[ad_1]
A recognition first: I was wrong. When the battle around the eventual block settlement over Nedre Grefsen was the worst, I was reasonably aware: such "neighbors in the harness" should be ignored and alerted fatigue is inevitable for that. a city is growing
I can console myself was not alone. The plans for Nedre Grefsen and the other "development zones" were almost unanimously adopted by the city council in 2015. Everyone saw what was needed to design large existing residential areas for a powerful and fortified development because we will be hundreds of thousands of others in the city. -Organic
Three years later, almost no political party is the same, at least not to Nedre Grefsen, not to Borgen, and not to the west of Nydalen, areas now removed from the new municipal plan.
at Smestad. The city council still sees blocks in place of villages today, though, to a lesser extent than previously suggested.
A unilateral occupation of the growth of Oslo
What happened, really? I think it is so simple that we have argued that the plans were too unilaterally concerned with the growth of Oslo.
Joda, Oslo will further develop, and consolidation along collective centers is a reasonable basic strategy. But the price becomes too high when existing, well-established and well-functioning neighborhoods are practically planned with the soil.
Notably because the noise gives a small enough gain. A development on Nedre Grefsen could provide perhaps 2,000 new homes. There is little comparison with catches that are seriously related, such as Hovinbyen (30-40,000 houses), Gjersrud / Stensrud (8-10,000) or, in addition, the Skøyen transformation (6,000).
It is also important that the municipality in the last two municipal plans operate a "buffer" of 25 to 30,000 households, that is to say that, according to their own forecasts, houses are not required
If they had just released the stamp, they could in principle
Security Plans
From the point of view of the authorities, it makes sense to have a document setting out objectives and strategies long-term. For Oslo, it is to design the most suitable areas for potential dilution, preferably in the long term.
Although cities are dynamic and constantly changing, there is an obvious burden for those living in the areas, "
Any municipal plan is likely to make plans in the event where they would be used to it.
Disciplinary Things
This is perhaps the reason why the new communication strategy of the city authorities seems to reduce the seriousness. The planning and construction agency describes the municipal plan as a "vision, or the desire of the city council, if desired" and "there is no clear answer" to the question of knowing if "the municipal plan is actually implemented". And the ambition to build 135,000 new homes before 2040 "is not a decision". Somewhat discreet things, it must be said.
From Smestad, the case looks different. The municipality can insist as much as it wants the development potential of the municipality to be "without decision". But it is quite inevitable that an owner reads the plan exactly when it is said that it will be blocks in your property in 10-15 years.
A Political Paradigm Shift
A simple solution is to abandon the development zones that are today made up of single-family homes that the city council has distant
. Well watched sensational. But more than partisan political games testify to the process of a trans-political paradigm shift in Oslo. The intention to maintain well-established living environments is now heavier in most parts, and the threshold for using them to build new homes has become much higher. The reactionaries of Beboer will be very grateful for that.
Still, you should be skeptical of neighbors who think that any illusion is raging and who does not understand or want the city to evolve. The formation of a center and more urban development may be a good thing for a region
But this time we were part of the confusion of predictable protests with legitimate and reasonable resistance to ambitious and reckless plans [19659023]. The population forecasts were weaker and we could rationalize our changed positions.
It is obviously important that the city council tries to change the story: "Never did the city council want to build high neighborhoods on Nedre Grefsen," says Marcussen Hanna. MDG) to the local newspaper Nordre Aker Budstikke
Neida, they only defended this decision for two years. Some of us saw the light a little earlier and should also be honest enough to admit we were wrong.
Source link
