Oslo, the capital and largest city of Norway, is a city often described as having a spectacular setting and a high quality of living, situated as it is on a harbor and backing into deeply forested land.  But the city, despite its enviable location and highly efficient public transit mix, suffers from being the fastest growing Scandinavian capital in a geographically constrained setting.  The city resembles a giant amphitheater – with the 'stage' being the northern end of the fjord it straddles, and the perimeter being the extensive forest that stretches deep into the hinterland.  Two thirds of the city proper is protected forest, hills, and lakes, and of the remaining 44 square mile built-up area, nearly 20% are open areas.

Urban-Growth Boundaries and Traffic Gridlock

The city has similar planning problems as Portland, Oregon, with its mandated 'urban-growth boundaries', which causes growth to leapfrog.  In Oslo, this has resulted in growth outside the central core to occur along both sides of the fjord to the southwest and southeast of the city center.  The tunnel and highway system functions more as an automobile, truck, and bus traffic collector than an efficient mover of vehicles, particularly through the city center area adjacent to the harbor.  A high number of residents of the southwest and southeast sections, despite having access to public transit, including ferries that cross the fjord, rely on their automobiles to travel from one side of the waterway to the other, contributing to traffic strain as it passes through the central portion of the city. 

Capitalist Public Sector and Poor Planning

When the first-time visitor arrives in Oslo, the natural focal point is the harbor and the architecture at its doorstep.  Rather than a buffer of harbor parkland and a graceful profile of tastefully designed buildings, I was greeted with a row of modernist, boxy 25-story commercial structures fronting an enormous construction zone next to the harbor.  I learned in an interview with a lawyer and consultant named Audun Engh that much of the extensive waterfront of Oslo is owned by public sector harbor and railway companies.  Despite being public entities, their control over the city planning department has manifested itself in the construction of expensive, modernist architecture including the bulky, white opera house which from the street resembles the deck of a large, sinking ship.  To be fair, another section of the central city's harbor is a large, pedestrian promenade where numerous boats anchor near one of the city's attractive, light-blue tram lines. 

Pride-of-Ownership in Apartment Cooperatives

Like many of the owned apartments in New York City, many of the apartments in Oslo are owned privately by their owners as cooperatives, whereby they purchase a percentage of the building rather than the unit they live in.  In complete polarity to another, even higher-profile Scandinavian capital – Stockholm – where the public sector and its stakeholders own roughly three-quarters of all apartments and land in the city, only one quarter of Oslo's apartments are owned by the public sector.  Many new immigrants to Norway are rewarded through their hard work with the ability to purchase their own homes (unlike many of Stockholm's immigrant population), and this adds to 'self-policing' and a lower level of social problems than in other cities where most people rent instead of own. According to Mr. Engh, the 'tipping point' of public/private ownership ratio is 25%, above which is excessive for the amount of demand for owned housing and below which is insufficient to provide supply of rental housing for individuals and families unable, for various reasons, to maintain their own home.

Growth Management Challenges for the Future of Oslo

With a 17% rise in population in just 15 years, and a present annual growth rate of a staggering 2%, the city of Oslo must face its future from a more sustainable base point if it is to manage its growth in an ecologically smart way.  The city is the governmental and economic center of a nation, as well as one of Europe's most important centers for shipping and trade, and as such has the opportunity and responsibility to act in accordance with its position on the world stage of modern cities.  The city has an efficient public transit system, the envy of many cities, yet is ecologically threatened by its reliance on automobile-dependent suburban growth policies.  Perhaps with a gigantic, urban-planning 'reset' action that results in a new paradigm of 'best-practices' urban planning, the city can arrest the tide of auto-centric modernism in favor of a prioritization of its natural assets.