RE/05

RE/05

RE/05 RE-MASTER 2021–2022

Edited by Thordis Arrhenius and Mikael Bergquist

KTH Royal Institute of Technology — School of Architecture Stockholm

COLOPHON RE-Master Studio is an advanced architectural

Acknowledgements

course run at KTH Royal Institute of Technology School of Architecture in Stockholm.

Thanks to our many guests, hosts and critics who joined us during the academic year 2021–2022

It is taught by Thordis Arrhenius and Mikael Bergquist

Elizabeth Hatz (SAUL), Mikael Olsson (M.O Fotografi), Torun Hammar (Kulturmiljörådet,

Publication Design

Sveriges Arkitekter), Martin Rörby (Arkitektur

Matthew Ashton

& Form), Frida Melin (ArkDes), Tom Thys, (KU Leuwen), Caroline Voet, (KU Leuwen),

About the type

Julia Thiem ( KTH), Felicia Liang (KTH), Johan

Univers is used throughout this publication. The

Torarp (KTH), Eric Sigge (LTH), Kim Lenschow

typeface was designed by the Swiss typographer

(Office Kim Lenschow), Sebastian Ulvsgärd

Adrian Frutiger and released by Deberny &

(Stadsmuseet), Claes Sörstedt (KTH), Erik

Peignot in 1957 — the same year as Helvetica.

Stenberg (KTH), Henrietta Borseman (Ettelva arkitekter), Emma Österlund (Ettelva arkitekter),

© For all texts, drawings and images the

Jelena Mijanovic (Codesign), Malin Zimm

respective authors, unless otherwise stated.

(Arkitektur), Klas Ruin (Spridd arkitekter), Johan Örn (Celsingarkivet), Teresa Stoppani (AA School

All rights reserved. No part of this publication

London), Louis Sellgren (Vasakronan), Erik Hökby

may be reproduced in any manner without

(Marge), Eva Philipson (Vasakronan)

permission from the authors and the publisher.

We would also like to thank Roland Watkinson ISBN 978-91-527-3658-6

and the Sheraton Hotel Stockholm for generously providing us with a space for our end of year exhibition at Tysta Mariagången, as well as Helen Karlsson and the Royal Swedish Academy of Fine Arts (Konstakademien) for allowing us to us their library for the final reviews.

CONTENTS

Remaster 2021-2022

10

Learing from Klara

18

Kv. Björnen & Loen 1

30

Kv. Brunkhuvudet 1 & 2

38

Kv. Skansen 18

46

Kv. Orgelpipan 4

54

Kv. Snäckan 7 & 8

62

Re-archive

124

[6]

| Courtyard of Sheraton Hotel, Stockholm. ArkDes Collection

CHANGE

A central effect of global capitalism is the pressure of change. Urban patterns and building programs are increasingly becoming redundant, demanding change to accommodate new functions, identities and economies. At an accelerating speed, dominated by the logic of obsolescence, the built becomes outdated and turned into waste. This in turn raises a new urgency for contemporary architectural culture to start addressing the pressure of change in alternative modes.

PRESERVATION

With the fundamental shift in our contemporary understanding of spatial and material resources, the architect is no longer primarily occupied with making the new from scratch, but with making the new out of the past. In this condition preservation has won a new relevance for architecture that goes far beyond saving its canon of buildings. In the urgent context of climate change preservation is moving from the fringe of architectural culture into its core.

[7]

PEOPLE RE-2021–22

PROJECTS 2021–2022

ARCHIVES

Teachers

Kv. Snäckan 7 Sheraton Hotel AOS Architects 1971

ArkDes Archive [arkdes.se/en/library-and-collections]

Thordis Arrhenius (TA) Mikael Bergquist (MB) Students Angelo De Angelis (AA) Jingkai Chen (JC) Karl Graflund (KG) Emmie Olson (EO) Jesper Olson (JO) Ebba Rehn (ER) Aurora Strøm (AS) Alexander Svanfeldt (ASV) Linnea Thörne (LT) Rafael Fernandes Trindade (RT) Simon Wallin Viman (SV) Rachel Wu (RW) Yuhe Xia (YX) Previous Students Hedvig Aaro (HA) Sissel Berg Wincent (SW) Daniela Burki (DB) Carin Darsié (CD) Harald Forsmark (HF) Yanshao Gu (YG) Kamil Kowalski (KK) Kim Ulrika Lidman (KL) Juntian Lin (JL) Emma Linde (EL) Robert Magnusson Årebo (RÅ) Heljä Nieminen (HN) Hiroko Nishi (HNI) Rosanna Novo (RN) Naomi Schanne (NS) Katharina Weyde (KW) Jelena Obradovic (JOB)

[8]

Kv. Snäckan 8 KPMG Huset Erik Thelaus 1973 Kv. Björnen och Loen 1 Departmentets Hus Nils Tesch / BAU (Additions) 1973 /2012 Kv. Brunkhuvudet 1 Nordiska Handelsbanken Ernst Stenhammar 1920 Kv. Brunkhuvudet 2 Mäster Dyks Hus Axel Kumlien / Coordinator 1872 / 1979 Kv. Skansen 18 Sergel Plaza / Scandic Malmquist och Skoogh 1971 Kv. Orgelpipan 4 Klöven Lennart Tham 1956

Digital Museum [https://digitaltmuseum.se] Stockholm Källan [sok.stadsarkivet.stockholm.se] Stockholm Stad Archive [sok.stadsarkivet.stockholm.se] Stockholm City Planning Office [https://bygglov.stockholm/ hitta-ritningar] KTH Library [https://www.kth.se/biblioteket] Tidskriften Arkitektur [https://arkitektur.se/arkivet]

| Re-Masters Studio in Stockholm. 2022

[9]

RE­-MASTER 2020–2021 Studio Re- addresses the notion of change, permanence and resilience through the means of re-storation, re-use and re-pair. The overall methodological and pedagogical strategy is to explore the already present, the already built, the already thought and imagined.

Obsolesces Focusing on Stockholm’s modern heritage the Re-master studio has surveyed the economies and aesthetics of reuse.

Studying buildings that were materialized in the period of the 1960s and 1970s we have speculated on how to reuse a group of large-scale monumental buildings in Stockholm’s city core.

The buildings we have explored all have designated historical value and were designed by well-known Swedish architects, yet they are all under intensive pressure to change due to issues of obsolesce, economic speculation and changing ownership. Some of our cases are to be imminently demolished, while others have been (or will be) extensively reconfigured and altered.

[10]

The overall aim of the studio has been to re-think how we, as architects, act in relation to our common resources—material, spatial, social as well as aesthetic­—in the present situation of climate crisis. We have asked ourselves how issues of architectural sustainability and re-use relate to those of preservation and permeance. We have tried to figure out why re-use both begs for material permeance, and yet asks for architectural transformation and change. Throughout our investigations into re-use the notion of economy of means has been a consistent theme, steering design decisions and program.

More often we have asked what is not needed to be done, rather than putting forward a new design proposal. To do less rather than more has been the architectural task this year.

Re-use The term re-use is evidently closely connected to the emerging environmental crisis of the 1970s, growing out of an increasing anxiety for dwindling natural resources, increased consumption and a changing climate. Initially situated on the fringe of architectural culture—in the field of low-tech, DIY and counter-culture—re-use in many senses challenges and reverses the idea of the architectural project as an answer to a specific program or context. In opposition to designing the new, the already built—with its specific spaces and material properties—ask how to be used and acted up on. Architecture as brick and mortar—or in our case concrete and steel—tends to comes first and the architectural intervention after. Indeed, working with re-use opens up to novel ways of acting as an architect that goes beyond the production of new discreet architectural objects responding to a given program, to issues of alteration and adjustment of what is already at hand. This in turn ask for a re-thinking of the architectural discipline and of architectural education today.

[11]

Representation Crucial for the work in the studio is to reflect, test and most importantly, advance architectural representational tools and technologies—to become aware of the function of the drawing, the model and the image in architectural thinking. We have aimed to critically re-engage with the representational and documentary tools used in architecture—drawing, models, digital and photographic documentation as well as the representational technology of scanning. We have speculated how the drawing in preservation is primarily a tool of survey and analysis, rather than one of projection and forecast.

Further, we have explored how digitalization has affected the architectural representation. In the production of visual material we have paid attention to how the render translates between drawing and building, between the image and the architectural project. We have worked with digital manipulation of the analogue such as scale models and photographic images. In terms of this we have also understood and discussed re-use as a form of curatorial practice which through the tools of representation—drawing, modelling and image—curate and shift the materiality of a building by turning waste into gold, the obsolete into the desired, the lost into the found.

[12]

| Kv. Orgelpipan 4 under renovation

[13]

[14]

| Re-Masters Studio 2021-2022. Site visits , workshops and studio work

| Re-Masters Studio 2021-2022. Exploring the archives of ArkDes and the Stockholm City Planning Office

[15]

[16]

| Re-Masters Studio 2021-2022. Final reviews at Konstakademien

| Re-Masters Studio 2021-2022. End of year exhibition at Tysta Mariagången Stockholm

[17]

LEARNING FROM KLARA Thordis Arrhenius

In the radical modernization of Stockholm in the late 1960 an extensive part of the building stock in downtown Stockholm was torn down and the pattern of plot division and property ownership was changed. This re-scaling of the city generated new development sites that allowed for large-scale city blocks with few or sometimes one property owner occupying the whole block. Today there are strong forces to increase the exchange value and scale of these properties by further expansion and modernization. In the last two decades the demolition of monumental office blocks in the city have increased and Stockholm is going through yet another a radical modernization and up-scaling that heavily depends on demolition.

Hardly fifty years since last modernization of Stockholm the building stock in the center is perceived as an obstacle to the development of a vibrant modern city. Driven by forces of obsolescences the modern has quickly become outmoded. How in terms of this are architectural permanence and resilience related to urban development and change?

The modernization of Stockholm can be followed in a series of city plans from 1946 to 1967 of which the first, from 1946, took the initial and crucial decision to reshape the inner core. The aim was to maintain the center as a vital commercial area, responding to the threat that it would otherwise be abandoned and lose its financial importance because of the lack of significant sized development sites demanded by

[18]

Fig. 1. Looking north from Hamngatan towards the ongoing construction of the new city centre, 1961.

Photo Lennart af Pedersen © Stockholms Stadsmuseum

[19]

Fig. 2. Sergels Torg, the new city centre, 1974. Photo Lennart af Pedersen © Stockholms Stadsmuseum

[20]

large-scale department stores, corporations and banks. In 1951 the tearing down of buildings and the erection of the first high-rise structures started, but all within quite a modest and restricted area of the parish of Klara right at the center.

In 1962 års Cityplan and in City 67 however, further proposals were presented that extended the scope and the speed of demolition and rebuilding. Articulated in terms of slum-clearance (sanering), the plans proposed a radical expansion of the already extensive demolitions in the central city articulated in the earlier modernization plans since 1946, removing virtually the entire renaissance core and a significant part of the 18th/19th century building fabric surrounding this.

The modernization of Stockholm was one of the most ambitious and costly urban projects in post-war Europe.

Compared to most capital cities, Stockholm’s core had not been affected in any extensive sense by industrialization.

During the 19th and 20th centuries the city had continued to grow and expand without any larger reconfigurations of the 18th century urban pattern. The few exceptions, for example the cutting of the new boulevard Kungsgatan in 1911, are notable for their singularity rather than as a pattern. In the early post-war years Stockholm’s historical center, untouched by the war, was constituted of a rich juxtaposition of buildings of various scales and time-periods, and the city maintained its renaissance street pattern. Even though the population in the inner core was steadily reduced in the post-war years, the area was still characterized by a mix of housing, commercial property, smaller craft industries and specialist shops. This would be radically altered with the new urban plans that extensively replaced housing with offices and commercial units of larger scale. When the modernization project was concluded in the late 1970s Stockholm’s center had been emptied nearly entirely of dwellings and small industries. In the inner-city parish of Klara, the population was 11600 in 1940 and

[21]

by 1970 that figure was just below 1000. With the exception of a new cultural complex, Kulturhuset (1971-74) by the architect Peter Celsing (1920-1974), the city core was dominated by large scale commerce.

Although the last most radical plan, City 67 in fact was never carried out in full an extensive part of the building stock was torn down and the pattern of plot division was changed to create development sites producing new and large-scale city blocks. These new building plots were created by an elaborate system of trading with leases and expropriation by the city, building on the idea of a constant increase in land-value. Contributing to this total reconfiguration of the city-core was also the construction of new infrastructure. An extensive subway system and new underground motorway for cars and goods delivery was created, involving a radical re-contouring of the city and the creation of a multi-layered commercial and public space above and below ground. The alteration of the topography of the inner city included, as well as demolishing of the urban context, the removal of the natural ridge that ran from north to south, which had previously dominated the city’s landscape. Narrow steep streets were replaced with wide avenues providing easy access to car bound traffic.

An unforeseen aspect of the 1960’s modernization of the city was the slowness and sluggishness of such a large-scale operation and crucially the effect of this on the public reception of the project. For more than two decades Stockholm’s center consisted of an enormous excavation site. The complexity involved in the expropriation of buildings in exchange for new sites, together with the necessary excavation for the subway, meant that reconfigured building plots were left un-built, at the same time as even more buildings were torn down around them in order to facilitate land deals. The operation was characterized by an opacity regarding the political

[22]

Fig. 3. View from Drottninggatan towards the ongoing demolition of Kv. Skansen, 1962.

Photo Lennart af Pedersen © Stockholms Stadsmuseum

[23]

Fig. 4. View towards the construction of the Sheraton Hotel at Kv. Snäckan from the tower of Stockholm City Hall.

Photo Ingemar Gram © Stockholms Stadsmuseum

[24]

planning process and the intentions of the various private actors. This led to increasingly strong criticisms of the operation from the public and opened up the question of the role of participation and transparency in the planning process. In a series of exhibition such as Staden i Retur, 1967 and Klara Färdiga, 1969 at the newly opened Swedish Architectural Museum the re-use of the historic city as alternative to demolition were started to be discussed. But there were also other aspects to this critique: the demolition of historical buildings and structures jarred with an increasing environmental awareness of the limits of resources. In the summer of 1972, the first UN conference on the environment took place in Stockholm and previously in the spring 1971 the first major protest against the demolition took place with the famous Almbråket in Kungsträdgården that would have a long-lasting effect on preservation discourse in Sweden.

Ruination As the economic climate in Sweden hardened towards the end of the 1960s, and after decades in which Sweden had experienced uninterrupted growth of unprecedented scale, the need for such an extensive and expensive modernization of the city became harder for the city authorities to argue for and, crucially, to finance. The vibrant commercial center promised in the plans did not materialize and the demand for big building plots from large-scale corporations diminished as they continued, despite sustained efforts from the city government, to establish themselves on the city fringe. However, while it became increasingly hard to rent out commercial offices during the 1970s, the demolition of buildings in the center actually intensified in order to fulfil the decisions made in the city plans from the 1960s. Articles in the press started to question whether the pits would ever be filled and to suggest that the city as an empty plot would become a permanent feature, ending economic pressure and financial interest

[25]

in the city core altogether. The utopian project of a new highrise commercial center was replaced in the media with dystopian images of destruction; the modernization project began to be associated with ruination both literally and financially.

Now half a century had gone by and history seems in some uncanny way to repeat itself although this time in a speeded-up manner. In the middle of escalating environmental crisis Stockholm is erasing its modern heritage to build new, fast and bigger. However today it is not historical buildings belonging to a long gone past that are demolished to give space to the new but building that belong to Stockholm’s own modern architectural heritage. Built in durable material to high architectural standard and at the time to great expense these modern buildings have already become ruins. ***

[26]

Fig. 5. Construction of the Sheraton Hotel at Kv. Snäckan, 1968.

Photo Ingemar Gram © Stockholms Stadsmuseum

[27]

4 ORGELPIPAN

SNÄCKAN 8 7

[28]

SKANSEN 18

4

BJÖRNEN OCH LOEN 1

1

BRUNKHUVUDET 3 2

| The Klara district in central Stockholm with property boundaries

[29]

KV. BJÖRNEN & LOEN 1 Nils Tesch / BAU (Additions) 1973 /2012

[30]

| KL

[31]

Model

[32]

| KG

Workshop 2: Interior model 1:10

| RÅ, EO, EO (Clockwise from left)

elevation 1:20

[33]

[34]

| KG

| KL

[35]

Workshop 3: Facade portrait

[36]

| EO

| KL

[37]

KV. BRUNKHUVUDET 1 & 2 Ernst Stenhammar / Axel Kumlien / Coordinator 1920 / 1872 / 1979

[38]

| HA

[39]

[40]

| LT, RW

| HA

[41]

[42]

Mo d el- Entra n c e to th e a rca d e f rom Ma l mtor g s g ata n

| JOB

| AS

[43]

[44]

| RW

Brief 2 - Models & drawings - Model of Jakobsarkaden 1:20 - Ebba Rehn - Studio Re

| ER

[45]

KV. SKANSEN 18 Malmquist och Skoogh 1971

[46]

| JL

[47]

[48]

| YG

| JL

[49]

[50]

| HN

| KW

[51]

[52]

| YG

| HN

[53]

KV. ORGELPIPAN 4 Lennart Tham 1956

[54]

| YX

[55]

[56]

Model Photograph | YX

| DB

[57]

Wallin Wiman & Sissel Wincent

[58]

| SV + SW

| SV

[59]

[60]

| DB

- Simon Wallin Wiman & Sissel Wincent

| SV + SW

[61]

KV. SNÄCKAN 7 & 8 AOS Architects / Erik Thelaus 1971 / 1973

[62]

| JO

[63]

[64]

| RN, EL

| KK

[65]

[66]

| JO

| HNI

[67]

[68]

| KK

| HNI

[69]

SNÄCKAN 8 RE-THINK RE-USE

SIMON WALLIN VIMAN (SV) AURORA STRØM (AS) LINNEA THÖRNE (LT) EBBA REHN (ER) RACHEL WU (RW) ANGELO DE ANGELIS (AA) ALEXANDER SVANFELDT (ASV) EMMIE OLSON (EO) KARL GRAFLUND (KG) YUHE XIA (YX) JESPER OLSON (JO) JINGKAI CHEN (JC) RAFAEL FERNANDES TRINDADE (RT)

[70]

| SV, AS

[71]

[72]

| SW

| SW

Montage/sketch of possible bike lane

[73]

Skiss Journalistgången upp till Tysta Mari

[74]

| SW

1:1000 (A1)

| SW

Snäckan 8 with stairs/escalators down to “Journalistgången”

[75]

Axonometric image

[76]

| ER

Existing and added fragments

| ER

[77]

[78]

| ER

| ER

[79]

[80]

| LT

| LT

[81] PLAN 0

[82]

| AS

| AS

[83]

1:200 (A3) FLOOR PATTERN DIAGRAM

[84]

| AS

VENUE / C O -W O R KIN G

C O -W O R KIN G

VENUE

T Y S T A

M Å R I G Å N G E N

VENUE

R E C EPTIO N

BAR

/ RES T

AURA

NT

R O D B O D G A T A N

A D M IN / KIT C H E N

T E G E L B A C K E N

GROUND FLOOR PLAN 1:200 (A3)

| AS

[85]

[86]

| AA

| AA

[87]

[88]

| RW

| RW

[89]

- Entrance, Rödbodagatan / Facade, Herkulesgatan

[90]

| RW

| RW

[91]

Elevation Rödbodgatan - 1:200

[92]

| ASV

Elevation Tegelbacken - 1:200

| ASV

[93]

Interior perspective of office space

[94]

| ASV

| ASV

[95]

Super model - 1:50

[96]

| ASV, YX

Model - 1:200

| ASV

[97]

C

[98]

| KG

Watercolor study of facade stone 52x58 cm

| KG

[99]

[100]

| KG

| KG

[101]

[102]

| EO

| EO

[103]

section perspective of Snäckan 8

[104]

investigating: the courtyard and the inner facades, the concrete pillars are stripped of the sheet metal. keep all or only loadbearing concrete? on courtyard: “forest horticulture”, suitable for urban cultivation and urban ecological chains, sustainable food production (permaculture)

exterior corridors behind, common spaces.

| EO

[105]

[106]

| YX

| YX

[107]

[108]

| YX

| YX

[109]

[110]

| JO, JC, RT

[111]

GSEducationalVersion

PART II - REUSE To make these proposed chang particularly large parts of the co EPFL recently demonstrated ho wall into smaller building blocks reuse concept of Snäckan 8 is to office building and to build a ne same place where the descent t

Reusing the material on site red tion but reusing material can als material was new. The buildings a casted surface and two side s like terrazzo. The slabs are cut i inspired by the neighboring Loe texture and depth in the facade

So instead of making Snäckan 8 ing which breaks up the big blo towards the south. This also giv ground floor and several differe Elevation part of the new building 1:50

[112]

| JO

Facade model representing the difference in cut surface and casted surface 1:20

| JO

[113]

Model photo

[114]

| JO

| JO

[115]

Snäckan 8 [116]

Addition | JO

Loen [117]

[118]

EAST ENTRANCE

| RT

| RT

[119]

ELEVATION TEGELBACKEN (SOUTH) - 1:200

[120]

| RT

ELEVATION RÖDBODGATAN (EAST) - 1:200

| RT

[121]

[122]

| JC

| JC

[123]

RE-ARCHIVE

[124]

| ARKDES COLLECTION

We kindly thank Aurora Strøm, Marius Haugum and Sanna Karlsson and Darta Adomsone for their permission to reprint these texts, which were written for the seminar courses Bringing History to Life taught by Victor Edman and Making History and taught by Thordis Arrhenius at KTH School of Architecture between 2019 and 2021.

Following these texts is a selection of archival material from the collection of AOS Architects (Magnus Ahlgren, Torbjörn Olsson & Sven Silow), illustrating the rich and detailed design process involved in the realisation of Snäckan 7 — the Sheraton Hotel. The AOS Collection is currently a part of the ArkDes collection. We kindly thank Frida Melin for hosting us at the archives of ArkDes.

126

Restoration of Postmodern Architecture Aurora Strøm

130

The Value of Reuse Marius Haugum

134

Collage City or Architectural Cannibalism?

Sanna Karlsson

140

The Heritage of Tension Darta Adamsone

144

From the Archive: Original Drawings and Illustrations from AOS Architects Archival Material from Arkdes Collections

[125]

RESTORATION OF POSTMODERN ARCHITECTURE

Aurora Strøm The traditions and theory of restoration have been a recurrent discussion, especially over the last two hundred years. Like in any aspect of society there have been central figures both for and against the architectural theme of restoration. In the 19th century theorist John Ruskin and architectural conservationist William Morris forwarded the anti-restoration movement by calling it “the most total destruction which a building can suffer”,1 it was not meant to be touched or restored in any sense. Architect Viollet-le-Duc on the other hand, the inventor of modern restoration, stated that “to restore a building is not to preserve, repair, or rebuild it; it is to reinstate it in a condition of completeness that never could have existed at any given time”,2 making room for a different way of preserving what is considered of architectural heritage value.

Architect and art historian Sigurd Curman followed up on these principles by restoring with the intention to maintain the historical layers, not to reconstruct the building’s original shape.3 We have now entered a new area of time where we need to look at the cityscape and identify what has not yet been valued, specifically buildings of postmodern character.

Architect Denise Scott Brown once said “Postmodernism has the defect of being out of fashion while not being old enough to be re-evaluated.¨4 Why have so many structures from the period 1960-90 with designated major cultural-historical values in recent years been subjected to demolition, rebuilds and major changes?

[126]

The purpose of this essay is to continue this discussion, hoping to shed light on the fact that restoration and preservation of postmodern architecture is a rising issue and that the period should be seen in a larger historical perspective, rather than just a matter of aesthetic expression.

a new generation of architects and designers are attracted by its playfulness and aesthetic pluralism. And with the new digital design process and social media, the questions that postmodernism once raised about reproduction and simulacra have gained a new burning relevance.5

Postmodernism is neither a style nor an architectural movement that emerged in the 1980s, but rather a tendency that has appeared in the work of architects of various stripes at different times throughout history.

According to this argument, postmodernism embodies an anti-style.

It is characterized not by rules or aesthetics—not bright colours or references to history or decorative colours—but rather by its inclusivity, eclecticism and contextuality.

As a reaction against the utopian canon of modernism in the 1970s and 80s, the postmodern movement has recently re-entered our current architectural culture scene and has become a defining element of contemporary architecture. The question arises: what is the current architectural movement? And what followed postmodernism immediately? If anything, it was an instant cry of “no more Po-Mo.” But then followed by a frenzy of “save Po-Mo”, perhaps best exemplified by the campaign to save Philip Johnson’s AT&T Tower from Snøhetta’s plan for renovation.

Have we now arrived at a time in history where people might start to acknowledge that despite not necessarily being a fan of the postmodern movement, they understand its significance in architectural history?

Courses are set up at universities,

Throughout the twentieth century, modern architecture dominated design, and it continues to influence subsequent generations. Its preservation to this day is as essential as that of the previous period. A building built in a modern style becomes part of the architectural continuum, its buildings befall threats ranging from material to functional obsolescence, and they can be demolished due to abandonment or lack of appreciation, and the preservation of such buildings is of increasing concern. In order to determine the most appropriate way to continue to approach these buildings, it is important to examine the development of the protection of the twentieth-century built fabric.6 Despite preservation of modern architecture seeming to push preservation in new directions, the appreciation for the distinct styles of earlier periods is not unique to contemporary preservation. Once enough time has passed for reflection and, possibly, nostalgia, collectors become interested in the art and artefacts of a particular period. An architect or building recognized for its contribution to history expands awareness and appreciation for the entire period. Furthermore, last-minute attempts to preserve important

| RE-ARCHIVE

Snäckan 8 as it is today. Photo: Aurora Strøm

modern buildings from demolition led to the realisation that comprehensive surveys of the period were necessary for evaluating both the individual buildings and their role in the larger context.7 This reflects how immensely important it is to start the discussion of postmodern heritage before it is too late.

In 1991 The council of Europe created principles and guidelines for preserving and enhancing twentieth-century architectural heritage. As a result of industrialization, the introduction of new materials, the transformation of construction techniques, and new uses, architecture and urban planning have under- gone profound changes since the end of the nineteenth century. Buildings of the

| AURORA STRØM

twentieth century often exhibit a variety of characteristics, reflecting both traditional and modern values, and have gathered pace at the same time as technological advances. The buildings built in the twentieth century, with the exception of some pioneers, are not generally considered for their heritage value. To achieve a deeper understanding and knowledge of this part of heritage, it is imperative that we highlight the qualities, wealth, and the diversity of forms.8 The Swedish National Heritage Board, RAA, is responsible for the cultural heritage and historic environments in Sweden. They have been asked by the government to establish general principles for

building maintenance in the cultural environment. The principles comprehend a method whereas a building is to be looked at from five perspectives; wariness, relation to history, knowledge, technique and material, and maintenance. They state that whenever an addition is made to a historical design, the additions should remain distinct from the original, without devaluing the whole.

It is also to bear in mind that sometimes it is seen as inappropriate to compliment the kept environment with distinction when the integrity of the environment is so strong. 9 By considering the stylistic unity and totality from a distance, as well as the readability of what is new and old from a closer vantage point, their approach towards maintaining the

[127]

architectural heritage can be much compatible with Sigurd Curman’s view on restoration theory. “An ideal restoration is such that when one looks at the result, one should not notice that anything has been done for a very long time, yet one should have a feeling that everything is in good order and fit to the purpose”.10 Having these grounds set for the preservation of architectural history it is important to start looking at the buildings that are now under the threat of extensive alterations and even demolition due to its lack of attention and connection to our cultural heritage.

Snäckan 8 on Norrmalm is an example of Swedish postmodern architecture that is to be demolished and replaced with a taller and more modernized office building on an extended plot of land. Samfundet S:t Erik wrote an appeal to vote against its demolition, supported by strong arguments to why. They point out the importance of preserving valuable examples from the current period, so that the city’s historical development remains readable in the future. The existing building was built in 1970–73, only 45 years ago, and was designed by the well-known and versatile architect Erik Thelaus (1919–2005). It was part of the city regulation that was realised during the 1950s, 60s and 70s, and it is a characteristic representative of this for Stockholm’s settlement history of a significant time in architectural history. The building is built in immediate proximity to the neighbouring Sheraton hotel. Both buildings are designed to interact with each other but also with the whole surrounding urban space. The facade is covered in natural stone of high quality that is in good condition. Samfundet S:t Erik wants to remind us here about the discussion about resource management and sustainable development that is going on in society today.11

[128]

The discussion is not only about managing material and financial resources but it also applies to the built cultural heritage and its significance for long-term sustainability.

They have considered that the existing house may well meet the needs set out in the plan proposal. The living urban environment which is in demand can probably be achieved by adapting the existing building, as the street level has good potential to be made more accessible to the public, rather than undergo complete demolition.12 “New ideas must use old buildings”, Jane Jacobs wrote in her book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities.13 Snäckan 8 is today regarded as an outdated and obsolete office building. However, although the building might have out-grown its purpose, it should be considered for the value found in its existing structure. It can be seen as a solid skin adaptable for another life. The reasoning for its demolition is founded on the fact that the current state of the building with its small windows, room height and layout does not meet the modern requirements for its purpose. It is also stated that the new building must be well designed with good usability in mind over time and shall contribute positively to the development of a vibrant and attractive urban environment. Adaptive reuse is the process of changing a building’s primary functions and re-purposing it. An assessment of the existing framework can reveal new possibilities, reveal potential, and result in a new program that exists in harmony with the original shell. Embedded in the complexity of the new is the essence of the old, resulting in a building that is rich in culture and context.

The plan proposal represents a general approach to the development of post-war buildings in the city, an

approach that has become increasingly aggressive in recent years.

Stockholm City is one modernist cultural environment of rare high class, even from an international perspective. Many buildings from the period 1960–80 with designated major cultural-historical values have in recent years been subjected to demolition, rebuilds and major changes, Hästen 21 at Regeringsgatan, Hästskon 12 at Sergels torg, and Gallerikvarten are just a few examples.14 This is where the question regarding durability vs. cultural value comes to reality.

Since several Swedish postmodern buildings risk being altered, re-built, restored or demolished before their positive contribution to the cityscape has been evaluated, there is a need to review the architectural heritage from both the post-modern and modern era in central Stockholm.

Today, when the postmodern building stock is threatened by severe renovations, or even demolition, it may be time to let the public opinion speak again and for architects and antiquarians, it’s time to step forward. It is high time to carry out broader inventories and to address the question of how postmodernist architecture in Stockholm should be preserved. Postmodernism is a moving target. It is easier to define what it is not than what it stands for. Postmodernism has become an umbrella term for something that is considered irrational, bad, confusing or reactionary. It deserves to be treated. Not to determine whether something is postmodern or not, or to discuss how the exact definition should sound, but because the questions posed by postmodernism remain unanswered and because the problems it highlights are as relevant today as they ever were years ago.15 ***

| RE-ARCHIVE

Architectural proposal for the redevelopment of Snäckan 8. Illustration: BAU

12. ibid.

Notes 1 John Ruskin: ”The Lamp of Memory” in

6. Theodor Prudon, ”Preservation of Modern

Seven Lamps of Architecture, 1849.

Architecture: The Beginning”, in Preservation

13 Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great

of Modern Architecture (2008), 2.

American Cities (New York: Random House,

2 Viollet-le-Duc, ”On Restoration”, Dictionnaire raisonné..., 1866, 9.

1961) 7 Prudon, ”Preservation of Modern Architecture: The Beginning,” 18.

3 Victor Edman, “Sigurd Curman’s

14. Andersson, Edman, Ulvsgärd, “Kv. Snäckan 8,” 2.

Restorations: Swedish Heritage in a Modern

8. Council of Europe: Recommendation No.

Context”, in Future Anterior , 2010, 54.

R (91) 13, On the Protection of the Twentieth-

15. Pech, Arkitektur bortom det byggda, 23.

Century Architectural Heritage, (1991), 2.

4 “Should we demolish the Postmodern simply because “out of fashion?”

9. Lina Andersson, Density of experience -

Last modified August, 2018.

an exploration of heritage and transformation

https://www.domusweb.it/en/

through Kaparen in Gothenburg (Diss., Chal-

opinion/2018/08/06/is-there-any-sense-

mers School of Architecture), 8.

in-demolishing-the-postmodern-simplybecause-it-is-out-of-fashion.html

10. Edman, “Sigurd Curman’s Restorations” 60.

5. Christina Pech, “Arkitektur bortom det byggda”, in Postmodernismen i Stockholm,

11. Monica Andersson, Victor Edman,

Samfundet S:t Erik, ed. Ann Pålsson

Sebastian Ulvsgärd, “Kv. Snäckan 8,

(Stockholm:Appell Förlag, 2021), 13.

Norrmalm, förslag till Detaljplan, S-Dp 201216699”. (May 2018), 1.

| AURORA STRØM

[129]

THE VALUE OF REUSE

Marius Haugum Snäckan 8 is located in the southwest of Norrmalm. The office building was designed by the Swedish architect Erik Thelaus in 1970. The international company KPMG had their headquarters in Stockholm in the building for decades, and the building was at the time called KPMGhuset.1 The Embassy of Canada has also been placed in the building that hosts around 750 workplaces. The city block, or the quarter, includes both Snäckan 7 and Snäckan 8. All the blocks in the area were named after different sea animals. The names have been in use since the 1700s.

Snäckan 7, which houses the Hotel Sheraton was designed by the Swedish architect office AOS Arkitketer in 1970. Snäckan 8 was drawn at the same time, but the building process started after finishing the Hotel, due to traffic problems if both buildings were built at the same time.

Snäckan 8, with its 7 floors, was finished in 1973. The building is composed of the Hotel Sheraton, sharing the same floor-heights and numbers of floors. The idea of an arcade for the pedestrians towards the street Tegelbacken facing south was also shared.

From 2012, only 40 years after the building was finished, a proposal for a new office building at the site was presented by then owner Alecta.

After selling the property to Skanska in 2014, the small Stockholm based organization Samfundet S:t Erik complained about the new proposal.2 A complainant that started a

[130]

two-year-long fight against the large Skanska, that by then had sold the proposed building already to the Swedish state organization SKR (Sveriges Kommuner og Regioner), who will move their headquarter from Slussen to Snäckan.

The case was closed in late September 2020, when the Land and Environment Court of Stockholm decided that the complaint from Samfundet S:t Erik should not be taken into account, even after S:t Eriks won in the Supreme Court, fighting for their right to send in a complainant.3 After World War 2, Norrmalm faced the largest redevelopment that Sweden, or any other Scandinavian city had ever seen. In total 750 buildings were demolished and rebuilt.

Not only buildings, but whole blocks were torn down. The move was applauded but also strongly criticized by the Swedish people. The redevelopment caught also an international intention due to the scale of redevelopment and the hard move on the existing city plan. One of the main reasons for the redevelopment was to develop the infrastructure, due to the booming car traffic and population in the city.4 Today we’re facing the consequences of the hard move.

Today we want to return the view and put the pedestrians in the centre for city development again. The move during these years has a direct impact on how we approach Snäckan 8 as a pedestrian today. As we can see from areal photos, Snäckan is more or less surrounded by heavy car traffic and multi-laned roads.

The facade of the Snäckan block is mainly stone and tiles in different rhythms and patterns. AOS Arkitekter decided in the late 1960s to use a glazed Chamotte tilestone and to use a brown plaster, on façades that were not so exposed, such as the inner courtyard. The façades are inspired by the surrounded buildings.

Between the waterline and Snäckan we find Centralpalatset, from 1898, and Rosenbadet, 1902, is located close as well. The use of stone in these buildings sat some guidelines for the façade.5 The building's three façades have different architectural dignity. On the South façade, against Tegelbacken, the façade is treated with sandstone cladding in three different ways used to create variety and respond to Sheraton Hotel’s glazed Chamotte tilestone. I can imagine that to keep the cost low they also decided to use a simpler design with plaster in the same colour-code as Hotel Sheraton in the courtyard. Snäckan 7 and 8 are marked as blue and green classified after the cultural-historical protection in Stockholm by the City Museum and the municipality of Stockholm, mainly due to the façade.

Hotel Sheraton is marked blue, more or less due to the use of the glazed Chamotte tilestone.6 A very important element, both from an architectural and cityscape point of view, is the building’s high arcade towards Tegelbacken. The move also provides brighter daylight deeper into the core of the building due to the double ceiling height in the entrance. The shopping arcades have

| RE-ARCHIVE

t a N

N

at 50 ole y an ard

ng

and move an 8 s s.

ent use a hat

The redevelopment of Norrmalm. (1950 on left, 1970 on right)

1950 0

100

200

300 m

Skala 1:5 000, SWEREF 99 TM, RH 2000.

a long history in the beginning for providing shelter for the users, but also to have larger multiple vitrine windows for shops.

Today the arcade is also working as a buffer zone for the pedestrians towards the road. The five meter deep overlay creates an atmosphere for the pedestrian, where the traffic noise is reduced due to the depth of the arcade and the row of trees planted between the arcade and the road.

Another important part is Tysta Marigången. The underpass was created during the redevelopment in 1970. A gesture that gently transports the pedestrians from Klara

MARIUS HAUGUM

1970

0

100

200

Skala 1:5 000, SWEREF 99 TM, RH 2000.

Västra Kyrkgatan, underneath the new road network, and to the waterfront. The passage was named after the Café Tysta Mari that is located close to the opening near Klara Västra Kyrkgatan. During the first three decades, the underpass was well-used. Unfortunately, in the last two decades, Tysta Marigången has faced an interest among the homeless people and other users that contributes to creating a less secure passage for the daily user.7 Both Tysta Marigången and the arcade are important examples of how the urban transformation was careful to create traffic-protected passages for pedestrians, which connected the new block, with surrounding

300 m

The Redevelopment of Norrmalm.

streets and buildings, and the waterline. Since many similar passages in the city today have been removed, it is important to protect the remaining ones.

In 2012 the stake owners, the Swedish retirement pension company Alecta decided to replace Snäckan 8 with another, larger office building.

In 2012 the building where only 39 years old, but Alecta want to tear the building down. Alectas's main argument for the demolition was due to the low ceiling height. The slab height needed a minimum of 2700 mm, and in the existing building, the height between the slabs is only 2600 mm. Their main argument rested on 100 mm for tearing down a 25

[131]

meters high, 40-year-old, concrete constructed building, only for replacing it with a new concrete building.

I’ll come back to the environmental perspective after a closer look at the new design proposal for Snäckan 8, drawn by the Stockholm based architect office BAU.8 In BAU’s proposal for a new office building, which is four meters higher and ten meters longer than Snäckan 8. The height-rise of 4 meters isn't that much if we see the building separately, but in a city context such as the situation around Snäckan, 4 meters will be crucial for the sightlines and axes located around the quarter. The new proposal will interrupt with the axes towards the Klara Church. The sight-line wasn't even interrupted during the large redevelopment of Norrmalm in the 1960s.

The design by BAU also includes a 10-meter longer building towards Rödbordgatan in the East. The proposal suggested to transform the street, that today faces heavy traffic, into a more silent street, by cutting off two lanes.9 The move to generate more pedestrian-friendly streets in the inner city is a step towards a more liveable city. The main problem is that the street will be more narrow and the buildings on both sides of the street even higher. This will generate a street that has a lack of human scale. Creating a more narrow street can also generate stronger winds in the area. A problem we can relate to in other similar situations, where the buildings press the wind down, generates a higher speed of the wind coming from the waterfront.

Demolishing a building, where one of the strongest arguments for a new building is the slab height and more square meters is for me unbelievable. Sweden as the welfare state it is today plays an important role internationally in leading the way in showing that it is possible to rebuild with the help of reuse. Sweden has the economy to spend on environmental solutions where the construction is preserved. If countries such as Sweden, or other countries in the west, do not choose solutions that benefit the environment, this will create ripple effects for other countries. Here, Sweden has the opportunity to take the lead as an environmentally conscious country.

Today we have a responsibility to design the future our children and grandchildren will live in. By creating architecture, you generate buildings that will stand through generations.

It is a fundamental commitment to create the buildings for the next generation. Therefore we need to act with care and be humble. It must be possible in 2020 to create good architecture without demolishing existing functional buildings, actions that belong to the past. We have to prove that we've learned something these five last decades.

Notes 1. Wikipedia 2. Erik, Samfundet S:t. u.d. Samfundet S:t Erik . https://samfundetsterik.se/yttrandebetr-snackan-8-norrmalm-sdp- 2012-16699/.

3. fastighetsvarlden.se, Redaktionen. 2020. fastighetsvarlden.se. 09 09. Funnet 10 15, 2020. https://www.fastighetsvarlden. se/notiser/jubel-hos- skanska-far-riva-ochstarta-stort-projekt/.

4. Wikipedia 5. (Stockholms Stad - Stockholm växer Norrmalm 2020) 6. Hadmyr, Sweco Johanna. 2016. Antikvarisk Förundersökning, KV Snäckan 8 och

***

omgivande kvarter, Stockholm. Antikvarisk Förundersökning , Stockholm: Sweco Architects AB. 7. Nilsson, Marcus Ängeby och Urban.

2016. Kulturhistorisk konsekvensanalys Kv. Snäckan 8, Stockholm. Kulturhistorisk konsekvensanalys, Stockholm: Nyréns

In 2020 it must be possible to reuse the building in a better way. We are standing over a global environmental problem and the building industry has to take responsibility. A concrete structured building creates one of the largest Co2 footprints in the construction industry today.

[132]

Arkitektkontor.

8. Västberg, Erika. 2016. Dagvattenutredning.

DV-utredning, Stockholm: WSP Samhäldsbyggnad.

9. Walker_BAU, Peter. u.d. BAU.se. Funnet 10 29, 2020. https://bau.se/case/snackan/.

| RE-ARCHIVE

Material samples for the new development by BAU overlaid upon the sandstone clad columns of the existing building . Photo: Matthew Ashton

MARIUS HAUGUM

[133]

COLLAGE CITY OR ARCHITECTURAL CANNIBALISM?

Sanna Karlsson “They arise with an aura of ’fuck the context’”, architect Tomas Lauri wrote in an entry 2012 in the magazine Arkitektur1. He was referring to contemporary additions to the cityscape of Stockholm, and one among them the three-story superstructure by BAU Architects on top of Nils Tesch’s Department building Loen. The addition differs quite prominently to its host building, that it almost seems like the dominating aspiration has been to deviate rather than to connect to its context. Then how can we deal with the ever-recurring conflict between the preservation of the old in relation to process of renewal?

This text will explore this, with help of previously named addition as case study. Where can one draw the line between the delicate ‘Collage City’ built upon fragments from different epochs and when do we tip over into a messy jumble of architectural cannibalism?

The department building drawn by Nils Tesch Arkitektkontor AB is situated in South Klara in Stockholm City. It’s located in Björnen och Loen 1, one of ten blocks making up the government quarters, named so because the government offices is the major tenant of these buildings, owned by National Property Board (STF). The development of the area can be briefly divided into three phases. The old cityscape that had evolved in these parts of Norrmalm from the 17th until mid-20th century, which was considered outdated and to large extent demolished in the so called Norrmalm regulation.

Following this in the 1960s, the next phase was initiated, which involved

[134]

raising new modern office buildings for the government departments.

Around 2009 the third phase started, consisting of an extensive renovation and densification of the area, including the superstructure to which this text relates in particular.2 The Department building was one of Tesch’s largest projects in scale, measuring 26 x 90 meters, and consisting of 7 stories. Before this project he had mostly been acquainted with the more intimate scale. Also a new experience for Tesch, was the client’s (Byggnadsstyrelsen) requirement that the building was to be raised with prefabricated concrete elements.3 The dilemma was to find a way to break the potential monotony in the façade when dealing with prefab-technique in combination with the massive volume. After sketching on different window settings and shapes, he ended up with the rounded window, together with a smaller, rectangular, openable window. To further add on to the rhythm of the façade elements, the large window was placed in level with the façade, while the smaller one is retracted a bit. According to Nils Tesch, the rounded window was chosen due to aesthetical reasons, and to achieve the desired window height but at the same time minimizing the glass area.4 Tesch had to struggle some with economists and technicians thinking the windows were an unnecessary experiment, a fight that resulted in a building which is both time-typical and unique. An example at the time, showing that concrete element not necessarily needed to be restricted to orthogonal shapes.5

About 40 years later the building still retains its unique qualities, states the City Museum of Stockholm. In a 2007 inventory of buildings in Stockholm City built 1960–1989, carried out by them, Tesch’s building was one among 14 buildings to receive a “blue classification”. This is the highest category, meaning that the building is considered to be of particularly cultural-historical value. According to the Planning and Building Act (PBL), buildings considered particularly important based on a number of criteria ‘can’t be handled carelessly or be distorted’.

The purpose is to preserve selected buildings as living documents for the future.6 In brief, the motivation for the high classification argues that the building is unique due to its peculiar but elegant concrete elements making up the façade. Furthermore the slender arched windows give the building its own character in contrast to the standardized concrete elements typically used, especially in housing construction at the time.

They also note that associations to traditional architecture were rare at the time.7 Despite the fact that the Department building Loen received a blue classification in the year 2007, the proposal by BAU Architects got accepted in 2009 and was completed in 2011.

Although, the original plan for the South Klara blocks was only to make extensive renovations of the office buildings from the 1960s-70s. But during the renovation discussions, a new idea emerged. The idea was to look over the possibilities to further develop the area, in order to make

| RE-ARCHIVE

Kv. Björnen och Loen 1, Stockholm. Photo: Sanna Karlsson

room for more attractive working places for the government offices.

In questions of how this urban densification was to be carried out, the concept of ‘limited superstructure’ (begränsad påbyggnad) came up.

Peter Ohrstedt, architect and project manager from the National Property Board, describes it: “By adding 2–3 stories on top of existing buildings, already made investments in infrastructure can be utilized whilst maintaining the city’s silhouette and character through consciously designed

SANNA KARLSSON

superstructures.”8 The goal for the National Property Board is that the value of state-owned properties in a long-time perspective should increase, and to build on height would, according to them, be the most cost-effective way to provide new premises.9 The mission to design the addition to Tesch’s building fell on architect Hans Birkholz from BAU Architects.

In the project description on their website they state: “The mission for

the Loen-block meant adding a new volume to the existing building by Nils Tesch from the 1960s, that would add a new growth ring to the area.10 The addition has been given different shapes and material in different parts, to relate to the different characters of the closest buildings, and to avoid putting a way too big piece that would “stand out to much” in the landscape. In the plan proposal it can also be read that the extension is intended to be read clearly as an addition, that rather “floats” above

[135]

Nils Tesch, ”Departementsbyggnaden Loen”, Tidskriften Arkitektur, no. 6 (1973).

the existing building.11 A major focus during the renovations and new constructions has also been on reaching the classification level called Green Building, which is the second highest environmental class according to EU standard. To be able to meet the demands, large windows were impossible.12 Much deeper insight into the design process than what is mentioned above, is not to my knowledge given. How those involved addressed the fact that the existing structure of concern only two years earlier had been classified due to its particular cultural-historical value, isn’t mentioned in the description written

[136]

by BAU architects nor in the article written by the project leader Peter Ohrstedt from the National Property Board.

Apart from the individual building being blue classed, it also lies within a larger area of national interest for cultural environmental protection, pointed out by The Swedish Nation Heritage Board (RAÄ). That an area is of national interest means that the specified cultural historical values within the area can’t be significantly damaged.13 What this term includes is always site-specific, but in general: an intervention leading to the loss of said values of the area.14 Stockholm’s inner city’s character-

istic values includes among other things “the readable growth rings, the city silhouette with the limited house heights, buildings and environments related to artistic works and historical figures.”15 Due to these double indications of the building and the whole areas special value several consultative bodies have been consulted and made their remarks on the proposal, one of them the city’s Culture Administration, who writes in an exposure draft that they oppose the heightening of the Loen-block with three stories due to that “the proposed addition affects the overall experience of the original exterior, with its rhythm in façade and flat roof” and furthermore they

| RE-ARCHIVE

point out that “modernist buildings should be given equal amount of respect and consideration as older buildings“.16 Has the Department Building Loen really been handled carefully then?

Coming from a post-modern point of view, I have identified three angles to lead a discussion regarding the extension. The first one, and most obvious, would be the fact that the superstructure happens to be located just on top of one of Sweden’s first buildings in the post-modern style. The second, that the built addition seems to reject the idea of relating to its context, which is one of the cornerstones in post-modern architectural theory. But from the third angle on the other hand, one could say that the densification of the quarter Björnen and Loen is a fairly good anti-example of the “total-design” way of the Modernist movement. By letting the renewal take it’s starting point in the already existing, and fragmentarily build upon it, the process follows another set of rules.

When planning the densification of the block Björnen och Loen the engaged professionals were dealing with more buildings than just Tesch’s. Other buildings have also received roof additions or exterior alterations. Only a few buildings seem to have dodged the invasion seemingly unscratched, one of them Adelcrantzska Palatset, located in the center of the the Björnen block. The mid-18th century rococo- palace is the oldest remaining building in the block, and one of three remaining from before the demolitions of the Norrmalm regulation. The other ones are two neighbouring bank buildings from early 20th century. How come just these three are the ones whose appearance was worth preserving untouched? Of course they possess the blue classification, but so does Tesch’s Department Building.

SANNA KARLSSON

The three other buildings are older than Tesch’s, but does that inherently mean that they are more unique?

The Department Building definitely holds distinctive features, it’s something as rare as a building in postmodern style, raised at least 10 years previous to the real breakthrough of postmodernism in Sweden. Maybe one can hint a tendency to not acknowledge the unique qualities of buildings that dates from this more recent period, to the same extent as older buildings are being recognized.

Referring to the concept of contextualism, which in the book Collage City (Rowe and Koetter, 1978) is presented through a discussion about modern architectures fixation with ‘the object’ and what they call texture.

As they put it: “ …rather than hoping and waiting for the withering away of the object /.../, it might be judicious, in most cases, to allow and encourage the object to become digested in prevalent texture of matrix.“17 As previously mentioned, in this case, the architect Hans Birkholz’s outspoken aim was never to create an object, but rather to avoid the addition to “stand out too much”. But I recognize a dilemma here between this statement and what is written in the plan proposal: that the extension is intended to be read clearly as an addition. Is it possible to aim at making the structure blend into its context while simultaneously wanting it to be read as a separate piece?

Perhaps, but then, what strategies were really used to make it blend in?

They chose different façade-materials, different window shapes and setting, it doesn’t follow the footprint of the host building and hangs out from the edge. What remains is the height of the superstructure which might be the one aspect that seems fairly appropriate. But from an outsider’s eye, the blending in doesn’t appear so successful.

How then is the process of renewal going to proceed, if we can’t make adjustment to fit today’s needs?

Could this way to puzzle together pieces of old and new together be a quite good example of city development? Especially in this area, where the harsh approach of modernism is particularly noticeable in view of the previously massive demolitions of the Norrmalm regulation. Again, Rowe and Koetter presents an interesting idea. First, they describe modern architecture in a dualistic manor; as a devotion to (fantasies of) the concept of science in combination as an instrument for utopia (the greater good). The new architecture was professing as a solution to everything, in its most extreme form substantialized by Le Corbusier’s Ville radieuse.18 In contrast to the modernist way of “total-design” (e.g. Norrmalm regulation) they discuss an architecture that is shaped through more of a “bricolage” (i.e build from what comes to hand).

Inspired by Claude Lévi-Strauss book The Savage Mind (1962) they discuss the term “bricolage” in an architectural context and the architect as a “bricoleur”, although eventually punctures also this way of seeing the city as more of an organically growing organism. What is lead up to be something of a hybrid; the architect of something both and in-between a ‘bricoleur’ and a scientist. This goes for urban planning too, and especially, since the pace of change makes it impossible to arrive at a final scientific resolution.19 What eventually is proposed is the Collage City, which builds upon fragments — past, contemporary and future included. “Utopia as metaphor and Collage City as prescription”20 could be a solution that allows for future metamorphosis.

Drawing from the idea of a Collage City, as presented by Rowe and Koetter, I end up thinking it might

[137]

Façade of Kv. Björnen och Loen 1. Photo: Sanna Karlsson (left). Eva Rudberg, “Tradition och egensinne – Om Nils Teschs arkitektur”, Tidskriften Arkitektur, no. 5, 1991 (right)

be a little hard-headed to blindly oppose an addition in theory. If the choice were between demolishing Tesch’s building in total in order to make room for a higher, more spacious building, or adding upon, the latter is definitely preferable.

Although this was (probably) never on the table due to the buildings status. Could this particular case then be interpreted as an example of the fragmented manor of a Collage City?

I would argue, in some ways, that it is. The original building still stands, fairly equal in its characteristic features to the days of its erection, as a fragment of its time. The addition could also be interpreted as cautious in the sense that if the future holds regrets, it could probably be taken down without implicating too much damage to its host.

[138]

To summarize, I think where I land in my analysis is that the addition falls on the balancing act of contextualism. I understand the thought of making it prominent what is a late addition and not, but I think in this case that impeded on the overall impression. At the very least, it would have been possible to demand a more elaborate plan for how to counteract the risk of the superstructure protruding too much, and not end up as the ‘object’ that was stated not desirable. That little bit of respect, I think, this unique piece of building definitely deserves. ***

| RE-ARCHIVE

Notes 1. Tomas Lauri, ”Kalabaliken i Stockholm”,

10. “Björnen & Loen - BAU”. BAU. [online]

16. Kerstin Mandén Örn, ”Remiss betr.

Tidskriften Arkitektur, no. 3 (2012) : 7. My

Available at: https://bau.se/case/bjornen-

Förslag till detaljplan för Björnen och Loen

translation.

loen/. [Accessed 18 April 2021]. My

1, Jakobsgatan 26, stadsdelen Norrmalm”,

translation.

Kulturförvaltningen (2008) , Diarienummer 106-40/2996/2008 : 4.

2. “Kvarteret Loen”. 2021. Statens Fastighetsverk. [online] Available at:

11. Anders Lindgren, ”Förslag till detaljplan

https://www.sfv.se/fastigheter/sok/sverige/

för Björnen och Loen 1, Jacobsgatan 26 –

17. Colin Rowe and Fred Koetter, Collage City

stockholms-lan/regeringsbyggnader/

svar på remiss från stadsbyggnadskontoret”.

(Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1978) : 83.

kvarteret-loen/. [Accessed 20

Norrmalms Stadsdelsförvaltning (2008) ,

April 2021].

Diarienummer 300-584/2008 : 3.

18. Rowe and Koetter, Collage City : 3-4.

3. Eva Rudberg, ”Tradition och egensinne

12. Ohrstedt, ”Björnen och Loen” : 15 – 16.

19. Rowe and Koetter, Collage City : 102-105.

13. “Riksintressen För Kulturmiljövården”.

20. Rowe and Koetter, Collage City : 181.

– Om Nils Teschs arkitektur”, Tidskriften Arkitektur, no. 5 (1991) : 15.

2021. Boverket. [online] Available at: 4. Nils Tesch, ”Departementsbyggnaden

https://www.boverket.se/sv/PBL-

Loen”, Tidskriften Arkitektur, no. 6 (1973) : 15.

kunskapsbanken/Allmant-om-PBL/teman/ kulturvarden/kulturvarden-i- miljobalken/

5. Rudberg, ”Tradition och egensinne – Om

hushallning-med-mark-och-vatten/

Nils Teschs arkitektur”: 15.

riksintressen-for-kulturmiljovarden/.

[Accessed 19 April 2021].

6. ”Stadsmuseets Kulturhistoriska Klassificering”. 2021. Stadsmuseet

14. “Påtaglig Skada”. 2021. Boverket. [online]

Stockholm. [online] Available at: https://

Available at: https://www.boverket.se/sv/PBL-

stadsmuseet.stockholm.se/om-hus2/

kunskapsbanken/Allmant-om-PBL/teman/

klassificering-och-k-markning/stadsmuseets-

kulturvarden/kulturvarden-i-miljobalken/

kulturhistoriska- klassificering/. [Accessed 02

hushallning-med-mark-och- vatten/pataglig-

April 2021].

skada/. [Accessed 19 April 2021].

7. ”Björnen och Loen 1 (Del av)”,

15. “Områden av riksintresse för

2007. Bebyggelseregistret (BeBR) -

kulturmiljövården i Stockholms län (AB län)

Riksantikvarieämbetet. [online] Available

enligt 3 kap 6 § miljöbalken”. 1997.

at: https://bebyggelseregistret.raa.se/bbr2/

Riksantikvarieämbetet. [online] Available at:

anlaggning/visaVardering.

https://www.raa.se/publicerat/varia2012_6. pdf /. [Accessed 19 April 2021].

SANNA KARLSSON

[139]

THE HERITAGE OF TENSION

Darta Adamsone In Stockholm as in many other cities for which the aim is to envision and form sustainable and livible cities, the architectural heritage that does not fit desired levels of performance can become an issue. The general question of how to deal with recent architectural heritage has been left unanswered, although there have been quite many attempts to that are trying to deal with this exact question. Why not just get rid of all the buildings that do not fit the needed criteria, why even try and stretch the old shell to match new building guidelines?

To try to examine this issue I will look at the ministry building by Nils Tesch, which was built 1968-1975, and in 2012 a new extension was added and the whole building was refurbished.

The project proposal for extension of the Ministry Building on Loen was faced with backlash from the professional circles and a rejection from the City Museum. The idea to “preserve” a building by building on top of it is a notable advancement from the mid century mindset of modernization by demolition. Preservation of architectural heritage is important, it is a gesture of respect towards the existing. But is building on top of it showing respect, can it still be considered preservation if it alters the original intent of the building?

The aim is to understand and untangle the situation that has arisen with the refurbishment of the building.

In order to do this, I will investigate and try to understand the intent of the new refurbishment and its relationship with the original struc-

[140]

ture, furthermore, with the original intent of the building. The general goal through examining the specific case is to raise an objective discussion about the relationship with post- modern heritage in the age of contemporary urban developments and policies, clever redevelopment strategies.

Untangling the historical context of tension To gain an accurate understanding of the sensitivity of the issue at hand it is necessary to review to the history of the area that is Klara quarters Loen and Björnen — the lower part of Normmalm in Stockholm, where the Ministry Building is located. In the 1950s in Stockholm city due to postwar economic expansion and new need of roads fit for motored transportation Norrmalm in its old form appeared to be ill-suited to the demands of business, and its transformation was accelerated by the subway being built at the same time 3. The lower part of Norrmalm was demolished almost entirely with only a few older buildings left that were considered of cultural value the Adelcrantz Palace and two bank buildings.

At the time a decision made by the state and the city board to move the government ministries to one place, which is Sodra Klara. The House of Ministry was commissioned by the Royal Building Board to Nils Tesch in 1968, it was finished in 1975, it is 25,000 square meters big, and is one of the four buildings forming Loen

block. Most of the buildings marking the last stage of the redevelopment were finished in the 1980s4. The whole building block is owned by the National Property Board (SFV). After the turn of the century the building was said to be troubled by various technical faults. In 2002 there was an extension proposal from SFV to add more office space to the House of Ministries and create an attractive street-scape and to adapt the buildings from the previous development era to newer building requirements5, implement newer technology. The name of the proposal plan is Nye Klara.

At the same time in 2007 the City Museum classified Loen 1 as blue, which is the highest marking that signifies that the building is of superior cultural value .6 Bau Architects were trusted with the design of the extension of the House of Ministries Loen and Reflex architects were responsible for the urban development plan for Nye Klara .7 Although the Cultural administration rejected the proposal for the roof extension project for Loen 1 arguing for the impact on the high architectural qualities and the roof-scape of Stockholm 8, SVF proceeded and extension project was realized in 2012.

The building,understanding intent In order to be able to grasp the intent of the building, it is crucial to understand both the historical context and also the logic of design, that make the building fit and specific to the site.

| RE-ARCHIVE

Kv. Björnen och Loen 1, Stockholm. Photo: Kim Ulrika Lidman

DARTA ADAMSONE

[141]

Nils Tesch (1907-1975) throughout his professional career worked on many housing and private projects. He is also known for his collaborations with Peter Celsing.9 Commissioned

by Royal Property to Nils Tesch in 1968, the building was the last and biggest project of his, its building site lies between then newly widened Jakobsgatan and Rödbodgatan, facing south of the site is Adelcrantzska palace. The building was commissioned in the same time as the new million program was in full action.

Which is why the use of prefab concrete sandwich panels was one of the requirements for the building to show that even a ministry building can be built with prefabricated concrete panels, to highlight the properties of the technology.

Massing The massing of the building consists of two parts, a long main body of volume with one end located towards the street crossing and the other end locked in by the neigbouring building, and a smaller massing located on top of the big one The main massing is made of pre fab concrete and form a homogenous image, while the smaller massing, is made of metal, dark brown and creates the illusion that the building is smaller than it actually is. The massings resolve the contradicting heights with the building next to it on Jakobsgatan, and create the illusion that the main bodies of the buildings are the same height, reducing contradiction by using a contradictory ways of composition as well as creating ambiguity — is this one building or another building on top of it?

Façade The shape of the corners facing Rodbodgatan is unusual, in plan the corners are cut off, creating an extra surface plane that visually seems to imitate a different type of corner element, a column. This element accentuates the verticality while of the west facing façade creating a frame for the row of windows. While also contradicting the long rows of windows in the façade facing Jakobsgatan. So again a question can be asked are the façades creating a visually dominant vertical or horizontal axis? The answer is both.

In relationship to each street.

Openings Openings in the building can be examined by addressing each level (row) separately and then by looking at them together. The ground floor has a glass façade, therefore the opening is the façade. The first floor has a sequence of a bigger rectangular window and next to it a smaller rectangular window. The third row is composed of a repeating arched opening with a small rectangular opening next to it. The window shapes reference the Palace across the street in a subtle and clever way.

Looking at them individually each window is an opening, but addressing them in the overall building scale, the opening becomes an ornament, the patterns become decorative. The composition of the prefabricated concrete block suggests the ornamental nature even more with a subtle relief and the polished steel framing of the windows.

To summarize the analysis the building’s intent was to form a framing to the widened street crossing facing Rodbodgatan, and then split into two volumes is sensitive to the context, making it look smaller. The facade

[142]

openings form a decorative pattern that references Adelcrantz Palace.

Historic elements, like supporting columns and arches, are referenced by a smart composition.

Deciphering the awkward tension between the new and the old As previously noted the area has been going through relentless transformation since 1950s, the property is owned by the state and the new extension created backlash. Is this new extension a respectable gesture towards the old volume? Can it still be considered preservation if it alters the original intent of the building?

Bau architects intent was to give a functional and energy-efficient office space, add a newly-built ring to the building, and that it should be visibly different from the existing volume.10 The new volume is built on top of the old volume, hovering over the ledge of the façade facing Rodbodgatan.

The extension is dominating the corner facing the street crossing and the building itself. The façades of the extension are done in white and grey panelling, glass, and it’s shape is lightly broken in the middle.

Its visual language is sharp, dominating, imposing a visual contrast without referencing the existing. The volume could be placed on any other neighbouring building, it is anonymous. Which leads to seeing it as a foreign parasitic element rather than a part of the building. Thus making it seem irrelevant and leading to the question, why is it there then?

The outright contradiction between old and new represents formalism11 in approach, by the need for new to look unrelated, therefore oversimplifying the question of how to still preserve the intent of the original volume. This leads to assume that the extension has nothing to do with the building, which is false. It alters

| RE-ARCHIVE

its proportions, and proportions are part of the initial intent of the building, as well as it is non-referential to the context, all of which leads to assume that it is no longer an act of preservation.

This leads to the question if the extension would be differently designed, in a way that attempts to respect the existing in a meaningful way, could it be called an act of preservation? Or is preservation only when the building is left completely unaltered?

Conclusions By attempting to understand this specific case, refurbishment, and extension in House of ministries, Loen 1, an array of complexities surfaced, on the topic of preservation.

It is suggestive that the reason why Loen 1 was refurbished is a part of the century-old discourse on what to do with Sodra Klara — the quarter of ministries, and how to adapt it to ever-changing modern demands.

While the latest step has been much softer than that of the last century it still is altering the existing buildings, even those with a high cultural value as identified by the City Museum committee.

By doing my own analysis, based on R.Venturi’s book “Complexity and Contradiction”, it became clear that the architectural gestures of the original design of the building are meaningful and very sensitive to their surroundings. The intent of the building had been to be modern for the time period, yet fit for its surroundings. By trying to analyse the new extension, in the same manner, it was unclear what its intent was besides being different. As well as it seems contradictory, to the initial intent of the original design, mentioned above.

This furthermore suggests that it

DARTA ADAMSONE

does not preserve the intent of the building, is not fully a preservative method. Although it can be argued that the style of the extension is itself a type of building that suggests being “alien” in the future ( or now) could be seen as a valuable piece of contemporary style that we will be able to define only later in the future as time passes.

To conclude, it is not possible to argue for the separate quality of the extension on its own, as it is very new. But it is possible to argue that this extension does not fully serve as an act of preservation, as it alters the original composition. While it can be viewed as a preservation method by which it is possible to keep out of order buildings in use, in this case, it is not, in my personal opinion the best way to approach preservation of a highly valuable building, that represents an important part of architectural history in Swede, the start of postmodern local style.

Notes 3. Hallerdt, B., 1975. Building inventory 1974-75 History and building history register in two pieces.

4. Ohrstedt, P., 2009. Klara – en angelägenhet för staten. Kulturvärden, SFV 5. The street and real estate office, land

***

allocation etc. to the Swedish Real Estate Agency, GFN 2002-03-19, p. 2 6. Stadsmuseet.stockholm.se. n.d.

Stadsmuseets kulturhistoriska klassificering - Stadsmuseet.

7. SFV. 2021. Kvarteret Loen.

8. The Cultural Administration, 2009.

Remiss betr. förslag till detaljplan för Björnen och Loen 1, Jakobsgatan 26, stadsdelen Norrmalm. Stockholm: The Cultural Administration.

9 Digitaltmuseum.org. Tesch, Nils (1907 1975).

10. BAU. 2021. Björnen & Loen - BAU. [online] Available at: <https://bau.se/case/ bjornen-loen/> .

11

Venturi, R. and Scully, V., 1977.

Complexity and contradiction in architecture. 2nd ed. New York: Princeton University Press, p.15.

[143]

[144]

| RE-ARCHIVE

| AOS ARCHITECTS, ARKDES COLLECTION

[145]

[146]

| RE-ARCHIVE

| AOS ARCHITECTS, ARKDES COLLECTION

[147]

[148]

| RE-ARCHIVE

| AOS ARCHITECTS, ARKDES COLLECTION

[149]

[150]

| RE-ARCHIVE

| AOS ARCHITECTS, ARKDES COLLECTION

[151]

[152]

| RE-ARCHIVE

| AOS ARCHITECTS, ARKDES COLLECTION

[153]

[154]

| RE-ARCHIVE

| AOS ARCHITECTS, ARKDES COLLECTION

[155]

[156]

| RE-ARCHIVE

| AOS ARCHITECTS, ARKDES COLLECTION

[157]

[158]

| RE-ARCHIVE

| AOS ARCHITECTS, ARKDES COLLECTION

[159]

[160]

| RE-ARCHIVE

| AOS ARCHITECTS, ARKDES COLLECTION

[161]

[162]

| RE-ARCHIVE

| AOS ARCHITECTS, ARKDES COLLECTION

[163]

[164]

| RE-ARCHIVE

| AOS ARCHITECTS, ARKDES COLLECTION

[165]

[166]

| Re-Masters Studio in Stockholm. 2022

[167]