The Living City

TEAM DATA

Team Representative: Joakim Skajaa (NO) – architect
Associate: Cathrine Finnema (NO), Lisa Angelica Barahona (NO) – architects
Contributors: Oda Solberg (NO) – architect; Kristoffer Røgeberg (NO) – architecture student

St Halvards plass 1, 0192 Oslo (NO) 
+47 932 04522 – post@eriksenskajaa.no – eriksenskajaa.no

See the complete listing of portraits here 
See the site page here 

^{C. Finnema, O. Solberg, J. Skajaa,  L.A. Barahona & K. Rogeberg}  

INTERVIEW
^{Click on the images to enlarge}

1. How did you form the team for the competition?

The forming of the team was a natural process as we work together at the architectural firm Eriksen Skajaa Arkitekter.

2. How do you define the main issue of your project, and how did you answer on this session main topic: the place of productive activities within the city?

Our main idea was to propose a long term strategy for the transformation from industrial area to productive city. We started by looking for sites that could have multiple functions and designed ways they could be used as places of transformation. Then we looked for possible hybrids that could be part of a future city where production is integrated. Our main response is that we don’t know how the productive city at Lillestrøm will be so we have to plan for many possibilities.

3. How did this issue and the questions raised by the site mutation meet?

The site is interesting for the current industry present that seems quite permanent and tends to remain on the site for many years. This forced us to be pragmatic and look for real opportunities in a long term strategy.

4. Have you treated this issue previously? What were the reference projects that inspired yours?

We have worked on a range of similar projects in Norway, but mostly projects where the reality is that the industry will be removed in the future. What is new at Lillestrøm is that the productive city will also have room for real industrial scale production. 

5. Urban-architectural projects like the ones in Europan can only be implemented together with the actors through a negotiated process and in time. How did you consider this issue in your project?

The long time from initiation to completion is beneficial as it allows for a long phase of prototyping. Our proposal is therefore based on a timeline that describes and illustrates 30 actions towards a productive neigbourhood. The timeline is divided into 3 phases. The first phase describes how it is possible to prototype solutions that serve as attractions to the area, making it known and preparing for future adaptation. The second phase deals with how to adapt the existing areas through new buildings and functions, mixing social activities with production. In the final phase the area will serve as a large scale test for a modern settlement. It will be a place with its own identity, a place where one can work, live and socialize.

6. Is it the first time you have been awarded a prize at Europan? How could this help you in your professional career?

We also won Europan 10 in 2009 at Haugerud in Oslo (NO). To us Europan has been important both in providing interesting and timely topics as well as important experiences. We are still working on the projects that we won in Europan 10.