5 ms·
I don't want to get sidetracked into our subjective impressions of Stockholm, but for the record, I live and work in the center of the town, and my preferred me
by null_object 9y ago
I don't want to get sidetracked into our subjective impressions of Stockholm, but for the record, I live and work in the center of the town, and my preferred means of getting around would ideally be cycling and walking - neither of which are directly encouraged by the fact that during the 1960s to the 1980s large areas of the center were demolished and replaced by an extensive network of motorways and wide feeder roads directly into the city center. If you take a look at the google maps link [1] you can see the central train station over the horizon of multi-lane motorways, and looking around the panorama you should be able to get an impression of the massive network built for cars around the entire central area.
These roads don't connect the 'bunch of islands' (which are all linked by quite short bridges) they were intended to transport people living in the suburbs to their jobs in an otherwise uninhabited town, and back again in the evening, travelling by car. Trying to cross this network from the city-center to the neighboring island (Kungsholmen) involves the sort of dystopian walk I described above. Naturally there are other ways to get from one island to the other that circumvent this mammoth road network.
The center of Stockholm was viewed as unmodern and slum-like in the 1960s, and the planners at that time intended to completely remove all of the buildings and streets that you refer to: they were prevented from totally razing the Old Town (Gamla Stan) by local activists and protests, but large areas of the City were demolished and replaced by faceless office-space, with no entrances, shops, cafés or any features that would encourage people to do anything than walk or drive past as fast as possible on their way elsewhere.
These streets [2] have only begun to be 'humanized' in recent years, now that planners have seen the error of attempting to empty the city-center of all people before and after work hours - and now the process of establishing restaurants, hotels, cafés, shops and other lively street activities is really in full swing, with construction across almost all the streets listed in the note below.
But the attitude that car-traffic comes first is hard to shake for a generation of planners brought up with the feeling that masses of cars is a sign of a 'big city' and of 'city pulse' (stadspuls), so cycle lanes are generally rubbish [3] and pedestrians' needs are generally subsumed under the requirement to keep car-traffic moving (framkomlighet). Although much lip-service is now paid to cycling and walking in towns, very little is done outside of the tourist-visible areas in the center.
[1] https://goo.gl/4sWntM https://goo.gl/4sWntM
[2] For example: Vattugatan, Malmskillnadsgatan, Herkulesgatan, Mäster Samuelsgatan
[3] https://goo.gl/JfWRtU https://goo.gl/JfWRtU
- Al-Khwarizmi 9y agoI'm not from Sweden but from Spain, but here the trend in many cities (including mine) during the 60s and the 70s was the same as you describe, including awful crimes against cultural heritage. Wonderful "art nouveau" buildings were demolished to make room for asphalt and soulless cubes of concrete. I often wonder what they were smoking in those decades to see such things as normal. I can understand that they thought that the car was the future, seeing all the convenience and not being aware of the full importance of the drawbacks (congestion, pollution, unhealthy lifestyle, etc.), but couldn't they at least have some appreciation of beauty? Atlantic Hotel, A Coruña, opened in 1923, demolished in 1967: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/56/99/92/569992a08191d5af05933cdf5aa17849.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/56/99/92/569992a08191d5af0593... The new hotel taking its place from 1968: https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/04/64/ac/17/nh-atlantico.jpg https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/04/64/ac/17/... Just one among many examples that give one the urge to reach for a time machine and an axe...
- ddalex 9y agoMy first take is the maintenance cost. When labour is plentiful and cheap, you can have teams of cleaners to meticulously brush each corner in the intricate rooms, corridors and decorations of an Art Nouveau building. When the cost with the labour force rises, you need to clean with fewer people, and faster. You need to use larger tools to cover the same area faster, and the tools require simple large shapes where, a vacuum for e.g. can easily go in any corner - hence a cube. Add the need to build fast and cheap, so concrete is it, or, after technology advances, just metal, glass and drywall - who has time to wait for the concrete to set? - so you end up with utilitarian cubes of cheap materials.
- willvarfar 9y agoI've lived in stockholm, worked in a trendy office in an old building in gamla stan, and know exactly what you mean. But I would point at kungsträdgården strandvägen etc as examples of thin parkland used for walking/cycling commutes rather than just recreation, radiating like spokes from the centre. That was the kind of example I want to get across (which you don't find in, say, London).