Where high in Stockholm?|
What would I answer, if a person asked me: I want to build around sixteen skyscrapers in Stockholm - where shall I build them?
That could be an interesting thought to play around with. No, I will not get into details here.
Then I would list some basic demands, a rough list that will help me when I look at various areas. Suitable ground both in strenght to keep the skyscrapers steady and in size to fit such buildings. Here I would feel free also to suggest areas where elder buildings have to be pulled down.
It is also obvious that there would be a high demand for effective traffic solutions, and on other infrastructure. The construction would take a rather long time, which have effects on the surrounding areas among others for transports.
I would also give some thoughts to the shadows the skyscrapers give, the sun reflecting in their facades, and probably more if I got the question for real.
With this in my mind, it is time to take a look at Stockholm.
The city has a skyline that is rather even. Church towers and some other buildings break the line, but otherwise the highest buildings are of similar height.
Towards the south with its higher ground, and towards the Royal Castle, this harmony is consistent.
The skyline is broken in one area, "Slussen", with the locks to Lake Mälaren.
On the other side is one end of the large Lake Mälaren, here with Slussen to the right in the photo.
Would I suggest this waterfront as a suitable site for some skyscrapers? Or near the waterfront? Maybe like Manhattan in New York, USA?
No, I would not.
A skyline can change its appearance when you see it from a higher level. You may see taller buildings situated further away.
How could it look with some skyscrapers here and there in the city, at distance from this waterfront?
As you probably understand, I don't like the idea to erect skyscrapers in the central area of this city.
The question remains unanswered. Where in this city shall the person build the skyscrapers?
I would have to take a wider view into my thoughts.
To live in a skyscraper near the large archipelago would give you a fantastic view, but what about the infrastructure? Like traffic.
However, there is one exception to the low-profile skyline in Stockholm. It is visible at the horizon in one of the photos from Globen. There is a single skyscraper in Kista, north of Stockholm city.
Why not build all the new skyscrapers (around sixteen in this scenario) in that area?
To create a skyscraper park in a new area does not interfere so much with city functions during the construction period. The area can be built from the ground with suitable infrastructure, both for early planned buildings and possible later additions.
With interesting architecture, a mix of office and dwelling houses, green parks and playgrounds, art decorations, restaurants et cetera the area can be an attraction in itself. And the overall low harmonic city skyline will not be interrupted by single or small groups of skyscrapers here and there.
These photos show the area La Defence in Paris.
Yes, this is what I would suggest if I get the question: