June 10, 2023


Complete News World

Discussion, reader’s letter | Krona as vulgar?

reader speech This is an entry in the discussion, written by an external contributor. The publication expresses the views of the author.

A chill runs down the architect’s spine when I “check the transformation after meeting with the National Antiquarian,” in Haugesund’s Avis. So cool that I’m doing something architects rarely do in this country – discuss other people’s work.

What on earth happened?

Odd Hansen’s plan to develop Krona has been in the public discourse for a long time. This is very good! This is how it should be. Laypeople and scientists are needed in designing our world.

For the most part, the discussion revolved around the exploitation and consequences of archaeological values ​​in the region. How does the structure, elevations and layout affect the two listed residential buildings? What story should be told in Corona?

In early illustrations of the plan the expression appears as ordinary, almost generic,—modern is probably the expression most people use—and shows buildings which I think would be able to appear well in a cityscape.

What is problematic in terms of layout is the structure of the plate itself, I think. The openings between buildings are there to light the apartments, not to create good urban spaces. was established space, -something that should not be located in an urban center. Through these spaces, listed buildings can be seen. This gives a blurred hierarchy of spatial configurations, and one misses that one or both of the existing houses are well connected to the spatial configuration towards the sea. Marine tundra does not form here, which was the inspiration.

See also  Logical and reasonable - VG

I myself think that this could, for example, be well resolved by joining together the two southernmost blocs and to the north. Then you will have a beautiful city space by the sea, enriched by the beautifully located Sirihus building and the connected building of Røthing. Other fists can certainly produce good qualities.

But in collaboration with the National Monuments Authority, no further development, planning, urban structure, or consideration of listed buildings took place. Here, the idea of ​​Haugesund as a city was allowed freely to determine the design of the buildings, while the plan did not seem to have been given importance.

Blocks of flats that were a bit fun and shaped with regard to sightlines and sun have now been replaced by overgrown wood greenhouses on Barbie legs — a kind of putty for something that wasn’t there before. The deep, dark spaces (no lane, alley, road, street, or square) between the blocks became deeper and darker. Sirihuset and his neighbor are reduced to tiny game models, crammed behind shockwaves of new, bloated genre fantasies. Neither the qualities of Lyngholmstunet and Bryggen in Bergen nor the first buildings on the site to be renovated, but ghosts of the worst architecture of the 1980s. Hansastø appears by comparison as a masterpiece.

Now the illustration of the zoning plan. I am sure that a good architect can improve the project in further planning. There are many good examples across the country, with or without pitched roofs. But the framework from the National Antique Store is too strict here and does not provide a good urban space. The term “final design” is used in the case.

See also  This is the calculation behind interest rates

The questions now are: do we need to give such an impact to the national monuments? Does the National Antiquities Authority have planning and architectural experience in the work? Were changes made in agreement with EBY (management)?

Can we, administratively and politically, put the ship back on track again (!)?

The objections of the National Monuments Authority are not always accepted elsewhere, and here Haugesund must bear in mind the same.

I fear Haugesund will make a fool of itself if such an important urban space by the fjord becomes a story about a city that, in the nostalgic highs on the seashore, thinks it is an original by building shoddy copies of a lost time.

We shouldn’t be afraid to construct expressions that don’t have local origins. Are we going to replace the castle, the university, the town hall and the post office because they have classical roots?

In its youth, our nation used common European classical architecture to show itself worthy of civilized society. Few have a problem with that today.

No, the difference between good and bad is quality, not “style”. Also at the meeting with the elderly.

Roald Poe

civil engineer.

(Bø is a city councilor at AP and a board member at the local Haugalandet association for Fortisminneforeningen, but he writes here as a private person. He and the company he works with are working with Odd Hansen on another project.)