized predominantly by

observation and mapping to gain a better understanding of the area and select
specific case study sites. During this, the area was mapped and notes were made
regarding public spaces by type, character, and usage. Soon within this process, it
became clear that city-administered public spaces in the study area - despite often
seeming anonymous - held much more consistency, upkeep, and population than the
most local and privatized spaces. At this point, the study turned focus to document
variations in use and quality of local communal spaces - specifically gatetunvii and
courtyards or ‘bakgårder’ (Norwegian term for yard spaces attached to apartment
buildings).

vii Gatetun is a Norwegian term describing local streets with traffic calming measures, intended
to slow traffic to encourage social use (TOI ,2000). This term will be used throughout the paper.
32
 3.0 Research Methodology

Simultaneously, interviews were conducted through the city planning entities

to understand the work and structure of the larger planning context. From the
Kommune to Bydel planners and social integration programs, further information
was obtained regarding the issues, goals, and implementation limits of city planning.
Inputs from building owner group representatives and local residents were later
layered into initial observational data regarding the study area.

With data compilation rounding out the later part of the eight week term, organization
and analysis strategies were defined. The sustainability plans, proposals, and
mapping data provided by Oslo Kommune contained a wealth of information about
the city’s goals. Notes from this data along with literature on best practices in
planning and design of social spaces serve as a basis of equity for comparison
in later assessments and analyses. At this point the researcher also benefited
by continuing to live in the study area for the duration of thesis, adding to initial
observations and interview documentation over time. The organization and analytical
methodologies for the structuring and usage of data collected are described in the
sections that follow.

3.2.2 Initial Boundaries Identified

Early in the fieldwork, observational city walks were used to casually but
systematically map the study area’s urban spaces and understand this section of
Oslo as a newcomer. During this time, I noted that there seemed to be many more
trees hidden behind buildings, walls, and gates than along most streets. Even the
city-maintained public spaces in this area fall more into the category of hard-scaped
plazas than green patches. My curiosity provoked, I began to peek through gates,
over walls and out my own window, identifying the courtyards and yard spaces
in Gamle Oslo to be an under-used potential resource for community creation in
local natural spaces. It was here that the research focus turned from public space
to communal space in an effort to understand the limiting boundaries to equity -
specifically different relationships of accessibility to community and property lines.

33
3.0 Research Methodology

3.2.3 Conceptual Model

In order to approach the posed research question and objectives, the researcher
determined that categorical aspects of space in the built environment could serve as
an organizational framework for note taking and data collection. Research models
concerned with space and place were surveyed and eventually adapted into what
became a conceptual model for this project. Each research consulted had likewise
merged behavioral studies with form and architectural setting aspects to the end of
structuring and organizing quantitative and qualitative data.

From least to most specific, Sack’s work (1992) researches space and what defines
a place to be considered as “somewhere” from “nowhere.” He finds three ontological
forces which come together to make place: Nature, Social Relations, and Meaning
(Sack, 1992: 97). Christopher Raymond (2010: 425) and others write about place
attachment having three contexts - personal (place identity and dependence), natural
(nature bonding), and community (social bonding). Their conceptualization is that the
strongest personal place attachments have all three elements. Al-Bishawi’s (2008)
PhD thesis on women’s privacy in Palestinian public spaces divides her central
culture/value idea of privacy into components of Design, Use, and Rules of/in space.
These are understood as relating causally and data from spaces attributed to one
category thereby affects a series of other components (Al-Bishawi, 2008, 96-99).

ns g
tio in
Pl

a d
ac
M

el on e
Ru

Us
ea

lR lB
Id

le
ni

a a
ci ci
en

s
ng

So So
tit
y

Nature Design
Nature Bonding

Sacks on Space & Place Raymond on Place Attachment (2010, 425) ishawi on Privacy in Public Space (2008, 96)

Figure 14: Conceptual models surveyed

34
 3.0 Research Methodology

Physical

affected values
and effects of values Value

Use

Figure 15: Conceptual model developed for this thesis.

Drawing heavily on these three works about space, the conceptual model designed
for this study defines the components of Physical, Use, and Value, described below:

Physical - the concrete formal aspects and quality of the built environmental
space

Use - the human activities occurring within space

Value - the cultural and personal priorities, motivations, and goals associated
with space and its management

Findings throughout the fieldwork period are structured for analysis in these
component categories. Further, the established basis for causal relationships
between the component categories informs later detailed deductive analyses in the
derivation of values.

35
3.0 Research Methodology

3.2.4 Data Types

While this study is predominantly a qualitative one, both quantitative and qualitative
data were collected. The quantitative data is primarily in the form of pedestrian
counts plus map information, census and property ownership spreadsheets - most
of the later were organized and analyzed through Geographic Information Systems
utilizing ESRI ArcMap software as described in a later section of this report. The
quantitative mapping data documents the physical settings of the case studies and
greater study area - demonstrating the built manifestations of values at work over
time. The breadth and amount of qualitative data - arrived at both from observation
and stakeholder interviews - for this research demanded a framework for analysis.
For this, Kvale’s “three parts of analysis” (1996: 190) are utilized in the following
manner:

1) Structuring - typically through transcription. For this study the researcher

has adapted notes into components based on the conceptual model -
physical, use, and value. Data is then organized in charts (available in the
appendix of this report), providing structure.

2) Clarification - “making [the material] amenable for analysis by eliminating

superfluous material such as digressions and repetitions, distinguishing
between the essential and non-essential,” (Kvale, 1996) While a great deal
of information was collected, effort was made in filtering the final analyses
as presented in this paper to the essential. The researcher utilized the
goals provided in the research objectives for this filtration - extracting and
highlighting data that pertains specifically to the functions of space in regards
to boundaries to social and/or environmental equities. The assignment of
social and environmental ratings (+ or -) to the data based upon guidelines
of sustainability and community planning throughout data collection aided
this process in the early stages. For final analyses, the pertinent aspects were
then identified from these lists after assessing the entire data and comparing
relative ratings and disparities.

3) Meaning - develop meaning of the material to provide new perspectives

on the research. Meaning in this study will be determined by finding patterns
and causal links between values and boundaries. A case study and reference
cases will be utilized to illustrate a range of social and ecological situations
in communal spaces. Yin (1981, 63) notes that the comparison of cases can
identify common explanations which can be used to characterize problems.

36
 3.0 Research Methodology

3.2.5 Framework for Analysis

Understanding the causal aspects of the relationships between Physical, Use, and
Value, the researcher examined each component as it relates to the Value category.
The researcher determined that stakeholder values can be achieved through one of
two methods -

Directly questioning stakeholders

Indirectly deducting from the actions and products of stakeholders

Deduction from the actions of stakeholders will take two forms in this study. Past
values led to actions can be evidenced by what has been built - the Physical
components of space. Current values leading to actions can be evidenced by how
spaces are used and condition of maintenance - the Use components. Value
disparities will then be assessed to determine boundaries - those socio-spatial
aspects which are limiting social and environmental equities. The framework for
comparative analyses within each component is described below.

Physical components - are significant in particular due to the researcher’s

familiarity and expertise in having practiced landscape architecture and
urban design. The physical environment serves a dual role to this research
in its importance here as a determiner of social practices in architectural
determinism thought, and as the result of social practices in the behaviorism
perspective. The checklist items in the figure below were extracted by the
researcher from established research in social planning and environmentally
ecological site design: a leading architectural source on planning spaces for
community - Jan Gehl’s book “Life Between Buildings, Using Public Space”
(1996) and the recent Scandinavian model of “Grønnflåtefaktor” (Green
Area Factor) (Hansen, 2010). These sources were selected as the basis
for this framework specifically because they have both been developed in
Nordic countries (Gehl being Danish and the Green Area Factor having been
tested in Mälmo, Sweden). Utilizing sources from similar climatic and cultural
contexts to Oslo was important in respect to acknowledging that the study
area is not optimal for vegetation and outdoor recreation all year round. The
application of the Green Area Factor is especially relevant here since Oslo
Kommune soon plans to vote on its incorporation into city planning guidelines
and development requirements after it is tested in a design competition
(Arvesen, interview).

37
3.0 Research Methodology

Physical Checklists
Lot size, factor estimated area Graduation of private to public spaces
Settlement ratio, built-up area Defined units - for identity
Free area on the property Walking Space (winter)
Vegetation at ground level Staying Space (summer)
Vegetation on the facade or spalier Communal Facilities
Green roof Visual Connection - to neighbors
Grass, ornamental shrubs and trees No Solid Walls
Trees with stem circumference 16-20 cm Short Distances (<100m)
Trees with stem circumference 20-30 cm One Level
Trees with stem circumference> 30 cm Multi-function Areas
Free-standing shrubs higher than 3 m Social Amenities
Water Surfaces Face-to-face orientation
Collection and drainage from surface Inviting Areas - Multi-entry, transitions
Runoff from hard surfaces to plantations High Quality - aesthetics/comfort
Solid surfaces Lighting
Hard surfaces with permeability Climate Protection
Diversity (age)
Diversity (ethnic)
Diversity (economic)

Figure 16: Physical Checklists (left: environmental equity; right: social equity)

Usage Components - The usage components are directly relevant for

analysis under behaviorism thought, but also serve as secondary commentary
on effects of physical surroundings under architectural determinism. Usage
data is analyzed quantitatively to compare amounts of usage and qualitatively
to compare types of usage (and misuse) - as applies to social and
environmental equities. Items herein for qualitative analysis check for social
use over individual use, understanding also that overall high usage/presence
of people demonstrates higher potential for social encounters (Gehl, 1996).
Additionally, higher amounts of use support user identity with a space
increasing potential for stewardship and positive influence by environmentally
ecological implementations. As management and maintenance also fall under
this category, notes are included here regarding the upkeep of space; asides
from direct usages, indicators of cleanliness, amenity upkeep, and graffiti are
utilized to deduct stakeholder values from effects of usage.
38
 3.0 Research Methodology

Usage Checklist

Usage Observed (Amount)

Staying Users
Passing through Users
Social Gathering Uses
Cleanliness
Amenity Upkeep
Graffiti (cleaning/absense of)

Figure 17: Usage Checklist Figure 18: Observing Usages

Value Components - Values deducted from the physical and usage

components are compared to directly questioned stakeholder value data
to determine consistencies and to consider inconsistencies. The values
regarding social and environmental equities are sorted by stakeholder to
demonstrate differences and congruencies in values between stakeholders
which then later inform boundaries.

3.2.6 Indicators
Based upon contextual research and the understanding of social and environmental
equities discussed in the first two chapters of this thesis, a series of indicator
values have been developed by the researcher. These indicators serve as
grounds for making comparative analyses with values data from fieldwork and
for then understanding of each disparate value’s role in breakdowns of social
and environmental equities. The following graphic illustrates the summary of
those sections and the indicator values arrived at. The first five indicators can be
understood as shared principle values desired in sustainability (community, identity,
diversity, shared space, nature) while the last two are modes through which shared
values are practiced (upkeep and participation). Signs of these values and where
they are derived from thereby form the greater basis for understanding limitations to
sustainability - in the social and environmental realms - of the study area spaces.
39
3.0 Research Methodology

Researcher’s Hypothesis
Concerning Equity in Communal Spaces

IF: Values yield spatial and usage qualities as follows:

Highly and communally used spaces with

Social Equity an identifying, diverse community of users

Environmental Equity Ecological systems encouraged and

protected from misuse

Social + Environmental Equities Communally used and cared for spaces

Then: Indicators values of Social + Environmental Equities include:

Contextual References
Nature
Sustainable Cities Shared Spaces

Urban Renewal Upkeep

Multicultural Neighborhoods
Community
Identity
Housing Theory

Diversity
Participation

Figure 19: Researcher Hypothesis and Indicator Values

3.2.7 Reliability of the Data

The primary method employed here for the reliability of data is that of having multiple
sources. Further, the use of both quantitative and qualitative data often compliments
each other - the quantitative data giving substance to observations and instincts
felt by the researcher. Within qualitative data, support under each of the conceptual
components (Physical, Use, and Value) add an additional check for congruencies
across components and secondary support of trends discovered.

Further, the researcher makes every effort herein to “preserve a chain of evidence
as each analytic step is conducted,” as Yin (1981, 63) describes as a necessity for
drawing conclusions from overall findings. “The chain of evidence consists of the
explicit citation of particular pieces of evidence, as one shifts from data collection to
within-case analysis to cross-case analysis and to overall findings and conclusions,”
(Yin, 1981, 63).

40
 Data Collection per Research Objectives Table KEY: = primary goal = secondary goal
3.3

OBJECTIVES To understand communal
spaces in the study area in
relation to the city's public
space networks.
METHODS
To determine the values of To identify the effective To understand the roots
various stakeholder groups boundaries at work in the and effects of socio-spatial
concerning the social and study area through analyzing boundaries and value
environmental aspects of observable symptoms of differentials in the study
communal space. inequity. area.
Data Collection

Mapping and GIS

Direct Observation

Pedestrian and
Vehicle Counts

Figure 20: Data Collection Methods, per Research Objectives

Interviews
here, with each method described in the sub-sections below.

Resident Surveys
An overview of data collection methods as per the research objectives is in the figure

41
3.0 Research Methodology
3.0 Research Methodology

3.3.1 Mapping and GIS

Specific mapping data for the study area was provided by Oslo Kommune’s Agency
for Planning and Building Services for the sole purpose of this study. The following
was included in the data provided for the study area of approximately 2 square
kilometers:

High Resolution Aerial Imagery

Building Footprints

Property Tracts

City Parks

Streets

Residential Building Locations with the following attributes:

o Addresses

o Ownership information

o Number of households per building

The goals of the GIS data and subsequent analysis were to determine and confirm
the following:

Amount of land consumed by residential buildings

Amount of land consumed by residential yards

Amount of divided vs. shared yards

Number of households in the study area

Ownership of specific plots

Proximity of residential areas on study site to larger parks

Relevant amounts of built, paved, and permeable land at case sites

Using ESRI Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software, the provided data was
analyzed to achieve quantitative data for the study area included later in the case and
findings sections of this thesis.
42
 3.0 Research Methodology

Residential Property Tracts Area - from overlapping residential address

locations with property plots

Residential Property Built Area - from overlapping buildings with residential

property plots

Residual “Yard” Area - calculated by subtracting Property Built Area from

Property Plot Area

Locked, Unlocked and Commercial Yards - digitized by the researcher based

on observations, then tallied using the GIS software

Built, Paved, and Permeable Yard Areas - (per each case site) digitized by the
researcher from observations and aerial photography, then tallied with GIS
software

Number of Households total in study area - estimated sum from residential

buildings

Residual “Yard” Area per Household in study area - from dividing yard space
by households

Public park land area per Household in study area - from dividing city parks
area by households

Additionally, observation driven maps were created by the researcher throughout the
fieldwork. A map documenting city walks and spaces observed guided the researcher
both in organizing photographs and notes taken and in narrowing the study area to a
selection of case studies (See Figure 21 for city walks map and associated photos).
Further observations regarding where people congregate around the case study
site and how people move through the study area were also documented through
maps and sketches. Representational techniques such as found in the Nolli map of
Rome were employed to understand spaces as people move through them (or are
prohibited from doing so) at the ground level, giving more qualitative depth than the
GIS and aerial mapping data. These illustrative pieces help to show data collected
through additional methods (described in the following sections), particularly in the
way of understanding the studied communal spaces as part of the greater context of
public space. Final compilations of these maps and figures can be found in section
5.1 (Findings: Communal Spaces As Part of the City) of this thesis.

43
3.0 Research Methodology

3.3.2 Direct Observation

Direct observation was an important aspect of this fieldwork and the researcher
benefited from living and participating in the study area through the entire fieldwork
and thesis writing term. Observation was carried out at all times of weekdays and
weekends. Photographs, maps and sketches were used to document and validate
direct observations beyond written notes.

Observations were guided by the research objectives. At the city level, observation
helped to understand resident behaviors and movement patterns through the
study area and around the case study sites. Within and surrounding each study
site, observation provided an extra level of detail for understanding the physical
components and conditions of spaces and formed the majority of basis for
understanding usage patterns.

3.3.3 Pedestrian and Vehicle Counts

In the first objective of understanding communal spaces as a part of the greater city
and documenting observed patterns quantitatively, pedestrian and vehicle counts
were performed. Included in this observation driven activity was determining the
effectiveness of gatetun use and the coming and going patterns around the case
site. To standardize results, two time periods were selected and tested on one main
street (Jens Bjelkes Gate) and one adjacent gatetun (Sigurds Gate). Experience
in the study area informed that rush hours occur between 7:00 and 8:00 in the
morning and 15:00 to 16:00 in the afternoon with Fridays and lunch periods (12:00-
13:00) having irregular activity. Therefore one period was chosen mid-day from
13:00 to 14:00 to be compared with a rush hour period (15:00 to 16:00). Samples
were taken twice at each site at each time period to provide quantitative data while
simultaneously noting and extracting qualitative data from the periods including types
of traffic passing on the street, groups meeting, people staying in the street space,
and use of space for play and activities other than transit. These pedestrian and
vehicle count charts can be found in the appendix of this report.

A similar methodology was followed with additional rigor in counting users observed

44
 3.0 Research Methodology

in each of the reference case sites. During the last three weeks of the fieldwork
(after selecting final cases) structured mid day observation visits for each case were
completed. Each case was visited for a total of one hour per week to document and
count observed uses and users. The table with this data can also be found in the
appendix of this report.

3.3.4 Interviews

Formal and semi-structured interviews were conducted during the fieldwork to gain
entry into various roles and points of view on the study topic. Formal interviews
were conducted with representatives from the Kommune’s Agency for Planning and
Building Services and with the Hearing Authority for Bydel Gamle Oslo. This series of
interviews addressed specific questions about kommune and bydel goals for public
spaces, the environment, and inclusive communities. They also clarified the rather
complicated organizational roles of various agencies which were eventually illustrated
into a graphic, developed to show responsibility over various types of spaces in Oslo
(this graphic can be located in the Findings: Communal Spaces As Part of the City
section of this report). The prepared formal interview questions can be found in the
Appendix of this report.

From the initial entry points in the kommune and bydel offices, additional contacts
were made who could contribute at the level of local residents and resident issues;
these contacts eventually helped in distribution of the resident survey (described in a
later sub-section). These secondary interviews were structured less formally, allowing
conversation to lead in order to achieve more personal informational encounters.

“Conversation is a basic mode of human interaction. Human beings talk

with each other –they interact, pose questions and answer questions.
Through conversation we get to know other people, get to learn about their
experiences, feelings and hopes and the world they live in.” -Kvale (1996)

Combining conversation with semi-structured interview method, a very valuable

interview in particular was conducted with the leader of a local cooperative board
- Tony Larsson. Conversation brought many of Larsson’s stories and opinions
regarding the neighborhood, building and neighbors into the research along with
45
3.0 Research Methodology

leading to introductions to later interviewee subjects. The researcher allowed

conversation to guide the interview and periodically asked questions specific to
the research needs concerning building and communal space management. This
technique proved extremely useful in gaining more and broader information than
expected from the contact along with the specifics initially requested.

Information from initial interview points of contact led also to having a series of short
spontaneous interviews with people in the study area. The first of these was with
a trash collector working his route in the study area. He, being an employee of the
Kommune department Revisjonsetate was able to confirm several assumptions and
previous information regarding the maintenance of residential yards by acting as a
secondary or multiple source. More of these spontaneously initiated conversational
interviews were employed later to gain additional input from local residents and
shopkeepers.

In reflection, the interview method provided the most useful data and data
confirmation during this research. Due to its effectiveness and directness,
employment of the method was continued through the latter half of the research with
a series of study area residents to obtain and confirm information that was lacking
or inadequately supported in the initial responses from the resident surveys. A full
list of formal, informal and conversational interviews conducted may be found in the
appendix of this report.

3.3.5 Resident Surveys

The survey was the most difficult and different logistically from the research
plan. It was discovered that residents of this area do not respond to door to door
questioning. Further, language here became an impediment early on when trying to
gain the attention of and information from local residents. As immigrants represent
a large portion of the population in Tøyen, Norwegian is at least a second language
for them and knowledge of English was not guaranteed. The researcher’s own skill
in the language developing during the course of the research, it was originally hoped
that English would function as a working language - however this proved inefficient,
pushing the greater part of resident interaction to early in the latter half of the thesis.
46
 3.0 Research Methodology

In the beginning difficulties in surveying locals, a new approach was developed which
risked an amount of bias in the responses but succeeded in gaining more broad
reaching resident input. The survey was first translated to Norwegian with the help
of a native speaker and posted online. Distribution of the survey’s web address then
went to a series of specific interest groups who have members residing in the study
area: employees of Oslo Kommune Planning department, a local volunteers list in
Bydel Gamle Oslo, and to two separate local building cooperatives. Attempts were
also made to enlist the local school in distributing the survey to parents’ groups to
extend the reach, but unfortunately the school principal refused collaboration, stating
that it would be too much work for them to either distribute an e-mail with the survey
address or to provide me with an e-mail contact list.

Finally in distress, a handful of random local responses were obtained from posting
flyers throughout the study area. These distribution efforts in full resulted in 31
respondents, which remains too small a number to be statistically relevant, but gave
a starting point for later initializing conversations for additional support. In qualitative
terms, the survey respondents did leave a series of additional commentary beyond
expectations which contributes to the research. Overall, the elective quality of the
survey participation probably points to responses representing mostly the more active
sector of the community and due to this came the decision to continue through
interview methods for additional residential input.

In the end, the survey even in its small sample base does begin to confirm some
observations and the data from it is taken hereby only as a secondary or multiple
source – for instance in reflecting the number of yards which are locked and the
majority of use to be for recycling and trash rather than activities which would keep
people in the areas for longer to socialize and have a presence in the spaces. The
additional informal interviews compensate here by providing first person accounts
involving resident values, use and views on communal space. Pertinent information
derived from residents through these methods was primarily incorporated into usage
and values analyses. The questions on the survey and the advertising poster can be
found in the appendix of this report along with graphs of the survey results.

47
3.0 Research Methodology

Map Key: *Gray blocks indicate

Walk 1 Walk 4 buildings
Walk 2 Walk 5
**Color-shaded Areas
Walk 3 Large City Parks indicate spaces observed

Figure 21: City Walks - Map

48
 3.0 Research Methodology

Walk 1:

Walk 2:

Walk 3:

Walk 4:

Walk 5:

Figure 22: City Walks - Map and Images

49
3.0 Research Methodology

3.3.6 An Immigrant in Tøyen, Abdul’s story

Abdul, the manager of the local Mix convenience store in Tøyen center watches two
natively Iraqi men meet and exchange pleasantries in the plaza outside of his door. One
is a typical customer of his - buying coffee during the week days and the other is likely
on his way to the nearby T-bane station. The chance meeting might recall memories
Abdul holds of his native country, Eritrea or reinforce the loneliness he has found since
seeking asylum in Norway.

Four years ago Abdul came to Norway and was offered the job opportunity through
the Mix company. The excitement of this opportunity became a bit worn when he
arrived alone in a small town in Telemark. After a period of adjusting to the polite but
impersonal Norwegian culture and being one of few ethnically diverse people in the
town, he chose to devote himself to work and to apply for a better location as soon
as possible. His efforts having paid off, he felt lucky to change positions to this Oslo
location where at least the diversity and density provide more comfort. More customers
come to this store and there are more diversions, but still he admits that people here
are not easy to meet even in the city.

He sees the Pakistani, Iraqi, and even Somali groups as having a slightly easier time
making themselves at home here because there are more local immigrants and
established groups from those countries. Without family or community, he spends
much of his free time on the internet. When asked if he participates in winter sports
or enjoys the Norwegian nature he references his slightly overweight stature with a
laugh and explains that he spends too much time working for that. The forest and
parks take a while to get to and while his apartment building has cheap rent, it does
not have a yard or space for enjoying the outdoors. Abdul’s Tøyen neighbors appear to
come from many countries but have primarily kept to themselves over the past year of
his residence. Instead, he stands at his register counter and watches the passersby on
the concrete plaza of Tøyen Center and is pleased from time to time when a customer
takes the time to chat a bit while passing through. He is continuing to adjust to the
separateness of everyone and how people seem to divide themselves into groups - he
shakes his head at a news headline about discrimination. Where he is from, people are
every color and associate together beyond ethnic boundaries.

The above story is based on a conversational; the interviewee preferred to provide

first name only for this thesis (Abdul, interview).

Figure 23: Tøyen’s Local Mix Store

50
 3.0 Research Methodology

3.4 Case Method

According to Yin (1981, 59), case study is used as a strategy for research,
particularly when “the distinguishing characteristic of the case study is that it
attempts to examine: a contemporary phenomenon in its real-life context, especially
when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident.”
The context-dependent and timely nature of this study on communal spaces in a
neighborhood amidst change therefore lent itself to using case study as a research
strategy to explain a set of phenomena observed.

3.4.1 Case Selection

The area observation and documentation period of the fieldwork provided the
researcher with an outline of communal spaces and different scenarios for residential
yards in the study area. Further confirmation of the yard characteristics was obtained
through questioning residents and checking GIS data. After becoming familiar with
the range of yards, trends which allowed rough categorical grouping were identified.
The categories were based on management and formal characteristics which the
researcher hypothesized might have effects on or be affected by the values of local
stakeholders in the variety of output resulting there from. The named categories and
alternative scenarios are as follows:

Management: singular/plural/external;

Lot: shared/divided

Locked status: open/gated/gated but unlocked

A number of public housing properties administered by OBOS were removed

from the study to prevent diversions as the researcher discovered that the issues
pertaining to public housing in Tøyen extend well beyond the scope of this research.
After this reduction, 10 yards were observed in greater detail and eventually
narrowed to four which best illustrated variety across the study area. One from these
represented the most common and seemingly most problematic yard type - that
which is locked and divided with plural management. Together with having the least
limitations of access to the researcher (herself being a resident), this lot thus became
the focal case study.
51
3.0 Research Methodology

The case method serves to understand and document “context-dependant

knowledge,” as described by Flyvbjerg (2001, 72) as being necessary for higher
levels of understanding.

To include a broader view of context and variations within, the remaining three cases
were conceptualized as reference cases for comparative analyses. Additionally, to
include additional comparison against a case built by the city of Oslo in the name
of sustainability, a fourth and final reference case from outside the study area was
added. The goal of the reference cases is to illustrate categorical aspect to resultant
life relationships of various communal spaces and their residents. The reference
cases thereby work to give additional validity to the main case study findings through
supporting or refuting suspected causal patterns in linkages and values derived there
from.

The case study and reference cases bring the roles and values of specific actors
to the forefront, allowing more detailed accounts and specific, current data
demonstrating trends and practices in the study area. Following Flyvbjerg’s method
of keeping case studies “open” (2001: 86), the case here will be explained through
narrative in the next section to provide an overview, and then analyzed through
comparisons to the reference cases and equity goals in a later portion of this thesis.

3.4.2 Case Narrative

Sigurds Gate and Jens Bjelkes Gate - Gated, Divided, Plural Managements

The Case Study chosen represents the most common yard type found in the study
area - gated and divided (along mid-block property lines) with plural managements.
The prevalence of gated, divided courtyards is shown in red on the following map of
the study area.

The buildings forming the south-western corner lot of Sigurds Gate and Jens Bjelkes
Gate were developed separately, but around a similar time period - circa 1930,
between the two World Wars - and following similar styles. The block buildings are

52
 3.0 Research Methodology

Je
ns
Bj
el
ke
s
G
at
e
te
Ga
s
rik
Ei

te
Ga
s
rd
gu
Si

N
GIS Data (c) PBE, Oslo kommune 2010
Figure 24: Aerial Map and photographs of Case Study Site

Yard types (status, lots, management)

Gated, divided, plural

Gated, shared, singular/external

Gated, commercial, external
Open, shared, singular/external N
GIS Data (c) PBE, Oslo kommune 2010

Figure 25: Residential Yards by Locked Status

53
3.0 Research Methodology

planned around a courtyard, following the planning/development trend of Tøyen

Physical Checklists
from that time. The courtyard in its entirety is approximately 1700 square meters
and stands divided and cluttered with fences, walls, and storage buildings along the
property lines. The resultant ten plots vary in sizes and quality.

Of the ten plots, nine are used as residential back yards and one is a commercial
parking lot for a Telenor communications service location and formerly-residential-
converted-to-server-building. Two of the yards are completely covered with asphalt
while the remaining seven have some planted lawn space and a limited number of
trees. Each plot holds the garbage and recycling containers for the adjacent building.
Some of the plots also offer bicycle parking and lawn furniture for tenants. All ten
of the spaces are locked with metal gates closing the entrances to the surrounding
roads. A photographic survey of the doorbells at each gate provides an early insight
into the varying level of maintenance and the surnames of residents for each
address.

Figure 26: Intercoms from

case site block entrances
(continues across page)
54
 3.0 Research Methodology

1 2 3 4
Telenor

10
7 6
9 8 N
(Joker)
(Pub)
(Pub)

Figure 27: Drawing of Case Site Lot

55
3.0 Research Methodology

The Telenor (parking) lot’s gate stands open during work hours with a small amount
of van and car traffic coming and leaving throughout the day by way of the gatetun
(Sigurds Gate). However this yard (surrounded by barbed wire atop walls and
housing multiple security cameras) stands empty most nights, as workers take their
vehicles home.

Usage of the residential yard spaces is minimal beyond passage for building entries.
Of the 16 residential doors for this block, 11 are located off the courtyard spaces -
one of these being an entrance to a shed-like courtyard building which houses two
households despite having windows only on one of four walls. GIS Data from Oslo
Kommune shows that the block in total holds 119 households - multiplied over an
average of two residents per household and an estimated 238 people live in the
block. During the two fieldwork months of observation in the midst of Oslo’s best
season weather-wise, only one yard lot was frequently populated, but this population
was associated with construction activities supporting an underway interior
renovation. The lots with lawn furniture for residents saw occupation less than once a
week despite comfortable temperatures. The majority of actual usage observed was
trash and recyclables sorting and regular superintendent (vaktmester) maintenance.

Focus due to accessibility ease was made in particular on the lot belonging Sigurds
Gate 16 (building number 1 in Figure 21) - one of the largest residential parcels in
the courtyard - characterized by an asphalt surface within high walls. During good
weather, a table and chairs and a few potted plants occupy the space, but their
observed use was seldom and primarily by the building’s superintendant and his wife.
The superintendant, Sørensen is an aging man whose wife’s family has lived in the
Sigurds Gate 16 building since it was built in 1929 (Larsson, interview). He is paid a
small salary to take care of property maintenance both of the yard and the buildings.
He and his wife keep the space clean, the flowers watered, and the walls painted as
if they were their own personal yard.

Sørensen and his position in the building of Sigurds Gate 16, represents a
phenomenon of building upkeep and maintenance that is changing quickly as his
contemporaries retire or moves from the area. Sørensen’s generation is one that

56
 3.0 Research Methodology

often resides in one place for a lifetime, while today urban society is increasingly
mobile. Because of the length of his residence at Sigurds Gate and his role in
maintenance of the building Sørensen holds a strong relationship and sense of
responsibility to the building, metaphorically “owning” the property beyond his legal
title to one contained apartment. He and his say in property decisions are greatly
respected among the other apartment owners in the cooperative board. The board’s
leader admits that he does not know what the building will do to fill this position of
caretaker when Sørensen elects to leave it (Larsson, interview).

Sigurds Gate 16 and most of its neighbors are owned and operated as cooperatives.
Each apartment owner, per law, holds a share in the overall property and here
property decisions are the responsibility of the elected board. At number 16, the
board has three members to oversee 24 apartments, and they call for input from all
the apartment owners once a year at a meeting known as generalforsamling. It is
during that meeting that the property’s budget and needs are reviewed and planned
for the following year. In addition, all owners are called to vote when major decisions
- requiring a lot of work or funding - are to be made (Larsson, interview). While the
building’s governance is democratically structured, some members exercise their
input more than others. Years ago, neighbors suggested taking down the walls of the
yard space to create a larger, shared yard plot in the courtyard, but protests came
strongly from Sørensen. His claim to the space - not wanting the walls to come down
as long as he lives here - was strong enough to sway the board (Larsson, interview).
Primarily, his concerns were a fear of increased maintenance and a general dislike of
the idea of additional people using the space, despite potential Kommune resources
for renovation at the time under the Miljøbyen Gamle Oslo program (Larsson,
Gitlestad, interviews).

In addition to the apartment owners and property management is a growing group

of resident renters. The trend in Tøyen illustrated in this case is the increasing of
owners renting out apartment units within the cooperative structure. Currently, about
half of the apartments in Sigurds Gate are rented by their owner (Larsson, interview)
and additional ones can be found on the market each day searching sites such as
Finn.no. Certain laws and building rules limit rentals, but more and more flexibility
is being allowed as the practice becomes more common (Fokus, 2011). In the

57
3.0 Research Methodology

58
 3.0 Research Methodology

Figure 28: The Story of the

Entrances - Photos of the gates
and doorways of the case study
site - the south west block
defined by Jens Bjelkes Gate
and Sigurds Gate. (Doorways in
order going counter clockwise
starting at the corner, Sigurds
Gate 16A). These document
several observations including:
ongoing renovations, quality and
upkeep differences, aesthetic
choices in locking accessways
to the buildings and yard spaces
beyond.
Figure 29: Two commercial properties at the ground level
on the block.

59
3.0 Research Methodology

cooperative of Sigurds Gate 16, owners may rent units for three consecutive years,
then there should be a break for one year followed by an additional possible three
years of rental - meaning that a maximum of six years of rental is possible (Larsson,
interview). As this is controlled with more flexibility and the area demographic
changes over time, the practice and associated laws may change to favor rentals
(Fokus 2011).

3.4.3 Issues in the Case

“I cannot grow old here.” - Larsson

“Norwegian families have been moving out of Bydel Gamle Oslo when their
children start school - this worries the politicians because keeping families
with children means a more stable community.” -Riis

“People’s fear of crime is greater than what actually is. The locked backyards
and high fences contribute to such fears, Tøyen is probably perceived by many
as a dangerous area and I think it takes a lot to get people to open up again.
At our last general meeting, [of the borettslag] people actually argued that
we should contact the municipality and ask them to remove the benches on
the city’s green spaces outside our backyard fence, but only because they
thought they attracted [drug] addicts. They were fortunately not the majority.” -
Survey Respondent #13

The above three quotes give perspectives on the social rifts describing life in
Tøyen. There exists a blatant lack of place-based community in this neighborhood,
and exaggerated perceptions of fear and differentness are contributing to a cycle
of negativity in the area. Pattern follows that individual buildings upgrade, those
affording higher rents move in adding security to prevent theft in the realization
of lesser-earning un-renovated neighbors continuing in the area. The security
measures, in turn, accentuate the differences between building parcels - dividing
residents along now-visible gaps between their income and expenditure levels. The
more exclusive the properties become, the more divided the residents - the less the
residents come together and get to know each other, the more they fear each other
(Tonkiss 2005). The results are locks - keeping people and property in perceived

60
 3.0 Research Methodology

“safe” zones where immediate, in-building neighbors are assumed to be more similar
than those living in the next building, across the street, or on the next block.

Despite these rifts, the streets, the sidewalks, the electricity lines, the grocery stores
and many other items of infrastructure are shared by the disparate groups per
chance of proximity. As much infrastructure operates invisibly - below the surface
- residents often do not recognize such commonalities. The resultant outcome
challenges the development of place identity or stewardship in the area; individuals
begin leaning towards rather removing the few physical objects in the neighborhood
that might invite people to stay (i.e. benches), and separate themselves from ‘public
space’ where they might meet others.

Witness to these trends and local social angst over domain can be seen in the
growing amounts of graffiti throughout the study area (graffiti documentation at
the case site can be found in the “Details of the Case” sub-section above). These
trends form ironic cycles pointed out by many urban scholars, as the lessening and
discouragement of people populating urban spaces is precisely the factor causing
the spaces to seem (if not be) less safe (Tonkiss, 2005). Tonkiss’s work on Space,
the City, and Social Theory (2005) addresses both the precarious situation described
when residents are calling for public spaces to be dismantled and comments on
safety in spaces.

“The distortion or disappearance of public space can be seen as an index

of the weakening of public life and also a causal factor in its decay. Public
spaces are downgraded by the same processes that reduce any coherent
notion of a public sphere in itself. Rights to communal space are an obvious,
routine and basic expression of public belonging. Where public spaces are
rendered inaccessible or unaccommodating or expensive, or simply are killed
off by privatization, this compounds the dwindling of a public sense that
makes such developments expedient in the first place.” - Tonkiss (2005, 73)

“The meaning of a space, and the kinds of behavior associated with it, will be
tied to its degree of visibility or transparency, its openness and ease of access
or exit. One way of making urban spaces safer (or feel safer) is to ‘design out’
the potential for threatening behavior from the built environment [through
lighting, cameras and local resident ‘eyes on the street’].” - Tonkiss (2005,
103-104).
61
3.0 Research Methodology

Figure 30: Curtains drawn to the yards of the case study.

In this light, looking at the physical form of the yards at Sigurds Gate, the gates
and walls intended for security can be seen as contributing to an unsafe-feeling
environment. The spaces are closed in - with just one exit per lot, lessening incomers
but also reducing escape options if an incident were to happen. While lighting in the
evenings is on par with other urban spaces in Norway, view into most of these yards
is blocked by the high walls, fences, and small buildings located in the space, leaving
many dark corners. Many windows surround the yards, but the lack of orientation and
aesthetic atmosphere of the yards leads many apartments to turn their focus away
from the yard space (researcher observation, resident comment). The high numbers
of perimeter windows to the yard with drawn curtains is documented in photos
above.

At the angle of management and resident input into spaces, if Sigurds Gate
represents a norm for the study area (in as much as it does through formal
measures, as is supported in other resident conversations), then the case marks a
localized breakdown of direct democracy. As the number of rented units continues
to rise, and mid- to long-timers decide to move away, the majority of residents will (or
perhaps already) have no input to property board processes and decisions. A board
of three currently makes decisions for space occupied by 24 units (representing at
least 48 residents). The temporariness of the rental structure combined with lack
of local input contributes to the general lack of identity found the average Tøyen
resident and the spaces they share.

Adding to this is the fact that Sigurds Gate 16 is one building whose apartments
62
 3.0 Research Methodology

are renovating on a block of diversity. The buildings of the case block house people
of varying income and managements of various resource levels. This is evidenced
in real estate ads which the researcher watched throughout the research (mapped
above under Context) and reinforced by observable variations in upkeep. A
photographic study illustrating the latter is below, documenting the doors and gates
to each property on this block. Disparities are shown in the amount of graffiti that is
permitted to remain at different doors and in the state of building intercom systems.
As buildings renovate, systems such as the intercom are updated and doorways are
given due attention; entrances stand as one of the first experiences of incoming
potential buyers or renters (Larsson, interview).

To understand the sum of these case issues and their impacts in more detail,
this case in its specifics is compared to reference cases illustrating a range of
management and accessibility characteristics.

3.4.4 Reference Cases

Four representative reference cases in Oslo were chosen as outlined above to

compare and better understand linkages between input in management decisions,
physical design choices, and social usage of communal yard spaces. In total,
the cases represent a range of difference and potential which aids in defining,
illustrating, and analyzing disparities of the study area.

2. Gråbein Gårdene
4. Pilestredet Park

Sigurds Gata/Jens Bjelkes

2. Magnus’ Gate

Map Source: (c) Google.com, 2011 3. Nonnegata N

Figure 31: Location Map of Reference Cases

63
3.0 Research Methodology

GIS Data (c) PBE, Oslo kommune 2010

Figure
Figure: 32:
3-22 Map
Aerialand
mapimages from of
and photos Magnus Gate
Magnus’ - Reference
Gate 6 Case 1.

Photo from: Byarkivet, Online - http://www.byarkivet.oslo.kommune.

no/OBA/gallerier/Kjaerlighet/images/A-10001_U004_037_
bakgaard.jpg

GIS Data (c) PBE, Oslo kommune 2010

Figure 33: Map and images from Gråbein Gårdene - Reference Case 2.
64
 3.0 Research Methodology

Reference Case 1: Magnus’ Gate - Open, shared, external management

The block of Magnus’ Gate 6 is a neighboring block to the case study site at Sigurds
Gate. The buildings are newer construction and managed as condominiums by an
external property management company named Kongstun II (180.no, 2010). The
lot is detached from any major routes and the yard space is left functionally open -
with a moveable arm-gate to keep unnecessary traffic out and a series of signage
marking the space as a private area (privat omrader). The yard space has a higher
level of design than any of the plots at Sigurds Gate, but low fences discourage
people from occupying a large, central, planted area encompassing most of the lot.
Herein, the space seems predominantly intended for aesthetics over use. An outdoor
room is loosely described in the rear of the space by a series of frames over which
vines grow, screening a small seating space. This feature is one of the only spaces
observed to have been designed suitably with the Muslim concept of privacy, and as
such it is utilized from time to time by those who would not typically sit outdoors in
the open public (resident interview). Apartments at the perimeter of the courtyard
space all have large balconies, and observation showed that, despite common
benches below, the balconies were more often occupied than the substantial yard
space.

Reference Case 2: Gråbein Gårdene - Gated, shared, singular management

Gråbein Gårdene is a series of historic 19th century apartment blocks which were
upgraded during Tøyen’s first urban renewal wave in the 1980s (Tøyenhagen
borettslag, 2010). The complex includes freestanding buildings with perimeter walls
and gates added during renewal at access points from adjacent roads. Today, the
communal yard space is clear and open to all of the enclosed buildings, whereas
prior to renovation it was divided and cluttered similarly to the Sigurds Gate case.
The age of the base buildings made the renovation necessary as remnant buildings
and awkward layouts from communal toilets existed. Currently the block holds 122
apartments and is managed by an active cooperative - in which all the apartment
owners hold a democratic say in building and land decisions (Tøyenhagen borettslag,
2010). A diversity of residents exists in age and family type here and use of the
common yard space remains high despite private balconies and the lot’s proximity to
the larger park spaces of the Botanic Gardens and Tøyen Park.

65
3.0 Research Methodology

Figure 34: Map and images of Nonnegata - Reference Case 3.

Figure 35: Map and images of Pilestredet Park - Reference Case 4.

66
Figure: 3-24 Aerial map and photos of Pilestredet Park
 3.0 Research Methodology

Reference Case 3: Nonnegata - Gated, shared, plural managements

Nonnegata was designed as, and has won awards for being, a series of modern,
environmentally ecological residences, just across the prison park (Klosterenga) at
the edge of the study area. This case was included to comparatively test the social
implications of an environmentally focused (“green”) design. In this case, the grounds
are specifically calculated to sequester carbon dioxide, encourage vegetation, and
cleanse stormwater for the benefit of resident learning of these systems (Riis,
interview). Interestingly, the amount of functioning landscape on the site restricts
places for residents to socialize in the yard, leaving private balconies to more
common population. Further, this site borders, though is fenced off from, a large
city park which provides walking trails and children’s play equipment, so resident
interviews admit to making more use of the adjacent park space than their building’s
yard property.

Residential Yard type 4 - open, shared, public management (Stattsbygg)

For a final comparative case, a recent project built in western Oslo whose goals were
principles of sustainability is used as a potentially exemplar case. Pilestredet Park
was built on land that was previously occupied by aging hospital facilities. The new
development result is a new neighborhood form, as Stattsbygg (2010) describes,
“a car-free, green oasis, open to all, with approximately 1,380 homes, offices,
businesses and education, just a short walk away from the hustle and bustle of the
city center.” For this study, the main courtyard and perimeter buildings were selected
as the site block to limit observation efforts. The space is considerably larger than the
other sites and is characterized in design by subtle, open yet noted transitions from
the public sphere to the private. Amenities such as benches and play equipment in
the main yard are open to serving not only immediate residents but other city locals,
while side yards have barbecue and more private seating areas for residents, and
finally the residents themselves have balconies and small yards for personal storage
located off of secondary pathways and enclosed only loosely by hedges. The result
of these implementations is that the area is well populated and watched, even in
times of poor weather.

67
4.0 Case Analysis

4.0 Case Analysis

The preliminary findings from the fieldwork were organized per the conceptual model
and analytical framework described in the Research Methodology section earlier.
These analyses of the cases examined differences found in the Physical and Usage
checklists in order to derive value implications and causal relationships to socio-
spatial boundaries - boundaries which are later specifically identified and analyzed in
section 5.0 Findings. The Value sub-section 4.3 compiles the summary of information
acquired over the fieldwork per indicator values, setting the data up for eventual
comparison across stakeholders. The preliminary data compenent lists - Physical,
Use, Values - which demonstrate primary data and sources that this section is based
on can be found in the appendix (9.10) of this report while the case and checklist
comparisons are located in the following four pages of this section.

4. 1 Physical

This section remarks on significant physical differences were found across the cases.

4.1.1 Physical Variations Across Cases

Amount of planted area vs. hard surfaces

The percentage of planted area in the primary case study is less than half of the
closest other block studied. This is linked to the separate management of divided
parcels as each parcel at minimum attempts to accommodate walking pathways.
These areas would appear as redundancy if multiple buildings were able to share
access routes. This type of superfluity is illustrated in part in the Magnus’ Gate
case, as the excessively wide, circuitous, paved access route - planned to handle
pedestrians plus loading or utility vehicles - lessens the amount of potential planted
area. The remaining cases, in contrast, minimized pathways through efficient design
and pedestrian focus, thereby demonstrating higher planted ratios.

68
 4.0 Case Analysis

Sigurds Gate Magnus’ Gate Gråbein Gårdene

Nonnegata Pilestredet Park

Key:
Building
Impermeable
Semipermeable
Planted area

Figure 36: Comparative maps of the cases. Data from GIS (courtesy of Oslo PBE, 2010),
and researcher observation.
69
70
Physical: Environmental Equity Case Study: Ref. Case 1: Ref. Case 2: Ref. Case 3: Ref. Case 4:
Based on Green Area Factor Example
(Hansen, 2010, 30) Sigurds Gate Magnus’ Gate Gråbein Gårdene Nonnegata Pilestredet Park
Lot size, factor estimated area 4,532 sqm 5,100 sqm 5,248 sqm 2,619 sqm 11,256 sqm
Settlement ratio, built-up area 0.63 0.39 0.45 0.44 0.41
4.0 Case Analysis

Free area on the property 1,699 sqm (37.4%) 3,112 sqm (61.0%) 2,885 sqm (54.9%) 1,161sqm (66.0%) 6,630 sqm (58.9%)
Vegetation at ground level 355 sqm (7.8%) 730 sqm (14.3%) 1,442 sqm (27.5%) 516 sqm (19.7%) 3,876 sqm (34.3%)
Vegetation on the facade or spalier - - - - -
Green roof 0 0 0 0 0
Grass, ornamental shrubs and trees - - - - -
Trees with stem circumference 16-20 cm 0 (0sqm) 7 (1/729sqm) 1 (1/5248sqm) 5 (1/524sqm) 6 (1/1876sqm)
Trees with stem circumference 20-30 cm 4 (1/1133sqm) 0 (0sqm) 3 (1/1749sqm) 0 (0sqm) 5 (1/2251sqm)
Trees with stem circumference> 30 cm 0 (0sqm) 0 (0sqm) 1 (1/5248sqm) 0 (0sqm) 0 (0sqm)
Free-standing shrubs higher than 3 m - - - - -
Water Surfaces 0 sqm 0 sqm 0 sqm 0 sqm 100 sqm
Collection and drainage from surface - - - - -
Runoff from hard surfaces to plantations - - - - -
Solid surfaces 1,250 sqm (27.6%) 1,087 sqm (21.3%) 1,466 sqm (27.9%) 602 sqm (23.0%) 2,476 sqm (22.0%)
Hard surfaces with permeability 94 sqm (2.1%) 202 sqm (3.9%) 0 sqm (0%) 156 sqm (5.9%) 280 sqm (2.5%)
All percentages listed above are percentage of lot size, for comparison purposes between cases.

Figure 37: Physical, Environmental Checklist Analysis

 Physical: Social Equity Case Study: Ref Case 1: Ref Case 2: Ref Case 3: Case 4:
adapted from community planning theory* Sigurds Gate Magnus’ Gate Gråbein Gårdene Nonnegata Pilestredet Park
Graduation of private to public spaces - + - - +
Defined units - for identity / / + + +
Walking Space (winter) - - / / +
Staying Space (summer) + / + + +
Communal Facilities / / + / +
Visual Connection - to neighbors / + + - +
No Solid Walls - + / / +
Short Distances (<100m) + - - + /
One Level + / + / +
Multi-function Areas / / + + +
Social Amenities / / + + +
Face-to-face orientation / + + / +
Inviting Areas - Multi-entry, transitions - / + - +
High Quality - aesthetics/comfort / / + + +
Lighting + + + + +
Climate Protection - + / / +
Diversity (age) + + + / +
Diversity (ethnic) + + - - /
Diversity (economic) + / - - -
7+ 8+ 12+ 7+ 16+
*KEY: + meets guideline - does not meet guideline / could improve within guideline

Figure 38: Physical, Social Checklist Analysis

71
4.0 Case Analysis
 Usage Checklist

72
Case Study: Ref. Case 1: Ref. Case 2: Ref. Case 3: Case 4:
Sigurds Gate Magnus’ Gate Gråbein Gårdene Nonnegata Pilestredet Park
Usage Observed (Amount) - / + / +
Staying Users monthly weekly daily weekly daily
Passing through Users daily daily daily daily daily
4.0 Case Analysis

Social Gathering Uses - / + - +

Cleanliness / + + + +
Amenity Upkeep / + + + +
Graffiti (cleaning/absense of) - / + + +
0+ 2+ 5+ 3+ 5+
*KEY: + meets guideline (great) - does not meet guideline (low) / could improve within guideline (varies)
Figure 39: Usage Checklist Analysis

Partial Grafitti Observations

Figure 40: Representative Graffiti Documentation

 4.0 Case Analysis

Amount of trees

The amount of trees, particularly older and larger trees varies greatly across the
cases. From the perspective of the property owners, it is easier to clear old trees
during construction projects (Larrson, interview) and the Kommune allows cleared
trees to be replaced by new saplings (Arvesen, Riis interviews). Both aspects make a
difficult case for large, older trees. Further, as learned in the Sigurds Gate case, many
property owner/managers dislike trees due to leaf clearing and pruning needs.

The social and environmental problems herein: Planted areas,

particularly with trees (the larger the more so) contribute environmentally
sequestering carbon dioxide, naturally filtering and draining stormwater,
and to cooling urban spaces from heat island effectviii. Social implications
of these issues include the potential of making areas more comfortable
to inhabit and educationally demonstrating the natural water cycle to
residents.

Graduation from public to private spaces

The perimeter and border conditions of these spaces vary, demonstrating different
modes of physically identifying which citizens are invited to access various spaces.
The presence of gates and walls signifies the edges of potential communities - the
size and characteristic of which correlates here to the management boundaries
of space. Shared or collaborative management across buildings results in fewer
boundaries in space so that community can extend from the residents of one
building to the neighboring (Gråbein Gårdene, Pilestredet Park). Limiting the size of
and access to communal spaces contingently limits the group who can personally
identify with the space as a place that includes them. Alternatively, entirely public
spaces without transition to semi-public and private areas can breed an anonymity
that works against social interaction (Gehl 1996). This later phenomena was
observed and understood in local interviews to be a detracting factor of “too-public”
plazas, including those found at the Tøyen and Grønland transit stations (Gitlestad,
Mørk, Eckhoff, interviews).

viii “Heat Island Effect” is the effect of built up areas being warmer than rural areas due to build-
ing materials holding heat through the day. Urban problems associated with this include “ increasing
summertime peak energy demand, air conditioning costs, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions,
heat-related illness and mortality, and water quality,” (EPA 2011).
73
4.0 Case Analysis

In these matters of spatial graduation, the Pilestredet Park case represents a

successful series of public, semi-public and private yard spaces where the design
reinforces the amount of intimacy, subtly defining users for each level - the public
can pass through the neighborhood on main routes, share the largest of spaces,
and observe the resident community (who in turn can use semi-public yards and
amenities). Private yard spaces and balconies are located off semi-public access
routes and thinly separated with partial hedge rows and light railings, encouraging
interaction between residents in their private space, their neighbors, and passersby
from the public realm.

Walking and staying spaces

Consistent with variations in access to the case study spaces, areas encouraging
spatial population through walking - passing through - and staying vary. All of
the cases contained amenities such as seating to encourage residents to stay in
spaces for longer periods, but such staying areas were not covered or maintained to
populate the areas in bad weather and few allow or encourage passage. Further, the
fieldwork found resident perception that benches located in rarely populated areas
attract alcoholics and/or drug addicts. Such ‘unwanted’ populations encourage locals
to avoid spaces and call for additional closures (Eckhoff, survey comment).

To break this expected cycle and change resident perception of spaces, many
sources support population over design changes such as lighting or security, as the
presence of attentive people are what makes a place seem safe (Tonkiss, Gehl).
Spaces fragmented and secured by walls, as in the Sigurds Gate yard, dually lessens
population and prevents the capacity of passing through - an activity which would
persist despite the weather. Spaces planned with a gradation of public to private
space, such as the Pilestredet Park case, encourage neighbors to pass through,
maintaining consistent amounts of population, eventually attracting more stayers.

Solid Walls and Diversity

The cases show formal variety in the separation of spaces and in the derivative
segregation of people. The use of solid walls (Sigurds Gate, perimeter of Gråbein
Gårdene block) literally and figuratively demonstrates a support of separation
- allowing few to pass through, see past, or communicate across the physical

74
 4.0 Case Analysis

boundary. In this blockage, solid walls limit community to those allowed access,
restricting diversity often by the basis of property - and thereby income level. The
Pilestredet Park case demonstrates an alternative for such solidity in substituting
light hedge plantings and low, open fencing where necessary - providing boundaries
which can be crossed visually, physically, and socially.

Diversity observations were made on the bases of age, ethnicity, and economics -
the later being based on the amount of variety in rental and real estate pricing over
the site. While the Sigurds Gate case holds the highest potential, already hosting
a diverse community in all respects, it unfortunately is also the most spatially
segregated with the most solid wall divisions of all the cases. Simultaneously in the
diversity category, one begins to see a slight downfall of the spaces which have been
particularly designed to excel in environmental equity (Nonnegata, Pilestredet Park)
- the standard of building and design inadvertently increased relative real estate
pricing to the extent of lowering the amount of diversity - particularly economic, then
ethnic - among residents. Market-wise, many developers - those of Nonnegata and
Pilestredet Park not excluded - have recognized that there is a specific demographic
in cities that is willing to pay a premium for environmentally friendly construction.
In this respect however, the public nature of Pilestredet Park and its accessible
design - likely along with its larger size - allows for including more diversity than the
Nonnegata example - Pilestredet’s unfenced walkways do not discriminate against
those not affording to live there, recognizing that non-residents can also contribute
to its spaces and community.

The social and environmental problems herein: Narrowing the space

and potential members for community drops the amount of use,
lessening chances for interaction and the formation of familiarity
needed for community and identity to develop. The divisions occurring
along property lines lessens the extent of diversity in community, as the
economic value/rent of apartments do not vary as much within a building
as between buildings. Smaller plots limit communities of nature as well,
in providing smaller, non-contiguous areas for plantings and natural
processes. The importance of place based, defined communities being
able to personally identify with the spaces they have access to, has
further implications in the social relationship to the natural environment,
as people who consider a space their own are more likely to care for it
(Raymond, 2010).
75
4.0 Case Analysis

4.1.2 Values Derived from Physical

What physical varies on the case sites provides initial insight into some values
maintained and implied: property owners value and exercise upkeep for the benefit
of residents, but conflicted in support of nature and democratic participation
is apparent through the range of the cases’ physical characteristics. Property
management which is led or heavily influenced by residents (Gråbein Gårdene,
Pilestredet Park) correlates with both increased amounts and quality of planted area,
along with budget priority set for the upkeep of vegetation (resident interviews). A
general fear of diversity - particularly economic - is manifested by property owners in
the physical segregation of spaces, particularly in areas of high diversity. Conflict is
further seen in shared spaces and community values - shared spaces are recognized
as a necessity in the city, but various physical limits set per property management
types define those allowed to share space - indirectly defining potential for identity
and community. The provision of community amenities is dwarfed in areas that
simultaneously physically discourage population, as reinforced in the usage data
described next.

4.2 Usage

This section discusses significant usage differences which were found across the
cases (from qualitative and quantitative comparisons detailed in the checklists).

4.2.1 Usage Variations Across Cases

Overall Amount of Users

Amount of users differed in correlation with a series of factors. Spaces least limiting
the user base (Pilestredet Park and Magnus’ Gate) open themselves for the most
potential users. The largest consistent user population observed was the case
enabling passing through (Pilestredet Park). Consistent with Tonkiss (2010), spaces
which provide comfortable settings around amenities (Pilestredet Park, Gråbein
Gårdene, Nonnegata) encourage users to spend more time in the spaces (researcher
observation and resident interviews). The spaces of Sigurds Gate which are least
comfortable (resident conversations, researcher experience), most segregated, and
with limited amenities attract the least users (user-counts in the appendix 9.7). These
aspects apply especially to staying users (important for consistent population), as all
of the spaces host additional utilitarian functions which do encourage intermittent,
solitary uses (including trash and recycling, building entrance, smoking, etc).
76
 4.0 Case Analysis

Social Gathering Usages

Social Gathering use was observed specifically in spaces which provided

comfortable, multiple amenities for groups and group interactions (Pilestredet Park
with barbecuing, picnic, and play areas; Gråbein Gårdene with picnic tables and
amphitheater seating/play area). Overall, the number of chance meetings between
neighbors observed was low in spaces with few stayers. From the pedestrian and
vehicle observations around Sigurds Gate (appendix 9.8), it was observed that more
chance meetings occurred on busy sidewalks rather than quiet side streets (even
than on gatetun which are intended for heightened community use according to
the Transportøkonomisk Institutt (2000)). While the busy streets are less conducive
for comfortable, long exchanges (Gehl 1996) it follows that residents feel more
comfortable stopping to converse with others in populated spaces (researcher
observation and experience, resident interviews).

Graffiti

Graffiti, understood as a use of public space, became of great interest to this

study in early walks through the Oslo neighborhood of Grunnerløkka - a recent
gentrification precedent to the situation in the Tøyen - Grønland area (Aspen, 2008).
Grunnerløkka’s courtyard blocks are characterized by largely walled-in yards with
large gates, around which graffiti falls in abundance. While much of the graffiti
consists of indecipherable tagging, the locations are intentionally and spitefully
targeted. The very physical barriers segregating the population have become a
place for outsiders to leave a mark - an identifying sign claiming places they cannot
inhabit. Tonkiss (2005:141) speaks of urban graffiti as being the “defense of a self-
identity that is tied into place,” and that it can be considered as a tactical claim on
space reiterating a concept that “there are no spaces in the city wholly given over to
pure function, no space so alienating that it cannot be inhabited, no places that are
strictly forbidden.” In this, graffiti can be seen as a sign of people - albeit illegally -
demonstrating the attempt of identifying with spaces that they do not belong to.

Occurrences of graffiti remaining were observed to be higher in areas less used and
in particular near gated and walled spaces. This could be accountable for several
factors including: 1) outsider residents making a statement against gates and walls

77
4.0 Case Analysis

which separate them; 2) less resources being put into cleaning graffiti from spaces
with less participatory management; 3) simply less people inhabiting the space to
discourage such acts. The cases here with higher levels of resident participation,
higher observed usage amounts, and environmental agendas (Pilestredet Park,
Gråbein Gårdene, Nonnegata) demonstrated cleaner areas - devoid of both trash
and graffiti.

4.2.2 Values Derived from Usage

The usage observations of this study provide a commentary on the physical and
sociological aspects of the spaces. While picnic table use in comfortable spaces
increased an observable sense of community and group presence in Pilestredet Park
and Gråbein Gårdene, the small seasonal table used predominantly by Mr. and Mrs.
Sørensen in the corner lot of Sigurds Gate demonstrated a sense of proprietarity
which implicitly discourages use by others. Likewise, when another resident of
Sigurds Gate 16 was asked what improvements they would make to the building,
the response was adding a private terrace to spend time outdoors, explaining that
the common yard did not feel like their own (Tøyen Resident #2, conversation).
Commentary from the survey respondents also delivered a series of responses
regarding use of personal terraces as being more often than that of communal yard
spaces. These comments and usage preferences show a lack of residents identifying
personally with shared spaces - particularly those which are small and designed in
less inviting manners. At Sigurds Gate, little connection was seen between space use
and recognition of the land and property as a part of user’s homes. The other cases
all represent an additional level of comfort in the design and provision of amenities
and simultaneously see more social usage of their spaces, showing that shared
spaces can be successful ones. The highest social usages also correlated with the
cases most focused on resident participation (Gråbein Gårdene, Pilestredet Park).

Interviews with residents of collective, shared yards also commonly mentioned

participation in v - where at least once a year residents help in the planting and
maintenance of a property and come together socially for a meal or other activities
(Eckhoff, Gitlestad interviews; survey response). The Sigurds Gate and Magnus’ Gate
cases are the only two of this study operating without dugnad - management of
these spaces deemed it unnecessary since maintenance is budgeted to a salaried
78
 4.0 Case Analysis

employee or firm (Larrson, resident interviews). Gitlestad (interview) speaking of her

apartment building and dugnad noted that she pays special attention to the flowers
she planted in an area of the yard throughout the year - weeding and removing trash
because she feels a connection as if they belong to her personally. Herein, the use
of space is strongly linked with the concept of identity with that space, and holds
further implications on the values of community, shared space, nature, upkeep and
participation.

4.3 Values

The supporting evidence for indicator values found to be held or not held across the
study area and through the cases is compiled in this section.

4.3.1 The Value of Community

“I wish there were more neighborhood-friendly use of the backyard where
I live (Tøyen) - more of the good, happy social events sponsored by
the neighbors of our condominium instead of all night parties with strangers.
This is my sense even though I’m only 30 years old.” - survey respondent #14
comment

The survey responses and resident conversations show in majority a frustration in not
having much community around their homes. The desire for a closer community and
modes of creating community were commented upon by residents of the study area,
despite an amount of fear of others also noted.

Oslo Kommune has many programs with the goal of creating community and
particularly community across societal sectors. Extensive planning operations for
green and meeting places demonstrate a social community agenda and even
amongst public and temporary housing, dugnad events are held through the Rusken
program (Mørk, interview).

More questionable is the value of community among the apartment owner - property
managers. While interviews with members of this category showed personal interest
in community, it becomes apparent that the business of property management
conflicts with this value. Proprietary measures specifically in the name of security
and efficiency of upkeep lead property management in cases such as Sigurds
79
4.0 Case Analysis

Gate to build walls and attempt to control and minimize the use of spaces - thereby
minimizing the potentials for community attached to those spaces. This burdens
place-based community here, particularly due to the minimal amount of public, open
land and local institutions in the study area.

4.3.2 The Value of Identity

“I inherited the apartment from my father and lived here for a little while to
renovate it. Now my husband and I are living in a bigger place on the west
side and renting out this one while we look for our dream house.” - Sigurds
Gate apartment owner

Similar factors which drive some property management discussed earlier in

minimizing community also minimizes resident identity with property. Feeling
uncomfortable or uninvited to use a space and particularly from having input in
decisions maintains a sense of detachment between many tenants and spaces.
Herein, those making decisions in property management may identify more closely
with a space since they are the ones taking care of it and benefiting financially.
Further, the attachment of long-term residents to place is stronger and becomes
more personal than for residents passing through. The concept of few residents
identifying with a space, as seen in Sigurds Gate, operates against community in
encouraging divisions and seclusions of spaces (Tonkiss, 2005, 15), as seen in
Sigurds Gate. On the other hand, more participatory management structures show
higher resident care and awareness of the issues of their property, linking democratic
cooperative organizations to high resident identity. Most of the elective public
survey respondents in this study shared personal stories regarding their cooperative
participation, demonstrating a link between seeking input and area identity.

The Kommune, often acting through the Bydel, attempts to create equal amounts
and qualities of public space throughout all of the residential neighborhoods. In
this, Oslo hopes that each resident can have a public space which they can identify
with personally. However, it is admitted that many areas - particularly the study area
and surroundings - are too densely built to offer as many public spaces as in other
residential neighborhoods (Arvesen, interview). Identity is a difficult value to enforce
at such a large scale, as a personal, everyday interaction with space is needed to feel
attached (Tonkiss, 2005).

80
 4.0 Case Analysis

4.3.3 The Value of Diversity

In such a diverse neighborhood as the study area, the need for including diversity
in communities is important to fight societal fragmentation. The separation of
spaces along property lines (as characteristic of the Sigurds Gate case) directly
limits diversity of economics; similar rents in each building lend each to house a
similar income demographic. Indirectly, this limits ethnic and age groups as well
due to differing economic pressures on immigrants and families. Ostkantavisa,
the local newspaper to the study area, published an article considering the Gamle
Oslo housing situation “hopeless” because of the problems that young adults and
particularly minorities face in finding housing, stating that landlords “choose rather
to seek tenants ‘they know’ and are comfortable with,” particularly those who are
already established (Rundmo, 2010).

Herein, landlords and property managers show an amount of fear of others and
diversity despite city efforts in promoting multiculturalism. In the context of equal
rights it remains that many residents of diverse ethnic backgrounds prefer to live
in diverse areas. Interviews with two Tøyen immigrant shopkeepers noted feeling
more comfortable living in a part of Norway that has many ethnic groups (Abdul,
Somalian shopkeeper interviews). The research survey and conversations with
native Norwegian residents of the area showed divisions, with comments both
supporting the positive vibrancy afforded by diversity and holding fears of trends
pointing towards self-segregation of various immigrant groups (multiple resident
conversations, Larsson, Sørensen interviews). Established area immigrants confirmed
that when moving to Tøyen, it is easier to join communities and meet people from
their homelands (groups which are often sponsored by Oslo Kommune for promoting
cultural diversity), but more integrated/integrating groups are more difficult to find
and join (Abdul, Somalian shopkeeper interviews).

4.3.4 The Value of Shared Space

“Other than the space in my [rented] apartment, I use the building’s laundry
room downstairs and the trash bins in the courtyard. I don’t use the yard
space otherwise - it’s not very cozy with the fences and barbed wire and I’m
not even sure whose table that is - or if it’s ok for anyone in the building to
use.” - Sigurds Gate resident, renter interview comment

81
4.0 Case Analysis

“I use my building’s backyard because I don’t have a private terrace.” - survey

respondent #4

“I have a big balcony so I just use that instead of the shared garden.” - survey
respondent #14

“It would give a pleasant impression and show greater confidence if the
courtyards were unlocked.” - survey respondent #13

Shared Space is another contested value in the study area - varying greatly by
social status and the condition of shared space provided. Shared yard spaces
compete directly with personal outdoor spaces when balconies and terraces are
provided; many local residents give preference to personal spaces. At the same time,
however, many residents also mention a desire to meet their neighbors and to have
more, accessible outdoor space near their homes. These latter comments provide
a potential basis for valuing shared spaces, but perhaps question the execution
of design, comfort, and amenities provided by current shared spaces. As cases
with the most comfortable and welcoming physical conditions saw the most use
(Gråbein Gårdene, Pilestredet Park), and resident support of shared spaces (through
budgeting, upkeep funding, and voluntary dugnad), the connection between valuing
shared space stands as a function of its physical condition and accessibility.

4.3.5 The Value of Nature

“Some people, especially the old tenants for some reason, don’t like having
trees in the yard.” - Tony Larsson

The inconsistent value of nature found in this study shows an amount of duplicity.
This research brought out the difference between valuing nature in itself and valuing
nature in relationship to one’s home or property. This is shown in the difference
of residents - including resident owners - admitting to enjoying nature, nearly
unanimously commenting on making use of city parks and the concerns shared by
property managers over the presumed upkeep intensity related to having vegetated
areas on one’s property. The property managers are not against nature in itself, but
against the additional upkeep associated with inviting it into personal urban property.
The institution of external maintenance of city parks removes the factor of upkeep,
rendering nature more commonly enjoyed and appreciated. Unfortunately, this
institution also separates users from the processes of nature and space, weakening
identity (Raymond, 2010).

82
 4.0 Case Analysis

This duality points to an amount of difficulty or presumed difficulty that small

property managers in urban areas find in the upkeep of land and the maintenance
of space quality. Whether considered as a drain on monetary resources or human
labor, it is understood that natural environments require extra day to day work
beyond the upkeep of an asphalt lot. The shift of values here was noted to create
barriers most in the cases which do not have democratic participation structures
and institution of dugnad. The counter-linkage here (Gråbein Gårdene, Nonnegata)
suggests that when a mass of residents is involved, the support of nature is greater
and prioritization more likely. Further, resident willingness to help with seasonal
maintenance might be the start of an avenue to overcome fears of resource drain/
insufficiency held by currently dissuaded management groups.

4.3.6 The Practice of Upkeep

Along the lines of the relationship between the practice of upkeep and the value
of nature, an interesting note resulted from the resident survey. Whether or not
respondents had dugnad in their home buildings, all respondents answered that they
would be willing to voluntarily assist in the upkeep of their communal yards. Quoting
one of the comments provided on the survey:

“I would be willing to voluntarily help with maintenance of my buildings’ yard if

it were organized as a social event.” - Survey respondent #14

Valuing the practice of upkeep was the only indicator which crosses all of the
stakeholder categories, implicating it as a strong starting point for bettering other
spatial practices. Building owners and managers recognize upkeep as a part of
protecting their investment and drawing residents who desire the appearance
of quality. Residents are often willing to pay extra - as owners or renters - to live
in neighborhoods which are well maintained. Upkeep is key as a part of people
identifying and holding a social status related to their home (Skotte 2004, 35), its
location and its physical appearance. Upkeep further falls into the overall city goals
typical to urban renewal - when areas are targeted for aesthetic upgrades in order
to prevent run-down buildings and spaces from breeding run-down social networks
and upsetting the overall environment of the city (Aspen 2008). Herein, upkeep is a
common ground across all stakeholder groups.

83
4.0 Case Analysis

4.3.7 The Practice of Participation

“I only participate minimally in the board - attending the yearly meeting. I’m
very busy and would rather let the others think about the property here.” -
Sigurds Gate resident, apartment owner interview

“Since we’re just using the apartment as a rental investment now, we try to
minimize how much time we put into the property. Utleier Megleren has been
great for managing the relationship with the current tenant if anything comes
up and the board members handle the building fine.” - Sigurds Gate apartment
owner interview

“I wish it was easier to contact the management here - I didn’t even know
who they were until there was a problem. There was a leak in my bathroom
after I’d been living here for many months and the only contact number I had
was for the realty company. They took a day to return my message and call
the apartment owner who then had to get in touch with the owner of the
neighboring apartment and the board leader - an upstairs neighbor who I was
finally introduced to then...” - Sigurds Gate resident, renter interview

The practice of participation was seen to vary, largely parallel to the value of identity
- those who identify most closely with the communal spaces are more motivated
to participate and better their surroundings. Such identification, as discussed
earlier, can be seen as stemming from the amount of personal use and investment
(either through personal connection or proprietary monetary interest). The greatest
breakdown in participation witnessed in this study is the influx and growth of a
renting population which has no traditional direct place in decision making structures.
As the renting population grows in the area, the amount of residents with democratic
input into property and spaces dwindles.

Collaborative, shared management across property lots was seen to correlate with
increased participation - likely due to the increased pool of resident participators and
the break between management and ownership. Spaces with amenities for many
different user groups, including play areas, barbecues, and quiet seating (Pilestredet
Park, Gråbein Gårdene) activate residents beyond life status - married, children,
elderly, etc - engaging more use, in turn engaging concern for participation (Gehl,
1996). Herein lies a correlation between physical setting, usage types and amount,
identity, and pressure to participate. Access to spaces must be physically, and
metaphysically in the access to oversight participation in the spaces - being a part of
the decision making processes that guides design and upkeep on a regular basis.

84
 4.0 Case Analysis

This point demonstrates the significance of how the cases determine who is allowed
into the space and who may participate managerially. Pilestredet Park can be seen
as a successful case in allowing the public to share spaces which are predominantly
managed and overseen by residents. In a different situation, Gråbein Gårdene is
successful by having enclosed a sizeable community where all users can participate.
Both of these also met the needs of population, creating safe spaces for community
formation, while the other cases fail to manage the same extent - largely in part
from anonymity and dis-population. Exercised, democratic participation can fight
such anonymity by making information regarding spaces known to users (i.e. as a
renter, can I use it also?) and including user input in the maintenance, aesthetic, and
amenity choices describing the property.

Figure 41: Divided values in action - Bydel Gamle Oslo has placed signage such as the one
pictured above in most of their small public parks and squares. The signage (depicts and) requests
that residents do not feed the pigeons, as the food will attract rodents. Despite the city goal of
sanitation, bird seed and bread crumbs were left around the signs in a few parks, demonstrating a
disagreement between values of city entities and local residents.
85
4.0 Case Analysis

4.3.8 The Tøyen-Nedre KampenVel, their story

“Vi sloss for miljøet på Tøyen!”

“We fight for the environment of Tøyen!” This slogan is contained in the header of a
blog held by the local community group for this study area (TNKVel, 2011). The once
active blog site today stands as an archive - not having been updated since August
of 2008. The below story is based on two conversational interviews conducted by the
researcher with a local activist and member of the Tøyen Kampen Vel-forening - one
of the only community groups operating in the study area.

Our group is meant to collect the participation of local residents and property owners
in the Tøyen-Kampen areas to be active about the neighborhood. We charge a small
fee to members which we use for the expenses of the group. In years past, we had
additional funding from Oslo Kommune as part of the Bydel’s program Miljøbyen
Gamle Oslo - back then it was more inspiring.

The Miljøbyen program gave us resources to keep an office, plus access to city planning
and engineering professionals. Then, the Kommune was investing in our neighborhood
and they encouraged our participation. Together we redesigned our streets and calmed
traffic through gatetun designations and way diversions. These improvements helped
the safety of the area and made it look better - Tøyen today is no longer the loud ,
unsafe, rushing traffic area that it was before the late 1990s.

During Miljøbyen, we managed a blog and the community was interested in participating
and following in what we were doing. It was great to see results from our efforts.
Unfortunately, the funding for the Miljøbyen ended in 2000 and we returned to being
a local community group without Kommune resources or input. Participation and
membership has been dwindling since. When we meet now, we realize that our group
is not representative of our neighborhood - neither in numbers nor demographic. It is
frustrating to us that we no longer have the power to reach out and encourage interest
from local residents in our collective neighborhood. We have tried especially to involve
the immigrant population to better learn about their needs and goals for Tøyen, but
after many invitation attempts, none of them have come to our meetings.

We feel like we’ve lost most of the power that we used to hold in urban development
issues in our neighborhood. We once were able to propose development alternatives
and fight new height zoning and make differences. Today we have places where
cars drive over curbs daily (curbs which were painstakingly designed and built during
the Miljøbyen project) and the Kommune will not respond to our requests for better
blocking this illegal and dangerously improvised shortcut.

86
 5.0 Findings

5.0 Findings
The findings of the research are here organized by research objective addressed.

5.1 Communal Spaces As Part of the City

The first objective of this study seeks to demonstrate the prevalence of private land
in the study area, show the amount of communal yards existing but not included
in space planning by the Kommune, and relate the yard spaces to the urban fabric
through the practical experience of passing through the neighborhood.

The findings are illustrated in a series of maps which illustrate a number of points:

Kommune “public spaces” hold less than 10% of the undeveloped land in this
study area (undeveloped here defined as not occupied by road, sidewalk, or
building)

Private communal yards occupy about 20% of the entire study area
(approximately 90% of the undeveloped land), representing over 100,000
sqm in urban area

Approximately 70% of the communal yards are locked, the majority of these
are also divided along property lines

Spaces contained by locked courtyards are practically unseen by street

occupants

Locked perimeter blocks limit pedestrian routes through the study area

Gatetun - designed to provide safer pedestrian routes and encourage social

mingling, in this area are observed as utilized less than major routes, hold car
and van traffic at higher speeds due to their breadth, host unkept amenities,
and suffer highly as graffiti targets due to the low population and lack of local
stewardship

Most yard entrances are located off gatetun and small streets

87
5.0 Findings

Building Owners RESIDENTS Bydel Kommune

Residential Public
COMMUNAL SPACE
Spaces Spaces

Figure 43: Input to spaces found in Oslo - general disconnect discovered from property owners
to residents.

Tøyen Park (City Park)

Botanic Garden Kommune: Agency for Streets
University of Oslo Outdoor Recreation and Kommune: Agency for
Nature Management Roads and Transport
Private (by ownership)

GIS Data (c) PBE, Oslo kommune 2010

Residential Yards Toyen Sentrum (Local Plaza)

Private (by ownership) Bydel Gamle Oslo
Sigurdsgate (Gatetun)
Trees

Public Housing (Yard) Kommune: Agency for

Benches/Amenities

Kommune: Agency for Roads and Transport

Real Estate and Urban Private (by neighbors)
Renewal Kommune: Agency for
Street

Outdoor Recreation and

Nature Management

Figure 42: Urban spaces in the study area per management entity, overview

88
 5.0 Findings

GIS Data (c) PBE, Oslo kommune 2010

N

Figure 44: Publicly accessible green parks in the study area: gray areas denote
residential private property. Note the largest green space is the botanic gardens, owned
by the University of Oslo.
89
5.0 Findings

GIS Data (c) PBE, Oslo kommune 2010

N

Figure 45: Population over potential green spaces - if residential yards were also greened.
Orange dots represent residential building entrances, sized graphically per number of occupants.
90
 5.0 Findings

GIS Data (c) PBE, Oslo kommune 2010

Breakdown of
residential property
N

area.

Figure 46: Distribution of residential yard accessibility: red denotes locked, yellow commercial,
green open yards.
91
5.0 Findings

GIS Data (c) PBE, Oslo kommune 2010

Figure 47: Figure-ground map of residential properties in study area.

Figure 48: Perception vs. reality of residential urban fabric in Tøyen

92
 5.0 Findings

To Subway
To Vahl Skole & Stores
& cafes ng
Parki
Parki
ng

PUB

To Buses

& parking

TELENOR
Parking

Parking

JOKER

To Mosque
To Grønland & Park
current potential potential yard
circulation circulation interactions
Figure 49: Open block potentials - pedestrian circulation and communal space

93
5.0 Findings

5.2 Synthesis of Stakeholder Values

Case data in full is here synthesized into a comparison of values by stakeholder

group. This chart provides a quick reference to seeing where value disparities - the
basis for the boundaries identified in the following section of this thesis - lay. Each
value has been described in detail across the cases in section 4.3 earlier.

indicator values

Shared Spaces

Participation
Community

Diversity

Upkeep
Identity

Nature
stakeholders

Kommune/Bydel + + + + + + +
Sustainable
Community + + + + + + +

Property Managers / -- / / -- + /
Resident Owners / + / -- / + /
Residents + + / / / + /
Resident Renters / / / / / + /
Key: + Value Demonstrated -- Value Not Demonstrated / Value Varies

Figure 50: Indicator values found per stakeholder group

94
 5.0 Findings

5.3 Boundaries Identified

The boundaries identified in this section are resultant socio-spatial aspects found as
limiting the potentials for social and environmental equities in the study area, if not
also directly reinforcing existing inequity. Boundaries here were discovered to have
a dualistic relationship in perpetuating inequity, as can be understood in relationship
to the indicator values. Each boundary is introduced in this section with the following
graphic explaining which un-unified values it is resulting from and which indicator
values it is simultaneously limiting:

Colored block = applicable

Un-colored block = not applicable

Resulting from variation in values: C I D S N U P

As a boundary it limits values: C I D S N U P
Community

Identity

Diversity

Shared Space

Nature

Upkeep

Participation
Figure 51: Explanation of values tab graphic for the following sub-sections.

5.3.1 Walls, Gates, Locks

Resulting from variation in values: C I D S N U P

As a boundary it limits values: C I D S N U P

Showcasing proprietary separateness and lack of communication/collaboration

among neighbors are the physical boundaries to communal spaces - walls, gates,
and locks within and surrounding spaces. In the most problematic of case types
studied, these occur prevalently along property lines and result in not only the division
of space, but also the limitation of social community and environmental continuity. It
is possible that such physical separations can successfully define a community and
promote space use and security, as seen in the Gråbein Gårdene case. However,
significant detriments to social and ecological equities result when the location and
administration of such boundaries works against supporting the values of diversity,
identity, and nature within shared spaces.
95
5.0 Findings

5.3.2 Uneven Distribution of Power in Space Management

Resulting from variation in values: C I D S N U P

As a boundary it limits values: C I D S N U P

Power relations are commonly a difficult obstacle in urban planning and findings
proved no difference here. In cases such as Sigurds Gate where few people are
making decisions for a property, yard space loses its communal sense due to power
differentials. Property owners may see a sense of efficiency in smaller decision
making boards, but releasing others from the responsibility dually lessens the amount
of attention given to communal spaces and the amount of critical evaluation over the
board’s decisions. The result of this is that less people have a say in, or are aware of,
the decisions of the management. Hereby, threat exists that the majority of residents
become less connected to the place they live, feeling less comfortable using
amenities, in turn lowering usage and identity factors.

In this matter, seeing the cooperative reference case with democratic resident
participation (Gråbein Gårdene) holding high usage rates speaks for the benefits of
power democracy. Yard spaces are reviewed by most residents, opinions of all are
taken into account and the result leads to a higher quality of space suited specifically
to the entire intended user group. The quality and functionality of communal space is
raised by shared values and mass appraisals through management delegating power
democratically.

5.3.3 Fear Amongst Residents

Resulting from variation in values: C I D S N U P

As a boundary it limits values: C I D S N U P

This study noted that many residents of the study area fear aspects of their
neighborhood - from being uncomfortable and threatened by discrimination to
presuming a high likelihood of crime targetting personal property.

96
 5.0 Findings

The formation and support of place based community across societal sectors would
begin to lessen fear by way of making the perception of “other” and issues of
diversity more familiar. Mutual identity with shared spaces would turn more attention
and care unto communal spaces near homes, reducing their capacity to host unseen
crimes and raising comfort levels.

5.3.4 Disassociation of Residents with Spaces

Resulting from variation in values: C I D S N U P

As a boundary it limits values: C I D S N U P

The Sigurds Gate Case showed varying levels of resident identity with the yard
spaces where only a few residents could identify or personally associate themselves
with the yards. Other residents, in particular the renting residents questioned, ignore
yard spaces and ongoings to great extent. Most residents of Sigurds Gate admit
to not knowing their neighbors or being able to recognize when an out of place
person is on the property. These aspects create a premise of not feeling safe in
the neighborhood or feeling comfortable even in near proximity to one’s home. A
sequence heightened with high resident turnover rates, typical during gentrification.

While each property may employ workers for upkeep and maintenance, there is little
incentive for people to care and clean after themselves, much less make or ask for
improvements. Long-term residents and resident owners are the few breaking this
pattern, seen as more likely to personalize space - however these groups contribute
secondarily to a cycle of making new and renting residents feel out of place,
indirectly dissuading them from sharing personalized, yet communal areas.

Renters might be generally more willing to accept lower standards of upkeep

with the future ideal of moving somewhere better, but they should be encouraged
to recognize themselves as a part of a community with rights, information, and
participation potential. If nothing more personal connects renters to property, it
should be remembered that their monthly rent contributes to the upkeep funding.
The personal property of each resident (renter or owner) is at risk together if theft
97
5.0 Findings

occurs, and such risks are better fought by united groups. All local residents being
aware of and caring about the spaces adjacent to their building, the people around,
and the day to day usage can strengthen the familiarity and bonds among locals and
between residents and property (Gehl, 1996).

5.4 Causal Relationships

Driving the boundaries explained in the section above, four significant phenomena
are identified by this study as causal factors in the demonstrated social and
environmental limitations of Tøyen’s communal spaces. These “causers” are: 1)
Division of a Resource, 2) Proprietary Decision Making, 3) Lack of Communication
Forums, and 4) Unclear Units of Community. These are explained in depth in this
section, and the overview of their relationships to boundaries and indicator values is
expressed in the following diagram.

Community

Division of a Resource Walls/Gates/Locks Identity

Diversity
Proprietary Decision Making Uneven Power Distribution
Shared Space
Lack of Communication Forums
Fear Amongst Residents Nature

Unclear Units of Community Upkeep

Disassociation of Residents
Participation

Figure 52: Graphic Illustration of causal relationships to boundaries and indicator values.

5.4.1 Division of a Resource

The division of a resource breeds many negative aspects both in the social and
environmental realms. The Sigurds Gate case demonstrates how the division of the
courtyard parcel breeds redundancy of paved walkways and amenities - reducing
the amount of land area which can be cultivated for vegetation, used to drain water
naturally and to host more comfortable (and sizeable) environments for collecting
people. Further, in the context of multiculturalism, scholars such as Knut Kjeldstadli
(2010, 8) and Barth link the division and inequality of resources to racism and social
98
 5.0 Findings

fragmentation through entitlement psychology:

“The underlining of even minute differences, serves to draw a demarcation

line between ‘them’ and ‘us’.. Drawing a border line is done somehow to
further interests, for instance in situations when resources are scarce or seen
as scarce. When there is competition, there is a need to find criteria that may
be used to decide who are to win, who are the worthy winners, so to speak, or
more radically who are entitled to enter the game at all.”

Kjeldstadli’s article is focused on discrimination of Swedes by Norwegians through

the early 1900s, demonstrating ample grounds for discrimination to occur over
resource inequity amidst more pronounced ethnic differences, such as seen in the
current resident group of Tøyen. Gating an area reinforces differences between
those people allowed in and not, parceling off of lands creates differences in the
amount of open space that could theoretically be shared by every resident. Space
as a resource of some more than of others thereby creates a ground upon which
local discrimination can occur. The divisions and perceived levels of access to urban
spaces are thus an important factor in social equity and the city goal of more equal
access of all urban residents to natural spaces and environmental processes.

5.4.2 Proprietary Decision Making

Beyond the division of land parcels, the practice of leaving management and decision
making over communal spaces to property owners leads to social and environmental
equity boundaries. As demonstrated in the Sigurds Gate case, many residents
deviate away from participation and thereby lose their personal senses of identity
with property when decisions are made by a few. This practice encourages disparate
value sets as residents cannot share their values and views, often remaining un- or
little- informed of the goals and issues faced by property managers. The practice of
managing space according to property ownership further reinforces the practice of
dividing spaces along property lines for seeking efficiency in aspects such as upkeep
and distribution of responsibility.

While dividing responsibilities can aid private property management, it simultaneously

evokes serious inefficiency at the community and city levels. Separations per
management groupings break down the capacity to share resources over proximity,
99
5.0 Findings

so infrastructure such as trash/recycling collection, postal delivery, and general

utility maintenance must be coordinated in many lots, across many locked gates.
This extra amount of coordination and multiple boundaries increases the amount
of man-hours that Kommune agencies such as the Revisjonsetate must invest to
keep citywide processes running. Further the lack of a collective board of residents
(across proprietorships) at the neighborhood or city block level in cases like Sigurds
Gate makes it nearly impossible to establish direct lines of communication between
the Kommune (or the Bydel) and property owners (Riis, interview) to keep the city
informed of local issues.

5.4.3 Lack of Communication Forums

This study finds there to be a lack of communication forums between various
stakeholder groups. Most notably is the limitation of Kommune jurisdiction over
residential properties. As most residential land is considered private property, very
few of the Kommune planning measures apply to it after development (Arvensen,
interview). The Kommune domain lies in new and public properties, with the oversight
of those also demonstrably fragmented into management categories (as shown in
Figure 40). Hereby existing properties and their upgrades have few regulations or
incentives to adopt recent Kommune sustainability goals; in many cases properties
have no formal mode for being alerted to Kommune goals beyond regulatory
laws (Larrson, interview). After understanding the significant amount of space
held as private yards in Tøyen, it follows that this land could be a great resource
for Kommune planning. The current disconnect breeds divided values and goals
beginning with a need for information distribution and exchange.

More locally, the Sigurds Gate case demonstrates the lack of a democratic
communication forum between residents and those making decisions regarding
one property. This form of Borrettslag ownership with decisions by committee
and its democratic effectiveness should be reviewed in light of the new trends
towards rental apartments and immigration which have both come to the area in
the last 10 to 30 years. The division and lack of information between those making
property decisions and those inhabiting property threatens to widen, again breeding
disconnected and opposing values for the properties, their communal spaces, and
the types of communal life bred by those spaces for Tøyen as a whole.
100
 5.0 Findings

5.4.4 Unclear Units of Community

Taking a cue from Copenhagen and their urban renewal measures in communal
space development over the last twenty years, what comparably appears as
an underlying problem for the study area are unclearly and ill-defined units of
community. The Copenhagen cases will be discussed in further detail in section 6.0
of this thesis, but the success of their yards is forming the capacity for place identity
- units of user communities subtly suggested in loosely bounded, sizeable communal
spaces. This success is predominantly achieved through gradations of public to
private spaces and the seldom use of locked gates suggesting the end of one
communal realm and the start of the next communal, private, or public one.

The study area, with fragmented lots (as seen in Sigurds Gate), has divided land
parcels to a point of discomfort in use - resulting in the perception that few people
are invited, and space use in restricted. More balanced units of community are
seen in the Gråbein Gårdene and Nonnegata cases, where the perimeter of a
greater block is enclosed to define larger user groups who then have more space
in common. The challenge to enclosed yard types is capturing enough users to
populate the area and to allow for diversity within the user community. The cases
of Magnus’ Gate and Pilestredet Park allow more ambiguity and openness in the
definition of spaces which invites in a greater user group allowing for diversity, and
then narrowing access to more intimate areas where local community begins to
define itself. The equity potentials greaten along with the larger extents of area
unhindered for communities (human and natural). Continuous plots of land aid
natural ecological communities in the city as much as social ones in providing more
space for various species, their growth, and health.

As Sigurds Gate represents the most common yard type in the study area, similar city
blocks could take cues from the reference cases of this study to recognize the social
and environmental impacts that each partition in space creates. Beyond the physical,
understanding the psychological impacts of walls and limits on community would
show that segregated areas are contributing to communal ignorance, along with
fears of crime and insecurity - perhaps even more so than the walls are effectively
deterring actual crime. Opening space to a diverse and numerous, but clearly defined
community would help to dissuade current equity boundaries.
101
5.0 Findings

5.5 Targets for change

Understanding the above causal phenomena as targets provides a basis from which
change towards socially and environmentally equitable communal spaces could
begin. By targeting the aspects which cause boundaries, limitations, and value
differentials between stakeholders, the planning, use, and management of space can
be guided by unified and equitable values. In this mode, the Kommune and residents
together can develop a basis for sustainable cohabitation in and within the social
and environmental realms, despite great economic inequities lying largely beyond the
scope of planning.

As outlined in the findings of this thesis, the roles played by the Kommune,
Property Owners/Management, and the Residents are all important to improving
the communal spaces and resultant affects on residential life standards. From
finding forums for communication between the stakeholder groups to increasing
the democracy in spatial management and clarifying community-appropriate units,
these targets focus on unifying values towards social and environmental equity and
then enabling stakeholders to make decisions together. Section 6.0 of this research
will examine motivations and precedents from other cities whereby public-private
partnerships, resident stewardship, and cross-stakeholder collaborations address the
issues of inequitable communal spaces.

5.6 Applicability Beyond the Study Area

It is important to note that while this study was performed in and around one
neighborhood of Oslo, the courtyard typology and variance within its social and
environmental states, usages and values persists across the city. Further, as will be
discussed as precedent in Section 6.1, beyond Oslo many other western cities host
similar issues of communal space amidst change and diversity so might benefit
equally from reconsidering divided urban spaces as potential city-wide resources
despite current ownership structures and boundaries.

102
 6.0 Possibilities and Limitations

6.0 Possibilities and Limitations

While the goal of this thesis is to identify targets for change, this section will further
build upon the problems found in the study area and demonstrate potentials and
motivations for better communal spaces. Precedents for finding space in urban areas
and administering change towards equity will be discussed in brief, followed by some
concluding notes to the research - suggesting priorities for communal space action
in Oslo and acknowledging reflections from this research.

6.1 Precedents for Positive Change

This section looks at public and communal space challenges and programs
beyond the Oslo context and strengths found in past local projects which could be
considered and built upon for future proposals.

6.1.1 Privately Owned Public Spaces - New York

Figure 53: Lever House precedent and 30 Lincoln Plaza privately owned public space.

In the midst of high urban density, the city of New York has learned the necessity of
creativity in encouraging space for collective public and communal use. “Incentive
zoning” was the city’s answer to fears of overcrowding and spatial privatization in the
1960s, and today it continues as a citywide mode of rewarding and compensating
land owners who agree to share portions of their land with the rest of the city’s
inhabitants (NYC 2011).
103
6.0 Possibilities and Limitations

This program works during the course of new development, by allowing owners to
increase building area or height beyond zoning regulations in exchange for providing
an amount of public space on the property. Success has been found in the shear
amount of public space derived from the program - totaling more than 3.5 million
square feet for the city in addition to the city’s public parks and plazas (NYC 2011).

Criticism over time has worked to clarify and specify regulations for the quality and
upkeep of these spaces. As the city understands the spaces provided through this
program as a part of their greater system of public space, they continually promote
a usability factor - seeking that each space is an equally valuable resource to the
public (NYC 2011). An extra resultant benefit to the city of this program is the
delegation of spatial upkeep to the private sector. As the private-property owners
remain responsible for the sites, the city’s strained public sector work force is
relieved of maintaining these properties. The spaces themselves then benefit from
immediate, non-bureaucratic oversight. Property owners in turn enjoy tax deductions
for the public service provided in the holding and upkeep of public spaces. With the
proper regulation and incentive balances, the privately owned public spaces increase
their communal value to city residents, particularly in areas which would otherwise
lack for open space.

6.1.2 Defining Units for Community - Copenhagen

During the first half of this research, a number of planning contacts and reviewers
advised me to look at courtyard upgrades in Copenhagen, Denmark. Visiting
Copenhagen after completing the Oslo fieldwork to survey the products planning
efforts brought to light the concept of ‘defining units for community’ - clarifying
a great deal of my perspective as a researcher towards my study area cases and
findings. Bridging the problematic poles in urban space of anonymity and lack of
population, Copenhagen has determined a number of yard sizing and transitional
design moves which aid in the definition of community zones.

Copenhagen Kommune has been supporting in-block demolitions in order to open

up courtyards in several dense residential neighborhoods. These efforts have made
great changes in particular, to the districts of Nørrebro and Vesterbro. Nørrebro is
104
 6.0 Possibilities and Limitations

Figure 54: Transitions in Vesterbro yard spaces

characterized by a diverse immigrant population and holds a tough reputation, similar

to Tøyen in the Oslo context. Disparate real estate, growing rental population and
aging courtyard buildings rendered Nørrebro’s conditions unsanitary in the 1970s,
spurring urban renewal efforts (Københavns Kommune, 2003). Here the kommune
performed a mass clearing of small inner-block buildings, opening yards to the
extent they stand today. The emptied spaces within blocks now host children’s play
areas, gardens, and pedestrian and biking paths away from loud perimeter streets,
in addition to providing services such as garbage and bicycle storage. Copenhagen
Kommune writes of the project having transformed the entire district - adding light
and air to the urban fabric, completely changing the neighborhood for the better
(København Kommune, 2003:4). When speaking to a local resident of a renovated
block, she said that the space was good for meeting neighbors because a lot of local
people pass through; she commented further on feeling safe in the yard, letting her
child play because it is near home and surrounded by a close community.

Figure 55: Nørrebro, Copenhagen urban renewal block clearing figure ground maps -
Image Source: (Københavns Kommune, 2003:4)
105
6.0 Possibilities and Limitations

Figure 56: Communal Yards in Nørrebro, Copenhagen

The history of the Vesterbro neighborhood is similar to that of Nørrebro or Tøyen,

but today in post- urban renewal efforts, limited gentrification has changed the
demographic. Fewer immigrants and more young families inhabit this district, yet
unlike the gentrified Grunnerløkka case in Oslo, many of the yard spaces cleared
during renewal renovations stand open and welcoming to all.

Parcels - whether locked or not - in Vesterbro are typically no smaller than one full
block, and sometimes even stretch across blocks, claiming alleys as pedestrian
ways. Where necessary, communal houses or small spaces for each building are
arranged against walls or behind lockable fences to accommodate bicycle, toy, and
baby carriage storage for residents. Through communal sharing, the majority of the
space within blocks is clear and open for community, while the utilitarian needs of
each building are met in secure, but unimposing manners. The resultant courtyards
are more efficient than similar lots in Oslo, with great open spaces that can be
programmed to host amenities per the will of the residents, drawing local people
together.
106
 6.0 Possibilities and Limitations

Vesterbro residents are very active in shaping their community - each block deciding
whether and where to lock yard properties and how to take advantage of the shared
spaces. Many are using the land to introduce community resources and energy
saving technologies. An “urban ecological renewal” project at Hedebygade Block
is an example of this recent community and city driven trend, renovating existing
housing blocks for sustainability. Beyond upgrading apartments for better energy
performance, the communal space mid-block was designed to hold solar panels
and naturally handle rainwater beyond providing space for social interaction (Nicis,
2006). Herein the environment-driven goals of the city were mitigated by the needs
of the residents to ensure against rising rents and resident turnover (Nicis, 2006).
Such projects demonstrate the potential of urban block upgrades and urban renewal
working for current neighbors and promoting their longevity.

6.1.3 Miljøbyen Gamle Oslo - Oslo

The Norwegian Ministry of the Environment sponsored a Bydel-run program called

Miljøbyen Gamle Oslo which ran from 1993 to 2000 with the goal of environmental
upgradation and the general betterment of living conditions (Miljøbyen, 2000). As
the study area for this project is contained within Gamle Oslo, several local residents
interviewed had taken part in the program and spoke highly of the organization,
intent and realized projects of the period. Most successfully, funding from this project
was dispersed in a manner that allowed local residents and property owners to
work with planning, engineering, and design professionals to directly better their
neighborhoods. In the study area, several traffic calming measures and gatetun
were designed and built with a great amount of resident participation (“Tøyenlenka”:
Miljøbyen, 2000).

The Miljøbyen project can be seen a recent urban renewal wave for Gamle
Oslo, holding social and environmental goals highly. The main report published
(Hovedrapport) outlines the goals to better the overall area, providing more housing
to accommodate families, introducing more green areas, and boosting social, health,
education, and work programs for residents (Miljøbyen, 2000). The project prioritized
residential neighborhoods and focused greatly on using and encouraging local

107
6.0 Possibilities and Limitations

participation. Herein, the local community group (Tøyen Nedre Kampen Vel) gained a
great amount of strength, working together with school parent organizations and city
nature groups to direct project prioritization, progress, and details (Miljøbyen, 2000).

While Miljøbyen implementations beautified the area and worked in the short term
to better traffic conditions, many of the upgrades stand today misused and under
maintained. Benches were found to be broken, graffiti covers street elements, and
cars often speed through the lesser trafficked, reasonably wide streets. Confusion
seems to stand over who is responsible for the designed streets - the Bydel clarifies
that the street and street trees are maintained by Kommune departments, but other
amenities should be the responsibility of adjacent property owners (Riis, Gitlestad,
interviews). Speaking to adjacent property owners, most consider the Kommune
responsible.

Figure 57: Miljøbyen beautified Gatetun, and bench in disrepair on gatetun (Sigurds Gate).

An amount of support, colored by slight resentment was voiced by some participants

of Miljøbyen Gamle Oslo - seeing that the limited term of the program unfortunately
limited the strength of local input after the project end. Larsson in particular voiced
that the work that went on during that project was something the area needed,
thinking the project ended far before the needs were met (interview). Subsequent
yearly reports published by a program run across different Oslo bydel about inner
east neighborhoods question whether living standards actually improved, or if the
small demographic improvements noted are just a by-product of gentrification and a
wealthier incoming population (HOIØ, 2005).
108
 6.0 Possibilities and Limitations

Understanding that local and state funding comes with limits, the methods and
processes developed during the Miljøbyen project can still be seen as positive
precedents for local activism. With an ongoing, consistent form of funding, local
blocks or groups of blocks could come together collectively to identify local problems
and propose solutions - particularly if professional input and Kommune resources
could aid solutions. This pattern could serve as a strategy to inform applicable
Kommune departments of local needs in an organized, informed, continuous, and
directly efficient manner. Such a process, if established for the long-term could
reconnect local residents to city processes and local improvements - giving residents
a meaningful stake in being active over their surroundings while ensuring that
Kommune projects are directed towards substantial, local needs.

6.2 Priorities for Future Proposals

The issues found in this research describe an equity-limiting cycle which could be
interrupted at various urban levels to better promote sustainable communal spaces
and derive sustainable communal existences. The precedents described in the
previous section show several schemes where property residents and owners are
supported by city and state governments to act in ways that directly benefit local
situations. In order to accomplish such programs successfully, each stakeholder
must see their incentives to prioritizing the concept of local sustainability through
communal spaces.

6.2.1 Kommune and Bydel Incentives

From the Kommune and Bydel perspective, sustainable communal spaces can be a
potential resource for overall city improvement. Keeping the goals of urban renewal
for sanitary and aesthetic improvements, but following Copenhagen’s example in
supporting resident longevity over gentrification and displacement could better the
living standards for Oslo’s most dense residential areas. Environmental improvements
in clearing courtyards could provide more light and air to dwellings, increase urban
vegetation, and give space for communal resources. Dually, the increased sharing of
yards would reduce inefficiencies in kommune-run utility and maintenance services.
Garbage and recycling collection, for instance, would require fewer overall man-hours
109
6.0 Possibilities and Limitations

if pick up sites were more centralized and/or had less access obstacles (walls, locks,
gates) between them. Recycling could be more broadly encouraged if each block had
immediate access to all recycling bins (including glass, metals, and plastics whereas
currently most Tøyen buildings have only paper recycling locally).

Kommune support in creating local, attentive and watchful communities in the

study area could also deter and lessen crime levels - which would be a significant
precedent as Bydel Gamle Oslo currently holds the highest crime rates in the city
(Mørk, interview). Encouraging more accessible, populated communal spaces would
make Tøyen seem more welcoming - an aspect which would play an important
role in reducing resident fear. The perceived, assumed danger in the area trumps
actual crime rates, largely exaggerated by distrusting, walled-in residents. Local
pedestrian traffic in proximity to diverse living environments would create an avenue
to increase mutual understanding across cultures. In these ways, the appearance
of more accessible, occupied spaces could better the reputation, living, and visiting
environment of Tøyen as a whole.

6.2.2 Property Owner Incentives

While ideally the Kommune and Bydel would provide an amount of support and
encouragement for communal yard upgradations, there are standing incentives to
property owners for taking initiative as well. Many resident blocks in Copenhagen
have been self motivated to find routes towards energy savings through collective,
mutually benefiting, and cost-offsetting projects (Nicis, 2006). Combined, open
yard spaces allow for more sunlight entering both apartments and outside spaces
- the former reducing heating needs and the latter increasing planting potentials.
Residential blocks as a whole can collect and filter reasonable amounts of rainwater
and consider installing reuse systems for property needs.

Increasing the user pool of yard spaces increases the resources for maintenance
available - both in compounding upkeep rents and in having a sizeable resident
group to participate in regular maintenance efforts. With additional funding and
support, increasing the aesthetics and comfort of the yard spaces would be a direct
amenity for current residents plus an added, attracting feature for prospective
tenants. Sharing responsibility over yards would establish managerial networks
110
 6.0 Possibilities and Limitations

between buildings and improve each management group’s resource base. Security
measures could be reviewed collectively - with inherent increased security as more
tenants become actively aware of (and personally identifying with) yard spaces.

Figure 58: Local scale, resident neighborhood beautification in Nørrebro, Copenhagen

6.2.3 Resident Incentives

The great incentive for residents in communal yard upgradations is that of acquiring
space in proximity to their home that they can be a part of both shaping and using.
With democratic participation, residents can learn how to make a difference in their
neighborhood and feel included in a place based community in a meaningful way.
Fears of others and of diversity would begin to dissipate with residents having shared
space in which to interact and learn about each other. With the introduction of more
natural ecological systems close to homes, residents would be encouraged to learn
about the cycles of nature and partake in upkeep - realizing the role of humans in
the ecology of the city. Additional programming, as supported by communal units,
could include activities such as gardening and small scale food production which
would directly benefit resident efforts in space. Other programs could be chosen as
suit specific local resident groups; combining for instance amenities for play with
111
6.0 Possibilities and Limitations

barbecuing, peaceful resting, and physical exercise could ensure that residents from
different age groups all enjoy spaces simultaneously - bridging diversity in age or
hobby types.

6.3 Reflections on the Research

The Copenhagen and New York cases described previously make clear that no
singular, overarching solution can be applied to every block, or every neighborhood,
or every space. However, they do demonstrate the potential for loose frameworks
to support democratic, resident-driven change from the level of properties. The
intent of this thesis has been to point out current limitations to equity - despite city
sustainability goals - and show potential room for significant improvement in the
Tøyen - Grønland neighborhoods studied.

The value-laden nature of this project opened many avenues for subjectivity. As a
researcher and resident, I am guided by personal choices and preferences that my
neighbors may or may not share - and great effort has been made to include and
consider counter thoughts voiced during the fieldwork. Personal experiences living
in the study area allowed me to weigh resident concerns of security against the
realities (and theories) on what affects safety in urban space. I grew accustomed to
the corner plaza where local (harmless) alcoholics sit daily. I was less surprised than
some neighbors when the courtyard entrance to my building entertained a break-
in, where two levels of “security” were surpassed before a lock was damaged (and
curiously enough no property was taken).

The term of the research, my personal role, and the few resources allowed to
me in this thesis provided a perspective and a set of limitations to the project. I
arrived in Oslo only a month before the study began, carrying with me a western
but non-Norwegian background. As a female, I found myself acutely aware of my
surroundings in terms of feeling safe, though as an ex-resident of New York City my
threshold of comfort is likely different from a native Norwegian. Furthermore, having
located myself and my project in a neighborhood characterized by immigration I
dually found an amount of compassion with my fellow new-to-Norway-neighbors
and a difficulty in truly integrating myself. Being an American, I fit in neither with
112
 6.0 Possibilities and Limitations

the native Norwegians or the non-western immigrant population. While I learned a

great deal about the Muslim religion and its impact on how people use urban space,
the scope of this thesis could not specifically encompass culture-laden design
approaches (though my hope is that this work helps to open the door for such further
studies).

The fieldwork in full became not only a research exercise here, but also a personal
learning experience for me as a researcher. Coming to terms with my language
abilities developing simultaneously to my understanding of the site and residents
was both a challenge and a benefit. The communication troubles I encountered
at the beginning of the fieldwork made me particularly aware and thorough with
observations early in the project, and additional resident input became easier to gain
later, after establishing a better perspective on who and what questions I needed to
ask. This sequence reduced digressions and allowed the research to progress in a
structured manner, questioning observations after understanding their effects.

My overall perspective of sustainability planning also matured during this project.

The realization of limitations that city entities hold - inherent to governmental
structures and bureaucracies - came with reinforced motivation to target local
organizations. Finding that local organizations here were few and feeling powerless
in many situations drove the research to question what the residents can do. The
issue of participation found locally gave the study a theme of assessing governing
structures and the need to change or bridge those structures which are currently
in place. Sustainability as a goal will require far more than planning documents and
regulations to truly infiltrate urban processes, and reach local levels.

113
7.0 Conclusion

7.0 Conclusion

When holding a goal of urban sustainability, it is important that values are taken into
consideration at the same time (or even before) technologies and implementation
programs are determined. Without aligned values, various stakeholders will work
towards various goals - in some cases against sustainability goals. As stated in the
UN Habitat State of World Cities reports again and again, urban areas and planners
must be aware of income and economic inequalities along with the social and
environmental threats resulting from these. Value disparities in such a context hinder
social and environmental equity potentials in cyclical manners through institutions
and perceptions surrounding communal spaces.

7.1 What Can Be Changed?

This thesis is optimistic that while planners cannot directly change economic
inequity, a focus on encouraging social and environmental equity can breed arenas
for sustainability across diversity. Understanding space as a city-wide resource -
across historically understood borders of ownership - can form a basis for increasing
resident participation and identity with neighborhoods, in turn aiding in the formation
of community and high quality maintenance in upkeep - linking people together

Desired Ranges for Equitable Communal Spaces

Limited function Proprietaryy exclusion
•
Small

Balconies
Environmental (parcel size)

Space for Social +

Yards/Roofs
Y •
Environmental Equity • Courtyards
• Traffic Islands
• Pedestrian
‘Gatetun’
Streets •Vacant
Lots
•Neighborhood Parks
•City Parks
Large

Anonymity De-population
Open Closed
Social (access)
Figure 59: Summary chart - desired ranges for equitable communal spaces
114
 7.0 Conclusion

(across societal sectors) and to nature through shared spaces. Balancing individual
interests over community-suited sizing and non-imposing borders can provide a lens
through which residential yards can be reframed for social and environmental equity.

7.2 Future Study Potentials

The study area is rich in examples of contemporary urban issues and this thesis
opens the door for many further studies. The manner of studying space itself from
specific, local, and cultural perspectives could be a complimentary project to provide
specifics regarding design, program, and amenity proposals for local yards. Further
study of Kommune interest might include the use and safety of local gatetun,
making proposals for additional measures to calm traffic and encourage safe,
consistent community use of street spaces. Large streets also could be rethought as
public, social amenities as to accomodate and build uponthe noted high usage and
numerous chance meetings.

7.2 In Sum

This thesis has striven to identify and illustrate the connections between various
aspects of space and urban dwelling. The perspective re-emphasizes the benefits of
taking an urban ecological perspective and understanding human and natural cycles
as intertwined when seeking urban sustainability. The local focus of the research
brings to light inconsistencies in equity working against citywide goals. Through
understanding small and large scale linkages, planners can work from the regional
and city scale down to the local and from the local level of a property plot back up to
the city. The important factor herein is to note that the goals and motivations at any
one scale must be reinforced by those in levels above and below. The case study
of this research demonstrates clearly how small scale cycle interruptions - common
practice of the majority departing from larger sustainability plannings - have created
patterns of inequity - bounding and limiting the potentials of sustainable urban
existences in Tøyen. This thesis points to a resource currently divided but full of
potential to begin local improvements, striving for social and environmenal equity by
breaking down the boundaries limiting communal space.

115
8.0 References

8.0 References
180.no (2010) “Kongstun II Sameiet” [Online] Available at: http://vv/
firmavis/46602654109081.htm [Accessed 23 November 2010]

Abdul (2011). Interview - Manager of Mix Store at Tøyen Sentrum, resident of Tøyen.

Al-Bishawi, Manal (2008). Women’s Behavior in Public Space and the Influence of Privacy
as a Cultural Value: The Case of Nablus, Palestine. PhD Thesis 2008:8. Norwegian
University of Life Sciences: Department of Landscape Architecture and Spatial
Planning.

Arvesen, Elisabeth (2010). Interview - Civil Engineer with Oslo Kommune Plan- og
Bygningsetaten.

Aspen, Jonny (2008), “Gentrification and Immigration in Oslo.” ESRC Seminar Series,
Gentrification and Social Mixing, Seminar 1 22nd-23rd May 2008.

Bjønness, Hans C. (2011). “Building Memory of Heritage in Multicultural Societies.” published

in: The Image of Heritage: Changing Perception, Permanent Responsibilities,
Proceedings of the International Conference of ICOMOS, 6-8 March 2009.

Bjørg, Stein J. “Morallkontrol i Oslos Invandrergater.” Aftenposten: 09 January 2010. [Online]

Available: http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article3456633.ece [Accessed
13 May 2011].

Brekke, Ingrid (2010). “Rotløs hage midt i storbyen.» Aftenposten: 4 September 2010, pg
13.

Bydel (2010). “Information om bydelsutvalget i Gamle Oslo” [Online] Available: http://www.

bydel-gamle-oslo.oslo.kommune.no/politikk/informasjon_/ [Accessed 23 November
2010].

City of Oslo (2010). “Oslo as an Intercultural City: Joint action of the Council of Europe
and the European Commission.” [Online] Available: http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/
cultureheritage/culture/Cities/osloprojects.pdf [Accessed 18 April, 2010].

Eckhoff, Ingrid (2010). Interview - Resident of Gamle Oslo.

EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Heat Island Effect” [Online] Available: http://
www.epa.gov/heatisld/ [Accessed 09 February 2011].

Fokus Bank (2011). “Ulike Eierformer for bolig.” [Online] Available: http://www.fokus.no/nb-
no/Privat/Bolig/kjoepe-bolig/Raadgivning/Eierformer/Pages/Ulike-eierformer-for-
bolig.aspx [Accessed 02 March 2011].

Flyvbjerg, Bent (2001). Making Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How it Can
Succeed Again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gehl, Jan (1996). Life Between Buildings – Using Public Space. 3rd ed. New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold.

Gitlestad (2010). Interview - Bydel Gamle Oslo employee and resident.

116
 8.0 References

Good, Kristen R. (2009). Municipalities and Multiculturalism - The Politics of Immigration in

Toronto and Vancouver. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Hansen, Ole Billing (2010). Grønnflatefaktor – et aktuelt planleggingsverktøy. Park &

Anlegg. 02-2010, pg 28-32.

Haslum, Hilde (2008). Reading Socio-Spatial Interplay. PhD Thesis: Oslo School of
Architecture and Design: Oslo.

Hettne, Bjørn (1995). Development Theory and the Three Worlds. Essex: Longman
Scientific & Technical.

HOIØ - Handlingsprogram for Oslo Indre Øst (2005). Prosjektkatalog med årsrapport for
2005.

Kjeldstadli, Knut (2010). «Rethinking Multiculturalism.» Ragtime. Vol. 12, Nr. 3: 7-10.

Kristensen, Jens (2010). Interview - GIS Specialist with Oslo Kommune Plan- og
Bygningsetaten.

Kvale, Steinar (1996) Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, Sage

Publication:California.

Københavns Kommune (2003). “Byskabs Atlas.” Bygge- og Teknikforvaltningen.

Larsson, Tony (2010). Interview. Building Owners Board Representative, Sigurds Gate 16.

Mahadevia, Darshini (2002). Chapter 8: Sustainable Urban Development in India: An

Inclusive Perspective. In Westendorff, D. and Eade, D. eds, Development and Cities.
Oxford: Oxfam GB, 2002, pg. 136-159.

Merriam-Webster (2011). Dictionary: Gentrification. [Online] Available at: http://www.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gentrification [Accessed 23 March 2011].

Miljøbyen Gamle Oslo (2000). Hovedrapport: Miljøbyen Gamle Oslo.

Mørk, Olga (2010). Interview. Bydel Gamle Oslo SaLTo Representative.

Nicis Institute (2006). “Urban Ecological Renewal of the Hedebygade Block.” [Online]
Available at: http://www.nicis.nl/content.jsp?objectid=161440 [Accessed 06 April
2011].

NYC Department of City Planning (2011). “Privately Owned Public Space.” [Online] Available
at: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/priv/priv.shtml [Accessed 23 February 2011].

Oslo Kommune (2009). “Kommunedelplan for torg og møteplasser Verktøykasse.” Plan og

Bygningsetaten.

Raymond, Chistopher et al. (2010). “The Measurement of Place Attachment: Personal,

Community, and Environmental Connections.” Journal of Environmental Pyschology.
30 (2010) 422-434.

117
8.0 References

Riis, Annie (2010). Interview - Landscape Architect with Bydel Gamle Oslo Hearing
Authority.

Robbins, Edward (2005). “Nabolag Uten Naboskap.” published in: By og byliv i endring:
studier av byrom og handlingsrom i Oslo. (Aspen, Jonny) Oslo: Scandinavian
Academic Press.

Rundmo, Line (2010). “Håpløs boligsituasjon!” Ostkantavisa: 26 August 2010, pg 24.

Sack, Robert (1992). Place, Modernity, and the Consumer World. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.

Skotte, Hans (2004). Tents in Concrete. Dr. Ing Thesis, May 2004. Trondheim, NTNU:
Department of Urban Design and Planning.

Statsbygg (2010). “Pilestredet Park - en grønn oase i Oslo sentrum.” [Online] Available
at: http://www.statsbygg.no/Utviklingsprosjekter/PilestredetPark/ [Accessed 25
November 2010].

TNKVel (2011). “Tøyen Nedre-Kampen Vel.” [Online] Available at: http://tnkvel.blogspot.com/

[Accessed 28 March 2011].

Tonkiss, Fran (2005). Space, the City and Social Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Transportøkonomisk Institutt (2000). “3.4 Gatetun.” [Online] Available: http://tsh.toi.no/index.

html?22065#top [Accessed: 26 November 2010].

Trash Collector (2010). Interview - Employee of Oslo Kommune Revisjonsetaten.

Tøyenhagen Borettslag (2010).”Toyenhagens historikk.” [Online] Available: http://www.

toyenhagen.no/content/view/14/30/ [Accessed: 25 November 2010].

UN Habitat - United Nations Human Settlements Programme (2009). “Planning Sustainable

Cities: Global Report on Human Settlements 2009.” London: Earthscan.

Yin, Robert (1981). The Case Study Crisis: Some Answers, Administrative Science Quarterly.
Vol. 26, No. 1, pg. 58-65.

118
 9.0 Appendix

9.0 Appendix

A
B
9.1
Tabell 1. Eksempel på beregning av grønnflatefaktor på tomt dominert av trær og harde flater.
9.0 Appendix

Element % Antall Kvadrat- Faktor Faktor- Merknad til utførelse

trær meter beregnet flate
Tomtestørrelse, faktorberegnet areal 1300 0,6 780
Bebyggelsesgrad, bebygd areal 63 819
Fritt areal på tomta 481
Source: Hansen (2010, 30)

Vegetasjon på bakkenivå 0 1,0 0

Vegetasjon på spalier eller fasade 180 0,7 126 10x10, 10x5 og 10x3 meters høyde
Grønne tak 450 0,6 270 På hovedbygning og uthus
Vegetasjon på lokk (20-80 cm dybde) 0 0,7 0
Vegetasjon på lokk (> 80 cm dybde) 300 0,9 270 Gress, prydbusker og trær
Trær med stammeomkrets 16-20 cm 6 - 10,0 60 Seks prydtrær
Trær med stammeomkrets 20-30 cm 0 - 15,0 0
Trær med stammeomkrets > 30 cm 0 - 20,0 0
Frittstående busker høyere enn 3 m 0 - 2,0 0
Vannflater 4 1,0 4 Dam med springvann, ikke overflatevann
Oppsamling og fordrøyning av overflatevann 0 0,2 0
Avrenning fra harde flater til plantefelt 80 0,2 16 Fra platting
Tette overflater 0 0 0
Harde flater med fuger 145 0,2 29 Treplatting, smågatestein
Grønnflatefaktor - Green Area Factor Calculation Example

Gjennomslippelige flater uten vegetasjon 6 0,4 2,4 Sandkasse

Oppnådd faktor og flate a0,6 777,4

 9.0 Appendix

9.2 Interview and Conversational Sources

Oslo Kommune: Somalian Shopkeeper,
Arvesen, civil engineer Aug 2010 ex-resident Jan 2011
Kristensen, GIS specialist Aug 2010 Abdul, Mix Manager,
Trash Collector, study area Sep 2010 Immigrant, middle aged Jan 2011
Various Staff, survey Sep 2010 Mix Customer, Immigrant,
middle aged Jan 2011
Bydel Gamle Oslo: Tøyen Resident #1,
Gitlestad, geographer, student, second generation
hearing authority Sep 2010 immigrant Jan 2011
Mørk, SaLTo Representative, Tøyen Resident #2, retiree,
community outreach Dec 2010 native Norwegian Jan 2011
Riis, landscape architect, Various residents,
hearing authority Sep 2010 survey respondents Sep 2010
Various Staff, survey
responses Sep 2010
Tøyen-Kampen Velferening Leader:
Roger Lee Jan 2011
Sigurds Gate: Larsson
(Apartment Owner, Board
Leader, Resident) Sep 2010
Sørensen (Apartment
Owner, Board Member,
Resident) Oct 2010
Apartment Owner,
Resident #1 Jan 2011
Apartment Owner,
Resident #2 Jan 2011
Apartment Owner,
Non-Resident Oct 2010
Apartment Renter,
Resident #1 Sep 2010
Apartment Renter,
Resident #2 Jan 2011
Apartment Renter,
Resident #3 Jan 2011
Tøyen/Gamle Oslo
Residents: Eckhoff,
resident, native Norwegian,
middle aged Sep 2010

C
9.0 Appendix

9.3 Formal Interview Questions (to Oslo Kommune)

1. Who is responsible for the management of public open space in Oslo?

Maintenance work, outsourced?

Funding?

2. How much do maintenance concerns affect the design of public space?

3. History of courtyards in Oslo (Tøyen-Grønland) - why are many of them

locked now?

4. Are courtyards private domain/privately managed?

5. Issues of management/land upkeep with different owners of one courtyard?

6. Utilities and Trash collection?

Is it a city entity collecting trash, or outsourced?

How do workers access locked courtyards?

7. Is the city/trash collection budget affected by the locks?

8. What are the goals of Oslo kommune in regards to public open space?

9. What are the goals of Oslo kommune in regards to sustainability?

10. Does Oslo kommune provide benefits/guidelines (tax cuts, etc) for the
preservation of open land?

11. Are individual land owners encouraged to plant vegetation, trees etc?

12. I’ve noticed some flooding in the streets/sidewalks during heavy rains - is
drainage a big problem for Oslo Kommune?

13. GIS - are there GIS/metadata/land ownership data for Oslo available to the
public (or to students)? How?

D
 check any that apply No
How is your courtyard, how garbage and recycling Other:
could it be better? bicycle storage
9.4
parking
Please answer the following survey questions to
help with student research that hopes to make the reading/gardening/other hobbies Would you be willing to volunteer help in the
courtyards in your neighborhood better. All survey maintenance of a community courtyard space?
exercising/play
responses are anonymous, but if you are interested (maintenance including gardening, pruning trees,
eating meals removing trash/leaves, painting, etc)
in following this research, contributing more, or
learning how the information is used you can hosting friends, social events Yes
contact gamleoslocourtyards@yahoo.no . Thank you meeting neighbors No
for your time and help!
Other: Other:
* Required

In which district do you live? *

Which activities would you like to use local Submit
Tøyen
outdoor space for?
Grønland
Powered by Google Docs
Kampen

Other: Report Abuse - Terms of Service - Additional Terms

9.4.1 Survey Questions (English)
Resident Survey Questions

Monthly rent bracket? *

(in Norwegian Kroner/month)
0 - 4.999
5.000 - 8.999
9.000 - 12.999 Is the courtyard/garden space in your building
locked?
above 13.000
Yes
I own my home
No
Other:
Does your building have a courtyard or garden
space?
Yes If yes, would you use the space more if your
No building was unlocked?
Yes
No
How often do you use the courtyard/garden space
in your building? Other:
(daily, weekly, monthly, rarely, never)

Would you like to use neighborhood courtyard

spaces if they were unlocked and open to the
Which activities do you use the courtyard/garden community?
space for? Yes

E
9.0 Appendix
 Other:

F
Hvordan er din bakgård, Hvilke aktiviteter bruker du bakgård eller hagen
til?
hvordan kunne den vært (huk av alle som passer)
Ville du på frivillig basis hjulpet til med
bedre? avfall og resirkulering vedlikehold av en felles bakgård eller hage?
Vennligst svar på følgende spørsmal for å bidra til sykkelparkering (vedlikehold inkludert hagearbeid, trimming av
et forskningsprosjekt. Prosjektet trenger ditt bilparkering trær, deponere avfall eller kompost, male, etc)
9.0 Appendix

innspill - hva skulle du ønske var bedre i din Ja

lesing/hagearbeid/andre hobbyer
bakgård? Svarene er anonyme, men hvis du er
Nei
interessert i å følge dette prosjektet eller bidra trening eller lek
ytterligere kan du kontakte innta måltider Other:
gamleoslocourtyards@yahoo.no . På forhånd, tusen
sosiale sammenkomster eller fester, etc
takk for din tid og bidrag!
treffe naboer
* Required Hvilke uteområder bruker du helst i din fritid?
røyking
bypark
I hvilket nabolag bor du? * grilling
lekeplass
Tøyen klestørk
gaten
9.4.2 The Survey (Norwegian)

Grønland Other:
asfalterte områder med f.eks benker eller
Kampen
lignende
Other: mindre grøntområder
Har din bolig dugnad?
takterrasse
Ja
privat balkong
Hvor mye betaler du i husleie? * Nei
skolegård
(Obs: samlet for hele leiligheten)
Other:
0 - 4.999
5.000 - 8.999 Er din bakgård/hage låst?

9.000 - 12.999 Ja
Nei Andre kommentarer?
Over 13.000
Her kan du komme med tanker og innspill angående
Jeg er huseier. Other:
temaet

Har din bolig en tilknyttet bakgård eller hage? Hvis ja, ville du brukt uteområdet mer dersom
Ja det var ulåst?
Nei Ja
Nei

Other:
Hvor ofte bruker du bakgård eller hagen?
daglig
ukentlig
Ville du gjerne brukt nabolagets uteområder og Hvor fant du denne linken?
månedlig bakgårder dersom de var ulåst og åpene for alle?
sjelden Ja
aldri Nei
 9.0 Appendix

9.5 Resident Survey Results - Graphs and Charts

Survey Respondent Groups Yard Open Status

Cooperative 2 Private Yard
No Yard
7% 4%
4%
Cooperative 1
11%
PBE Unlocked
28% 21%

Volunteer List
18% Locked
71%
Placard
36%

Usage of Locked Yards Usage of Un-locked Yards

never
5%
daily
daily 14%
seldom
32% seldom
29%
21%

monthly
weekly monthly
16%
weekly 43% 14%
26%

25

20

15

10

0
Exercise/Play
Garbage/Recycling

Bicycle Parking

Car Parking

Grilling

Smoking

Reading/Hobbies
Socializing/Entertaining
Clothes Drying

UTILITY SOCIAL IND IVIDUAL

G
9.0 Appendix

9.5 Resident Survey Results - Graphs and Charts (cont’d)

Total Usage Daily and Weekly Usage

Clothes Drying Clothes Drying
Grilling
4% 4%
8%
Smoking Smoking
4% Grilling 4%
Garbage/ Garbage/
9% Recycling Recycling
19% Meeting 21%
Meeting
Neighbors Neighbors
Bicycle
13% 12% Bicycle Parking
Parking
14% 17%
Socializing/Ente
Car Parking
rtaining Car Parking
0% Meals
Meals 12%
Socializing/Ente 0%
8% Reading/other 10% Reading/other
rtaining
14% Exercise/Play Hobbies Exercise/Play Hobbies
2% 13% 0% 12%

Locked Yard Usage Unlocked Yard Usage

Grilling Clothes Drying Clothes Drying
Smoking 9% 1% 11%
4%
Garbage/ Grilling Garbage/ Bicycle Parking
Meeting Recycling 11% Recycling 3%
Neighbors 20% 18%
Smoking Car Parking
13%
Bicycle 4% 0%
Meeting
Parking Neighbors Reading/other
17% 14% Hobbies
Socializing/Ente
rtaining Meals 18%
Reading/
13% 10% other Car Parking Socializing/Ente Exercise/Play
Exercise/Play Hobbies 0% rtaining Meals 0%
2% 11% 18% 3%

H
 bakgaarder.co.cc 9.6

bakgaarder.co.cc

felleskap
bakgaarder.co.cc

uteomrader
ditt nabolag
Hva synes du om:
bakgaarder.co.cc
bakgaarder.co.cc

Ta en kort undersøkelse her:

bakgaarder.co.cc
Resident Survey Advertising Poster

bakgaarder.co.cc
bakgaarder.co.cc
bakgaarder.co.cc
bakgaarder.co.cc
For et bedre Tøyen..

bakgaarder.co.cc
forskning!

www.bakgaarder.co.cc
Bidra til lokal

bakgaarder.co.cc

I
9.0 Appendix
9.0 Appendix

9.7 Yard Usage Observation Charts

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Sigurds Gate Magnus' Gråbein Pilestredet Nonnegata
Gate Gårdene Park

Garbage/ Reading/
Passing Recyclin other Exercise/
Week6 Location through g Hobbies Play
Mon10Ͳ11:00 SigurdsGate 2 1
Mon13Ͳ14:00 Magnus'Gate 5 2
Tue10Ͳ11:00
Tue10 11:00 GråbeinGårdene 6 1
Wed10Ͳ11:00 PilestredetPark 10 1 4
Thu10Ͳ11:00 Nonnegata 7 3 2
Week7
Mon13Ͳ14:00 SigurdsGate 5 1
Mon10Ͳ11:00 Magnus'Gate 4 1 2
Tue13Ͳ14:00
13 14 00 G
GråbeinGårdene
åb i Gå d 5 1
Wed13Ͳ14:00 PilestredetPark 12 4 3
Thu17Ͳ18:00 Nonnegata 8 2 4
Week8
Mon17Ͳ18:00 SigurdsGate 3 3
Tue 17Ͳ18:00
Tue17Ͳ18:00 Magnus'Gate
Magnus Gate 10 2 2
Wed17Ͳ18:00 GråbeinGårdene 17 3 3
Thu17Ͳ18:00 PilestredetPark 30 4 8
Tue13Ͳ14:00 Nonnegata 4 1 1
TOTALS
3hours SigurdsGate 10 5 0 0
3hours Magnus'Gate 19 5 0 4
3hours GråbeinGårdene 28 0 5 3
3hours PilestredetPark 52 0 9 15
3hours Nonnegata 19 6 0 7
J
 9.0 Appendix

9.8 Yard Usage Observation Charts (cont’d)

Socializi Meeting Total

ng/Entert Neighbor Maintena Total Staying
Meals aining s Smoking Grilling nce Work People Users
1 3 0
2 9 2
2 2 9 3
2 1 18 8
1 12 2

1 7 1
2 2 9 4
2 2 10 5
2 1 22 10
2 16 6

2 8 2
2 1 2 19 7
4 4 2 2 35 18
4 4 5 3 4 4 66 32
6 1

2 0 0 1 0 1 18 3
0 0 2 5 2 2 37 13
6 0 8 2 2 2 54 26
4 4 9 5 4 4 102 50
0 0 0 0 2 1 34 9
K
L
Sigurds Gate ('gatetun') Jens Bjelkes Gate (local street)
9.8
9.0 Appendix

Count time: 15.00 - 16.00

Pedestrians 60 142
Motor Vehicles 43 112
Bicyclists 4 24
Children at play 0 5
Pedestrian and Vehicle Count Charts

Chance Meetings 1 6
Pedestrian to Vehicle Ratio 1.40 1.27

Count time: 13.00 - 14.00

Pedestrians 79 114
Motor Vehicles 27 80
Bicyclists 3 13
Children at play 0 3
Chance Meetings 0 3
Pedestrian to Vehicle Ratio 2.93 1.43
 9.0 Appendix

9.9 List of Data/Fieldwork Information Gathered

Self produced:
Interviews notes - Kommune/Bydel/Building Owner Rep/Resident/SalTo/Trash
collector

Survey Responses

Pedestrian/Vehicle Counts

Photographic documentation

Area observation maps/sketches

Collected:

Newspaper article - Håpløs biligsituasjon (Osktantavisa 26 Aug 2010, p 24)

Newspaper article - Rotløs hage midt i storbyen (Aftenposten, 4 Sept 2010, p 13)

GIS Mapping Data of study area:

High Resolution Aerial Imagery

Building Footprints
Property Tracts
City Parks
Streets
Residential Building Locations with the following attributes:
addresses
ownership information
number of households per building

Kommune::

Plan for public spaces in Oslo (2009)

The multicultural city, social minorities

Norsk-engelsk ordliste of departments/jurisdiction

Administrative system chart of City of Oslo with PBE agency description

Kommunedelplan for torg og møteplasser Presentation, Torsten Glad, 2007

M
9.0 Appendix

The Urban Green Spaces Plan-A Plan for the blue-green structure Presentation Kjersti
Granum 2009

The Urban Green Spaces Plan-A Plan for the blue-green structure in Oslo Presentation
Lise Radoli 2009

The 2008 Municipal Master Plan - Oslo Towards 2025

Kommunedelplan for torg og møteplasser full brochure, April 2009

Kommunedelplan for torg og møteplasser Verktøykasse, April 2009

Grøntplan for Oslo Høringsutkast - Kommunedelplan for den blågrønne strukturen i

Oslos byggesone

Grøntplan for Oslo Registeringer av grøntområder i Oslos byggesone med bydelsvis

oppsummering

SaLTo model Prevention of Crime in Oslo

SaLTo plan 2010-2013

Unge Gjengangere Status Report 2, 2010 SalTo

N
 9.10
4.1.1 Case Study - Data Table (1/1)

Source Design Components Use Components Value Components

Interviews: Social Enviro. Social Enviro. Social Enviro.
Trash Collector, Kommune Locked Courtyards - - Garbage and Recycling + Innefficency - -
Agency for Waste Manage-
ment
Larsson, head of owners’ Locked Courtyard - - Ease of maintenance - -
board at Sigurdsgate 16 High, solid Walls - - rou ne - -
No large plants - durability +
Access to sunlight + privateness -
Preliminary Data Sheets

seclusion (from neighbors) -

compe on (with neighbors) - +
Researcher Observation: Locked Courtyard - - Garbage and Recycling +
High, solid Walls - - passing through -
Asphalt Surface - bicycle parking +
No plan ng beds - maintenance - +
Garbage/Recycling area + individual ac vi es -
Bicycle Parking area - +
no sight-lines to street -
ligh ng +
small table and chairs (sum-
mer) +
signs restric ng parking + +
entrances from yard +

O
9.0 Appendix
 4.1.2 Reference Cases - Data Table (1/2)
Case and type Design Components Use Components Value Components
*data from Observation UON Social Enviro. Social Enviro. Social Enviro.

P
ResidenƟal Yard Type 2: Grå- Locked Courtyard - - bicycle parking + high use of space +
bein Gardene, Tøyen gated, External solid walls - - social gathering + safety + +
9.10
shared, singular management
large planted areas + security - +
ameni es for socializing + cleanliness/upkeep + +
9.0 Appendix

open separa on of private/ iden ty + +

+ +
communal low diversity neighborhood -
open design (common sur- + +
veillence)
character/uniformity in
design + +
ResidenƟal Yard Type 3: Mag- Open Courtyard + + singular ac vi es - aesthe cs + +
nus’ Gate, Tøyen open, shared, large fenced green areas - + passing through - security - +
external management
semi-private social enclaves + low use of space -
extensive planned walkways - - durability +
benches + lack of iden ty - -
signage to prevent outsiders - separa on from neighbors -
Preliminary Data Sheets (cont’d)

security camera surveillence + diversity +

open design (common sur- + +
veillence)

4.1.2 Reference Cases - Data Table (2/2)

Case and type Design Components Use Components Value Components
*data from Observation UON Social Enviro. Social Enviro. Social Enviro.
ResidenƟal Yard Type 4: Pilest- open yards + + social gathering + inclusion +
redet Park, St. Hanshaugen grilling + iden ty + +
open separa on of private/ + +
open, shared, public manage-
communal bicycle parking + aesthe cs + +
ment
open design (common sur- passing through + sustainability + +
+ +
veillence) individual ac vi es - safety +
visual, not solid barriers + + mul -use + cleanliness/upkeep + +
spaces for mul ple use + + social neighborhood +
common mee ng spaces + + low diversity neighborhood -
environmental features (to be + +
further researched)
benches +
character/uniformity in
design + +
 4.1.3 Study Area Community - Data Table (1/2)

Source Design Components Use Components Value Components

Interviews: Social Enviro. Social Enviro. Social Enviro.
9.10
Trash Collector, Kommune Locked Courtyards - - Garbage and Recycling + Innefficency - -
Agency for Waste Manage-
ment
Moral “policing” - Fragmented community -
Entertainment (a racts out-
New buildings/devel - + siders) +
Eckhof, resident Spaces without surveillence - -
Larsson, head of owners’ traffic calming designs + + safety +
board at Sigurdsgate 16 centralized public housing - - peaceful environment + +
par cipa on in planning + +
cultural segrega on -
aesthe cs +
preserving green spaces + +
fragmented community -
Resident Survey: Social Enviro. Social Enviro. Social Enviro.
Preliminary Data Sheets (cont’d)

Respondents who use their Garbage and Recycling +

yard space on a daily to weekly Hobbies, indv ac vi es -
basis
Socializing/Entertaining +
Mee ng Neighbors +
Bicycle Parking - +
Ea ng Meals +
En re Survey Locked Courtyards (70%) - - Dugnad (80%) + + Desire to share space (32%) + +
Unlocked Courtyards (30%) + + Desire to help upkeep(86%) + +

4.1.3 Study Area Community - Data Table (2/2)

Source Design Components Use Components Value Components

Interviews: Social Enviro. Social Enviro. Social Enviro.
Other Comments provided by Benches + Upkeep as social event + + Desire to have social func-
survey respondents +
Ameni es for socializing + ons with neighbors (3)
Fear of the (2) -
Desire to meet neighbors +

Q
9.0 Appendix

Preference of balcony (3) -

travels to natural spaces (25) + +
R
9.10
4.1.4 Kommune - Data Table (1/2)
Source Design Components Use Components Value Components
Interviews: Social Enviro. Social Enviro. Social Enviro.
9.0 Appendix

Arvesen, Kommune Agency for Equal number of Parks for all + + Mee ng Places + Decentraliza on +
Planning and Building Services Equal quality of design + + Socializing + Lessen Pollu on +
Open Spaces + + Plan ng not required - Equity +
Street trees + Land Preserva on +
Stormwater managed @ site +
“Blå-grønn struktur” + +
Kris ansen, Kommune PBE playgrounds open to public +
Riis, Bydel Gamle Oslo Hearing Local Plazas and Squares + + Dugnad + + Decentraliza on +
Authority Private and public spaces + Par cipa on +
Upkeep/Cleanliness + +
Durability +
Preliminary Data Sheets (cont’d)

Safety +
Equal Opportunity +
Family oriented +
Inclusion +
Mørk, Bydel, SaLTo rep. density + - Dugnad + + Inclusion +
Socializing + Community +
collec ng groups + Cleanliness + +
claiming space + + Lessen Crime + +
Safety + +
Par cipa on +
ac vism + +
 9.0 Appendix

9.11 Sample Study Area Real Estate Sales (from Finn.no 31March 2011)
Tøyen - Lys og pen 3 r toppleil. med solrik balkong.
Nytt bad. Herlig atmosfære....
Eierform: Andel
61 / 61 m² 2 400 000,-
Tøyengata 41 A Fellesgjeld: 100 942,-
0578 Oslo Totalt:2 500 942,-
Fellesutg.: 2 320,-
PRIVATmegleren Südøst
Grünerløkka

Tøyen: Lekker 3-roms loftsleilighet med solrik

terrasse - Nytt design kjøkken - ...
Eierform: Andel
62 m² 2 550 000,-
Eiriks Gate 9 Fellesgjeld: 200 976,-
0650 Oslo Totalt:2 750 976,-
Fellesutg.: 3 802,-
PRIVATmegleren Südøst
Grünerløkka

Tøyen/ Enerhaugen: Delikat og tidsriktig 3-roms

leilighet med høy standard og ba...
Eierform: Andel
64 / 64 m² 1 950 000,-
Jens Bjelkes gate 82 E Fellesgjeld: 283 384,-
0652 Oslo Totalt:2 233 384,-
Fellesutg.: 4 741,-
EiendomsMegler 1 - Nydalen

LILLE TØYEN HAGEBY - Stor toppleilighet over 2

plan m/ hage. Ingen forkjøpsrett.
Eierform: Andel
150 / 151 m² Solgt
Økernveien 43 Fellesgjeld: 63 968,-
0576 Oslo Totalt:6 053 968,-
Fellesutg.: 4 100,-
Aktiv Eiendomsmegling Carl Berner

TØYEN V/ BOTANISK HAGE: MEGET PEN 2-

ROMS MED BALKONG OG SUPER
PLANLØSNING. SENTR...
Eierform: Andel
47 / 47 m² 1 790 000,-
Motzfeldtsgate 32 A Fellesgjeld: 143 957,-
0561 Oslo Totalt:1 933 957,-
Fellesutg.: 2 174,-
Aktiv Eiendomsmegling Carl Berner

TØYEN - STOR OG GJENNOMGÅENDE 3-

ROMS, NYTT KJØKKEN, NYERE BAD, FLOTT
BAKGÅRD, DE...
Eierform: Andel
72 / 72 m² 1 990 000,-
Jens Bjelkes gate 35 B Fellesgjeld: 340 542,-
0561 Oslo Totalt:2 330 542,-
Fellesutg.: 5 340,-
PRIVATmegleren Südøst Torshov

Tøyen/ Munch-museet - Stor og gjennomgående 3-

roms oppussingsobjekt. Varmtvann &...
Eierform: Aksje
81 / 88 m² 2 300 000,-
Ringgata 2 E Fellesgjeld: 60 002,-
0577 Oslo Totalt:2 360 002,-
Fellesutg.: 4 150,-
EiendomsMegler 1 - Storo

http://www.finn.no/finn/realestate/homes/result?keyword=t%F8yen&areaId=20061&sort=0

S
9.0 Appendix

9.12 Sample Study Area Real Estate Rentals (from Finn.no 31March 2011)
 ;97< 7/. ,+65981 </8=;+6= :J 'L@/8
(7L,6/;= 8=+66 <9?/;97 
 
*+!
&31>;.<1+=/ 
#<69
$;3?+=

%97 3 ,90/66/<<5+: 6/.31 971J/8./
'L@/8

+76/,@/8
!L,6/;= 8=+66 <9?/;97
 
*+!
&31>;.<1+=/ 
#<69
$;3?+=

;97 3 2@11/631 5966/5=3? :J =L@/8

!L,6/;= 8=+66 <9?/;97 
 
*+!
/8< 4/65/< +=/ 

#<69
$;3?+=

/36312/= =36 6/3/ :J 'L@/8

(7L,6/;= 8=+66 <9?/;97


*+!
&-2>,/6/;< +=/ 
#<69
$;3?+=

9;=3.<>=6/3/ :J 'L@/8
/6?3< 7L,6/;= 8=+66 <9?/;97 

*+!
/8< /65/< 1+=/  .
#<69
$;3?+=

&=9; ;97< 6/36 :J ;L86+8.  'L@/8

(7L,6/;= 8=+66 <9?/;97
*+-%,+(*,$/.(*, /'

 
*+!
!+18>< 1+=/ 
#<69
$;3?+=

#%'&   )! %F" "    !"

:/8 6@< ;
/6?3< 7L,6/;= 8=+66 <9?/;97


*+!
'L@/81+=+

#<69
$;3?+=

",,)... #'''( #''*%+,,%,,#'!+*+-%,+(*,$/.(*, /'

T
 9.0 Appendix

9.13 Study Area Real Estate Comparison to Oslo (from Finn.no 31March 2011)
*"+-,. "$%"'
5%*)2 9-6)5 879-/0-2+)2 - 45-6%27;(2-2+ -2/08()57 *)00)6+.)0( 4)5 1 &%6)57 4@ 45-1A 5531 4@ 630+7)
&30-+)5 - %10) 603

    

!30+7 1@2)(

5% *-*  7-0 *-*  ,%5 45-6)2 67)+)7 *5%  7-0   )77) )5 )2 B/2-2+ 4@ 

 """  !

Bydel Gamle Oslo Sales Price Overview

) !*,+-!# $!& 
5%*)2 9-6)5 879-/0-2+)2 - 45-6%27;(2-2+ -2/08()57 *)00)6+.)0( 4)5 1 &%6)57 4@ 45-1A 5531 4@ 630+7)
&30-+)5 - 603

    

!30+7 1@2)(

5% ) ,)  7-0 ) ,)  ,%5 45-6)2 67)+)7 *5% 
 7-0  
 )77) )5 )2 B/2-2+ 4@ 

 """  !

Oslo Sales Price Overview