Despite ambitious sustainability frameworks, current modes of urban waterfront redevelopment tend to reinforce existing or create new socio-spatial divides in the city. Although the projects regard urban water as a public good, it is oftentimes the most privileged groups that get to enjoy the improved environmental amenities and reap their benefits, at the expense of marginalised and lower-income local communities. In this essay, I am therefore considering if and how we can design the foundations for more just urban landscapes within large-scale, developer-driven urban waterfront projects, by studying the ongoing redevelopment of Grønlikaia waterfront in Oslo, Norway.

LAND AND WATER

The urban waterfront is where the landscape once became city, and where the city once again becomes landscape. Here, land and water interact with fluidity and urban waterfronts have therefore always been shaped by human struggles for manipulating these forces (Desfor & Laidley, 2011). Continuous extensive landscape interventions have been made in order to make use of, control and extract value from the water, irreversibly changing the waterscapes and aquatic ecosystems. Eventually, the precarity of these techno-nature projects has always revealed itself, and increasingly so, when the «supposedly domesticated nature [gives] rise to new and frequently more threatening problems» (Desfor & Laidley, 2011, p. 8).

Rubin (2011) characterises the urban waterfront as an edge which is manipulated to enable and prohibit different flows and fixes. Worldwide, they have been shaped by capital fixed in extensive infrastructure which facilitates the production and flow of goods and commodities. When these flows «changes in volume, or are redirected to new destinations, shipping declines and the exchange value of land at the water’s edge will also decline», leading to withdrawal of resources, under-utilization and neglect (Rubin, 2011, p. 146). The grey infrastructure, heavy-metal contamination and ecosystem degradation, however, will remain.

NEW CITY-WATER RELATIONSHIPS

Deindustrialised urban waterfronts are therefore not only «on the edge» of the city in a physical and spatial sense (Desfor & Laidley, 2011). They are landscapes turned unproductive and made ruin, whose abandonment allows for an ecological «otherness» to emerge, suddenly providing habitat for marginalized forms of lives and practices. They are liminal landscapes on the verge of something new, in-between economic, technological and environmental developments. Left dormant, in wait for post-industrial activities and uses, they hold the potential for a reorganisation and redefinition of the city-water relationship.

In a context of shifting urban paradigms and needs, with intensifying climate and environmental emergencies, cities try to overcome the marginality and precarity of their deindustrialized waterfronts by integrating them into plans for sustainable urban development. When time is ripe, economic and political resources are channelled into a spatial, environmental and cultural transformation of the harbour. By dealing with the remains and contamination after prior industrial and shipping activities, the ground is prepared for new social, economic and environmental functions. Previously enclosed and exhausted urban water bodies are reclaimed, regenerated and reconnected with the city. The urban waterfront is reimagined as a place to dwell, dine, shop, promenade and enjoy, as well as a site for urban growth, technological innovation and knowledge production.

SUSTAINABLE URBAN WATERFRONTS AND (IN)JUSTICE

While contemporary urban waterfront projects tend to channelize major public and private investment into environmental improvements and climate adaptation measures, their core driver is regenerating under-utilised urban space to strengthen the city’s position in the global urban competition for new information processing and creative economy opportunities (Leary and McCarthy, 2013; Desfor and Laidley, 2011). In this regard, the global wave of urban waterfront redevelopment is therefore mobilized toward new modes of capital accumulation in the face of environmental catastrophe, according to Goh (2023).

Although the projects regard urban water as a public good, contemporary urban waterfront redevelopments will often target high-end dwelling and consumption for well-educated, high-income, «creative» groups, often at the expense of marginalised and lower-income local communities (Borggren, 2011; Pearsall, 2018). Aiming for spectacular, high-profile, consumption-oriented plazas and promenades, sustainable urban waterfront projects will often not provide the promised “inclusive access to urban nature, public space or climate-protective infrastructure”, but rather lead to “land speculation, large-scale real estate (re)development, increasing housing prices and ultimately the displacement of socially vulnerable residents.” (Kotsila et al., 2023, p. 62)

As usual, it is oftentimes the most privileged groups that get to enjoy the improved environmental amenities and reap their benefits, while the marginalized groups most burdened by climate, environmental and other risks are excluded, neglected or dispossessed. This points to several conflicts that tend to be understated when designing urban waterfronts. Who benefits and who loses from the development? Who is designed for, and who is overlooked? Who is taken for granted, and who must assimilate? Who is silently marginalised or excluded when designing urban landscapes for “everyone”?

FROM HARBOR CITY TO FJORD CITY

The vision of Oslo as a «fjord city» emerged in the 1990s and turned into policy in 2000 when the then centre-right City Council committed to transforming the inner-city harbors into green, diverse, high-profile waterfront neighborhoods. Property developer Hav Eiendom was formed in 2003 by the municipal enterprise Port of Oslo, for the sole purpose of managing the process. Municipal waterfront properties and plots were transferred to the company, whose mandate was to develop them in a sustainable and profitable manner in order to finance new port infrastructure south of the city centre (Hav Eiendom, 2024a).

The social sustainability ambitions were present from the start. Among the principles defined in the municipal “Fjord City Plan”, the waterfront redevelopment should “secure the general public access to the [environmental] values by the water”; provide “a housing distribution and other activities catering to all population groups”; and “secure increased quality of life for as many of the city’s and region’s residents as possible” (Agency for Planning and Building Services, 2008, p. 7).

Project after project has reconnected the inner-city with the water and provided the growing Oslo population with new public spaces, plazas, and promenades along the fjord. But due to the project’s premise of generating major profits through high-end property development, Bjørvika has turned into one of the city’s most exclusive residential districts, with a total absence of social housing (Statistics Norway, 2024a). A focus on spectacular (landscape) architecture, cosmetic greening, high-end commercial services and world-class cultural venues has resulted in urban waterfront neighborhoods “designed for well-off inhabitants, tourists, visitors and investors” (Andersen & Røe, 2017, p. 305).

GRØNLIKAIA, THE EASTSIDE’S WATERFRONT

Oslo is facing rising poverty, displacement and marginalization intensified by a deregulated housing market, issues that are particularly pronounced in the inner-eastern district of Gamle Oslo, where Grønlikaia is located. Hav Eiendom is therefore applying a more justice-oriented sustainability framework in the redevelopment of Grønlikaia, with the goal of «benefiting a larger share of the city’s population» (Hav Eiendom, 2022b, p. 45). Accordingly, Hav Eiendom have nicknamed Grønlikaia the “Eastside’s waterfront”, meaning an urban waterfront with proper connections to the socio-economically and culturally diverse (inner-)eastern neighborhoods, and to Gamle Oslo’s lower-income, marginalized and youth populations, in particular (Hav Eiendom & Rodeo Arkitekter, 2021).

Besides the long-awaited, more justice-oriented and contextually sensitive approach to urban waterfront design, the project’s growth- and profit-oriented goals are unchanged. Most importantly, to develop new housing and office spaces to “attract residents and businesses that would not otherwise establish themselves in Oslo”; and to “create a basis for more tourism from Norway and abroad”; in order to generate major economic value for the Port of Oslo and the municipality (Hav Eiendom, 2022c).

The developer’s mandate of producing “as great as possible” value for the company owner (Hav Eiendom, 2023) will not only guide the waterfront’s design and services, but also risk limiting the potential impacts of the justice-oriented design measures that are implemented. This raises concerns to what extent the waterfront will be designed for the diverse populations of (Gamle) Oslo or rather must cater to affluent in-movers, tourists, and commercial interests; and to what extent Grønlikaia will be designed with regards to social and ecological justice concerns or rather must adjust to strictly economic growth-oriented goals.

POSSIBILITIES FOR DESIGNING A JUST URBAN WATERFRONT

Although Hav Eiendom’s sustainability framework for Grønlikaia signals a wish for a more inclusive and just urban waterfront, it is necessary to scrutinize the proposed plan and designs to understand how justice can be not only desired, but also secured in the implementation. A justice-oriented redevelopment of Grønlikaia must connect the water(front) with the diverse neighborhoods of Gamle Oslo in spatial, material, social and cultural terms. I have therefore studied the proposed plan and designs for two of Grønlikaia’s five subareas and will reflect on the project’s possibilities and challenges for providing equitable access to the urban waterfront. This research builds on observations, analysis of planning documents and informal interviews with planners and (landscape) architects who are or have been part of the development and design process.

SPATIAL (DIS)CONNECTION

Due to its central location closest to the inner-eastern neighborhoods of Gamle Oslo, the spatial design of subarea “Verket” is crucial to improve surrounding communities’ access and connection to the waterfront.​​ Grønlikaia’s commercial facilities will be concentrated here, housed in three dense, spectacular high-rises. With commercial activity, office spaces and tourist services, Verket is designed as an extension of the Bjørvika waterfront and the compact city center (Hav Eiendom & Rodeo Arkitekter, 2020). Rather than opening up towards Gamle Oslo, Verket’s massive building volumes may function as an extension of the spatial and symbolic barriers separating the fjord from the rest of Gamle Oslo district.

Landscape design interventions are therefore proposed by the architectural consulting team led by A-lab, intended to make the encounter with the water(front) more welcoming and pleasant coming from Gamle Oslo (A-lab, 2022). The main walkway connecting Gamle Oslo and Grønlikaia is extended through a diagonal space between the buildings, intended to retain a better visual connection to the fjord and provide informal meeting places and ecological experiences along the way. The three-piece building structure is designed to allow for inviting and active urban spaces on all sides.

Although these are useful measures for spatial connection and accessibility, they will only mitigate the otherwise spatially disruptive effects of the massive building structures. (Potentially) 70-meter-tall office buildings with slick wood and glass facades will reproduce the architectural barriers that have shaped the redevelopment of Bjørvika so far, despite retaining a sightline. According to one informant, the design process for Grønlikaia has not yet adequately addressed issues of accessibility and mobility forms within the district and currently lacks strategies for managing the extensive transport infrastructure barriers separating Gamle Oslo from Grønlikaia.

ENCOUNTERING THE FJORD

Oslo’s developed waterfront is characterized by pillared harbour promenades and swimming facilities which are overcrowded during summers and deserted the rest of the year. Designing equitable access to the waterfront is therefore dependent on providing new, diverse relationships with the fjord, particularly responding to the needs and interests within the district. This is addressed with the design of subarea Grønlikilen, conceptualized as the center/”heart” of Grønlikaia. Grønlikilen’s layout is based on residential buildings and a public promenade in a “horseshoe” shape, surrounding a large floating island park. Residential structures are mainly built on the fjord, on pillared extensions of the current harbor structure, both enclosing the fjord and extending the harbour promenade.

The floating park is intended as the most significant public space and meeting place for the neighborhood and district, connecting the inner-eastern neighborhoods with the fjord. For the floating park to function as a social infrastructure that can accommodate a diversity of groups and uses, the architectural consulting team led by LPO stresses that the size of the island should be generous and accommodate a variety of activities and atmospheres (LPO, 2022). They propose using the terrain and vegetation to create zones and transitions, while avoiding becoming over-programmed, allowing for ambiguity and wilder vegetation.

The project’s planned building density and profit demand, however, entails the risk of spreading public spaces too thin along the waterfront. If the floating park and other crucial social spaces don’t acquire the necessary size and spatial diversity, the local residents and/or tourists may override other social groups and define the spaces as theirs, as one informant worries. Accordingly, the floating park’s intended generosity, diversity and ambiguity are nowhere to be seen in the finalized planning proposal by Hav Eiendom (2024b). Because the park is shrunk, with little landscape diversity and smaller zones, it risks becoming a spectacular floating landscape unable to provide equitable fjord access, rather characterized by conflict and competition for scarce environmental amenities.

SOCIAL SPACES AND SERVICES

Designing equitable access to the waterfront must enable a wider range of local communities, regardless of property ownership or purchasing power, with agency to shape, use and define public spaces according to their own interests and needs. For the redevelopment to cater to existing local communities and provide benefits for marginalized groups, “team A-lab” wants to secure Verket’s ground level, both exterior and interior, as public, non-commercial spaces and services. They propose functions targeting social needs and practices within the broader Gamle Oslo district, such as informal meeting places, small-scale cultivation, food production, and workshops for repair and production (A-lab, 2022).

Indoor non-commercial social infrastructure and services, such as informal meeting places, are much-needed but pretty much non-existent in the wider Gamle Oslo district and on the developed waterfront. Strategically implementing such functions at Verket and the rest of Grønlikaia can therefore do much to democratize urban space and strengthen surrounding communities’ entitlement and connection to the new waterfront neighborhood. The viability of public, non-commercial ground floors in Verket, Grønlikaia’s commercial center, is another question.

If the goal is to actively and effectively cater to previously disregarded groups, it is necessary to do more than good spatial design, an informant claims. The design process should also explore which types of community infrastructure, services and institutions can meet the needs of particular marginalized social groups, and how they will be managed and funded in the long term. As such, the urban landscape can provide the frameworks for new interactions and networks to arise, new resources to be developed, and new experiences to be generated, which the existing local communities can benefit from.

Gamle Oslo’s youth are frequently referred to in Grønlikaia’s planning material as a marginalized group that should finally be heard and centred, although their heterogeneity and the complexity of their needs seem to be underrecognized. Targeting local youth is proposed to be achieved primarily by implementing a “rougher-edged” architecture and a promenade with water-based activities and hanging spots. Besides, proposed youth-friendly measures tend to focus on trend-based initiatives such as (street) food markets, urban gardening and organic food production, which comes with a risk of privileging other groups than local youth. To effectively benefit local youth, the design process must therefore increasingly be informed by the expertise and diverse experiences of local youth themselves and/or existing community organizations, rather than by the designers’/developers’ assumptions of what they need or that which can translate into improved “urban attractivity”.

HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY

Lastly, equitable access to the urban waterfront’s amenities and resources cannot be designed without providing accessible, affordable housing. Hav Eiendom (2022b, p. 56) acknowledges the need for a housing development “that contributes to social inclusion and diversity, [and] opposes segregation” and claims that a varied housing typology, alternative purchasing models and experimental social housing are necessary to achieve this. Grønlikaia could therefore be used as a testing ground for housing innovation to tackle the exclusionary housing dynamics, particularly pressing along the fjord and inner city. These ambitions, however, are not yet reflected in plan and design, and the possibilities for alternative, social or non-commercial housing models are currently underexplored. Apart from variation in housing sizes and functions, and considerations of shared amenities, there is an absence of measures to effectively improve housing accessibility.

Because measures for housing accessibility at the urban waterfront are in conflict with the project’s financial goals, informants are raising doubts regarding the viability of, and Hav Eiendom’s ambitions for, an inclusive housing development at Grønlikaia. Maximizing Grønlikaia’s land and property values will put strict limits on the possibilities for social, non-commercial housing models and remain a structural (and ideological) barrier for equitable access to housing, and therefore to the urban waterfront itself.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

So far, the Grønlikaia project has developed ambitious, innovative strategies for designing a just urban waterfront, and much can be learned about how to work thoroughly and multidimensionally for equitable relationships with urban water bodies. The possibilities for providing equitable access to the waterfront’s benefits and resources, however, are clearly restricted by the project’s spatial and financial premises.
If the urban waterfront redevelopment must keep on ensuring that highly educated, affluent populations and tourists, as well as knowledge-intensive businesses, choose Oslo over other cities, then the justice-oriented design measures that are implemented will have limited impact. And if the principles of maximising profitability and attractivity in urban waterfront redevelopments are not fundamentally challenged, then such ambitious urban sustainability “role model” projects will rather reproduce and reinforce local spatial injustices in the longer term.

The future shape of Grønlikaia is contested and uncertain. The deindustrialised harbour will eventually be redeveloped, which will inevitably transform the urban landscape of inner-eastern Oslo and its relationship with the fjord, but the project recently came to a standstill when the municipal Agency for Planning and Building Services (2024) rejected the developer’s planning proposal. Concerned about the disrupting effects that the proposed wall of highrises would have on the urban landscape of Oslo, obscuring its green hills and weakening its fjord connection, the agency have evaluated that the current proposal will have: “too many negative consequences both from a city perspective and a local community- and neighborhood perspective.” (ibid.)

In response, the newly elected centre-right City Council endorses the project and has ordered the Planning and Building Services to make the planning proposal available for public inspection, despite its conflicts with overall urban development plans and guidelines. The blue-green growth machine is back on track.

References

Agency for Planning and Building Services (The Municipality of Oslo) (2008). Fjordbyplanen. Prinsipper for utvikling av helheten for Fjordbyen og delområder. Planprogram for Filipstad, Vippetangen og Alnas utløp. Oslo: Plan- og bygningsetaten.

Agency for Planning and Building Services (The Municipality of Oslo) (2024). Feil retning i utviklingen av Grønlikaia. https://aktuelt.oslo.kommune.no/feil-retning-i-utviklingen-av-gronlikaia

A-lab (2022). Treverket: Hefte. Oslo: Hav Eiendom. https://haveiendom.no/wp-content/uploads/Team-A_lab_Verket_Hefte-A3_lores.pdf

Andersen, B., & Røe, P. G. (2016). The social context and politics of large-scale urban architecture: Investigating the design of Barcode, Oslo. European Urban and Regional Studies, 24(3): 304–317.

Borggren, J. (2011). Kreativa individers bostadsområden och arbetsställen. Belysta mot bakgrund av naringslivets omvandling och förandringar i bebyggelsestrukturen i Göteborg. [Doctoral thesis, University of Gothenburg].

Desfor, G. & Laidley, J. (2011). Introduction: Fixity and Flow of Urban Waterfront Change. In: G. Desfor, J. Laidley, Q. Stevens & D. Schubert (eds). Transforming Urban Waterfronts: Fixity and Flow. (p. 1-14). New York: Routledge.

Goh, K. (2021). Form and Flow: The Spatial Politics of Urban Resilience and Climate Justice. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Hav Eiendom (2022a). Hav Eiendom finansierer Oslos klimavennlige nye havn. https://haveiendom.no/dette-grepet-pa-gronlikaia-skaper-verdier-for-havna-og-samfunnet/

Hav Eiendom (2022b). DEiG: Vedlegg til hovedrapport. Oslo: Hav Eiendom. https://haveiendom.no/wp-content/uploads/DEiG-rapport-VEDLEGG_lr.pdf

Hav Eiendom (2022c). Ny rapport: Grønlikaia vil skape nye jobber og verdier for hele Oslo. https://haveiendom.no/utbyggingen-av-gronlikaia-vil-skape-8000-arsverk-verdiskapning-pa-4000-millioner-og-300-millioner-arlig-i-okte-skatteinntekter-til-oslo/

Hav Eiendom (2023). Årsrapport 2023. Oslo: Hav Eiendom. https://haveiendom.no/wp-content/uploads/Hav_arsrapport_2023.pdf

Hav Eiendom (2024a). Betaler utbytte på 150 millioner: Pengene drypper på verdens mest klimavennlige havn. https://haveiendom.no/betaler-utbytte-pa-150-millioner-pengene-drypper-pa-verdens-mest-klimavennlige-havn/

Hav Eiendom (2024b). Slik skal Bjørvika-utviklingen fullføres: Grønlikaia skal være for alle. https://haveiendom.no/slik-skal-bjorvika-utviklingen-fullfores-gronlikaia-skal-vaere-for-alle/

Hav Eiendom & Rodeo Arkitekter (2020). Grønlikaia: Planinitiativ. Juni 2020. Del 1/3. Oslo: Hav Eiendom. https://innsyn.pbe.oslo.kommune.no/saksinnsyn/showfile.asp?jno=2020076985&fileid=9088492

Hav Eiendom & Rodeo Arkitekter (2021). Grønlikaia: 10 anbefalinger for østkantens fjordby. Oslo: Hav Eiendom. https://haveiendom.no/wp-content/uploads/Gronlikaia_Rapport_10-anbefalinger-for-ostkantens- fjordby.pdf

Kotsila, P., Anguelovski, I., Sekulova, F., & García-Lamarca, M. (2023). Injustice in urban sustainability: Ten Core Drivers. New York: Routledge.

Leary, M. E. & McCarthy, J. (2013). The Routledge Companion to Urban Regeneration. London: Routledge.

LPO (2022). Det grønne hjertet i Grønlikilen. Oslo: Hav Eiendom. https://haveiendom.no/wp-content/uploads/Team-LPO_Det-gronne-hjertet_Staende-A3-hefte_lores.pdf

Pearsall, H. (2018). New directions in urban environmental/green gentrification research. In: L. Lees & M. Phillips (eds). Handbook of Gentrification Studies. (p. 329-345). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Rubin, J. (2011). San Francisco’s Waterfront in the Age of Neoliberal Urbanism. In: G. Desfor, J. Laidley, Q. Stevens & D. Schubert (eds). Transforming Urban Waterfronts: Fixity and Flow. (p. 143-166). New York: Routledge.

Statistics Norway (2024a). BOL015: Kommunale boliger etter boligstørrelse, antall rom og eieforhold (D). https://statistikkbanken.oslo.kommune.no/statbank/pxweb/no/db1/db1__Boliger%20og%20byggevirksomhet__Kommunale%20boliger/OK-BOL015.px/