This is an opinion piece in Dagens Nyheter. The author is responsible for the opinions in the article.
After the presentation of the images of the planned Nobel Center in Slussen, a lively debate broke out about the design, content and location of the building. The clearest example of public engagement is the flood of AI-generated counter-suggestions on social media. It is a democratization of the discussion about architecture that I welcome. The technical debate about the building is more curious. Seemingly without careful consideration of the proposal, he was condemned, sometimes with strangely forceful remarks.
The Beauty Council was one of the harshest critics of the previously proposed posh center in Blasieholmen. In this case, the volume of the building was too large and too high, the contents were unspecified and the proposal required the demolition of a culturally and historically interesting customs house from the 1870s. In order to create building rights, a new detailed plan was required. In short, a huge structure entered an urban context that was essentially already fully furnished. The Beauty Council line gained more and more followers and in 2018 plans for a new building on Blasieholmen were scrapped.
In the present case the conditions are different. The Slussen area has undergone major changes and since 2013 there has been a building permit for a building on the quay where the Nobel Center is now planned. It is therefore already clear that something will be built on the site and that a decision will be made in a relatively quick building permit process.
The building code, subject to the same detailed plan as the new Slussen, is designed to allow for four interconnected cubic volumes. This is a prerequisite for the collaboration of the project architect. In the technical debate, this was perceived by some as a straitjacket. However, a skilled architect proves his worth when it comes to dealing with height and floor space restrictions.
The Beauty Council has not yet been involved in the process and will formally review the planning permission once it is sent out for advice. Having familiarized myself with the project and studying it through drawing material and in the urban planning context as a whole, I believe that the building responds well to the conditions of the site.
I completely understand it In the public debate, it can be perceived as being far too reserved, especially when spectacular architecture is expected along the lines of the Sydney Opera House or the Guggenheim in Bilbao. However, this is one of the building’s strengths.
The Nobel building will stand right next to the face of Stockholm: the 19 blocks of Skeppsbroraden, which shape the city’s image more than other parts of the city. This line must continue to be the central theme of the city party.
Overall, the current proposal is much stronger than the previous one and envisages a new public museum in Stockholm instead of an anonymous office building
The Beauty Council’s letter to the expert group for the new Slussen in 2014 criticized the two proposed office buildings in front of Glashuset and the KF facility in Stadsgården. Based on an urban landscape analysis, the council concluded that the slope of the Södra bergens fault should not be developed, but that the two additional houses should be lowered and designed as if they were a continuation of the existing toll booths on the quay.
In David Chipperfield’s suggestion These points of view have been incorporated into the Nobel Center. Instead of a tall office building, a lower brick building on the quay is now proposed. This creates a clear sequence of quay buildings from Fotografiska towards Slussen.
Overall, the current proposal is significantly stronger than the previous one and envisages a new public museum in Stockholm instead of an anonymous office building. No new building rights need to be created as in the rejected proposal for Blasieholmen. The operation will strengthen Slussen and Stadsgården as a cultural area without having to seek approval from Skeppsbron’s development.
Of course, there are also details that need to be developed in the proposal. Examples of this include a clearer main entrance, the closing of the building to the east and the not entirely convincing encounter with the quay – where technical functions are housed on the first floor. This should be the basis for a more serious technical debate before the upcoming decision on building permits. Stockholm’s beauty wins.
Read more contributions to the debate.
