those tired thalidomide stumps called wings
by mikael askergren © 1996
two texts about/two urban proposals for the city of stockholm, sweden: (1) demolish the undersized wings of nicodemus tessin the younger's 18th century royal palace in the heart of the swedish capital stockholm. contrary to what one would think, architecture is not the art of building. architecture is the art of not building, the art of refraining from building. architecture is reduction. (2) rethink the plans for the 'urbanization' (i.e. the architecturalization) of disused bromma airport in stockholm. urbanity is the opposite of architecture, is addition instead of reduction. architecture is constantly in conflict with urbanity. the city thus is not its architecture. the city is anything but its architecture.
1. the example of the royal palace in stockholm: those tired thalidomide stumps called wings
in the collection of the stockholm city museum (stockholms stadsmuseum), there is an 18th century panorama, showing the entire harbour in stockholm, with skeppsbron, the old town and malmarna as seen from the east, from the heights of kastellholmen. a present-day observer will recognize most things in this city portrait - painted by an anonymous artist - with the exception of one crucial difference: the painting depicts a palace with a purely cubical form, like a shoe box in a giant format. did the artist "forget" to paint the wings, which are so characteristic for the building?
the painting can be placed in the period between 1702 and 1727, when the construction of the palace had come to a temporary standstill; a period when the wings which now embrace logården in the east, and which flank the northern façade facing norrbro, had not yet been added on. the construction of the new palace had been begun right after the great fire in 1697, and in ten years the three main volumes had been built, to form the great square of the structure along with the northern volume which had been completed before the fire. however, soon there were economic problems. the era of sweden as a great power was coming to an end, and was in its death-throes. a great deal of money could be saved by not building the wings planned by nicodemus tessin the younger. construction work was called off, in anticipation of better times to come.
that it was possible to question the wings, not only as a matter of economy but also formally, is explained by the fact that the northern façade - with its impressive system of ramps and bridges - in renderings of the original composition, from the period before the fire, is depicted without wings altogether (see the engraving by swidde after the design by tessin the younger, in the book stockholmsbilder från fem århundraden 1523-1923, editor gustaf upmark, 1923. in the book there are also several sketches and paintings depicting the wingless palace as it actually looked at the beginning of the 18th century).
it is said that it was the great architcect carl hårleman who persuaded the swedish crown not to stop at the pure square, but to also build the wings which tessin had added to the project after the fire. but strictly speaking, how fortunate was this decision? no matter how proud the swedes are of their royal palace in the old town, it still fails to impress most foreign visitors. it is never included in international surveys of the history of architecture. and size can hardly be an issue here. the royal palace in stockholm is bigger than comparable structures in europe; bigger than any other palace or castle in europe which is still in use as a royal residence.
it is the addition of the tired little thalidomide stumps called wings which explains this, more than anything else. It is true that the wings give the structure a rather special stepped silhouette, which is unique for stockholm and which makes the palace different from all other palaces, but in architectural terms such a de-escalation of volumes - the programmatic evasion of pure form and consequence, which swedish architects still today have a certain predilection for - is always unfortunate. to think that hårleman should have had no feeling for this?
the old castle, tre kronor, had been rebuilt and expanded in accordance with the changes in taste and requirements through the centuries. for example, one had the courage to add a completely new northern façade to the mediaeval establishment; the severely classicist volume designed by tessin. the silhouette changed continuously. why should it be impossible to change it once again? new times, new solutions.
however, the media campaign for repainting the royal palace in a somewhat lighter shade does not impress. if one instead would aim for simplifying and clarifying form and volume - if the wings were demolished - the palace would not only gain a more appealing appearance. the swedish people would be spared the great expenses for maintenance and reinforcement of the foundations (the wings are slowly sliding out into the water, just like the other buildings along skeppsbron). The wings of the palace make up approximately one fifth of the total building volume of the palace, and one third of the almost flat and frequently leaking roof, which requires almost constant maintenance.
the statues in the antique museum of gustav iii and the books of the bernadotte library would have to be moved, but it would not be the first time this happens. one could use the money which is saved through reduced maintenance costs - as well as the profit made from selling the interiors to private collectors and museums - for the construction of more interesting edifices, of more urgent importance for the present day.
conclusion: architecture is reduction, urbanity is addition. architecture is not the act of building. architecture is the act of not building, it is to refrain from building. architecture (the royal palace, bromma airport) is purification, it is reduction; as opposed to the process of building in general (the agglomeration of buildings in the old town, industrial areas) which is incomprehensible complexity, which is addition. there is no reason to place any judgement upon this order of things, but as long as architects and planners claim to be, and just as often believe themselves to be "urbanists", they will always "fail" because of the mixing up of concepts. as a result of the ardour with which architects and planners have concerned themselves with the inner city of stockholm during the 20th century, it has come to be characterized more and more by the same (lack of) qualities as the often criticized, thoroughly planned residential suburbs: a lack of dynamics, and musealization. and probably, this is what the responsible authorities actually prefer at heart, not only for the suburbs, but also for the inner city (at least on a subconscious level, if not in any other way): for those who already have everything they desire, a surprise always means an unpleasant surprise. reduction allows for an overview, it allows for predictability and control. urbanity, multitude, addition is not in the best interest of the single property owner (royalty, the national aviation authority).
2. the example of the industrial area in ulvsunda: patches of urbanity
industrial areas are truly urban environments, in spite of the lack of dwellings. land is rationally divided into industrial plots and streets, and thereby all of it is put to use, to one hundred per cent. there are no desolate so-called open spaces or squares. Industrial areas are patches of urbanity - where activities are permitted to live and die, in accordance with the trends in the economy - in an otherwise inert and museum-like suburban landscape and inner city.
industrial areas were forgotten by the social engineers of modernism and the welfare state, and have not been included in the so-called programmes for the physical environment developed by the planning department of the city of stockholm, prescribing such things as façade colors and the frequency of window-bars. for this, we are grateful.
but in the 1996 comprehensive plan for the city of stockholm, the planners have noticed these areas, at last (?). at a hearing about the comprehensive plan earlier this year, planning director ulrika francke emphasized the potential of the existing industrial areas as places for the expansion of the city. one praises the fact that the "planning deficit" of the industrial areas, in sharp contrast to the meticulous planning of the surrounding residential areas, means that there is plenty of space for densification and new construction. However, the idea is to use this space for (surprise!) "planning"...
the structure of the existing plan for the industrial area in ulvsunda would work much better as a living and working environment than the residential development envisioned for the site of the nearby airport in bromma. a counter proposal:
1. turn bromma airport into an industrial area, rather than a pseudo garden city.
2. move existing activities from the adjacent industrial area in ulvsunda (and other industrial areas), and relocate them to the former airport site.
3. reuse abandoned office buildings and factories in ulvsunda (and other industrial areas) as dwellings and "lofts".
4. densify and build new apartments and workplaces within the existing structure of streets and plots in the ulvsunda industrial area.
5. in the future, the industrial area on the former airport site will have the same potential for urban expansion that ulvsunda possesses today, and the same possibility as the industrial area in ulvsunda to become a more "urban" and less suburban living and working environment.
--
[ askergren.com ]
these two text by mikael askergren were first published in swedish, under the title de trötta neurosedynstumpar som kallas flyglar, in the exhibition catalogue for the exhibition nya stockholm 1996 (new stockholm 1996), as well as in the exhibition itself, which took place in brunkebergstorg, stockholm, sweden in the summer of 1996. english translation by johan johansson. stockholm royal palace animation by lars wästfelt. ulvsunda photo by mikael askergren.
more about the contradiction between urbanity and architecture (in swedish): tack, sune!