– Must have knowledge

The former head of town planning is aware that her criticisms can now be perceived as biased, since she led the Planning and Building Agency (PBE) during the period criticized. Nevertheless, she believes that her criticisms and points are valid and important for the further discussion of architecture and urban development in Oslo.

She feels that Pagh is particularly clumsy in his selection of examples. “It’s pretty brutal,” Pagh said in last year’s interview with Aftenposten stood in Lørenveien and delivered its verdict on Lørenbyen.

– To formulate a valid criticism, one must be aware of what one criticizes. When he criticizes Løren and points the finger at Lørenveien, I also agree that the ground in the city is poorly prepared, but this is based on a disagreement within the municipality and with the developer. This will change when the circular park plans, “The Green Ring”on which the strategic plan for Hovinbyen is based, is being implemented, says De Vibe.

The good examples

In addition, she thinks that Grefsenbyen and Løren have several good outdoor spaces suitable, among others, for families with children.

– Unfortunate and ugly retaining walls are easy to find in all cities, but are Fritjof Nansen’s car-free square near the town hall, the harbor promenade and the Statsjonsalmenningen in Bjørvika, the urban spaces in Vulkan, the land of play in Nedre Foss gård, Svartdalsparken and Grorudparken along the Alnaelva river, the park and Kanonhallen on Løren, the world park on Furuset, the urban spaces and the dragon park on Ensjø with the reopening of Hovinbekkens, the urban spaces on Hasle by Vinslottet Hopeless? Are they all equally outrageously bad?

She also wonders if the “physical and social upgrading” in neighborhood initiatives, outside of gentrified places such as Kampen, Sagene, Grunerløkka and Gamlebyen, is also completely unnecessary?

– In other words, Pagh rips elements from large urban development projects and the whole thing ends up being rather populist and ignorant. It’s not constructive for the debate, says De Vibe.

– Debate on the wrong side

The same goes for the debate over Filipstad’s future, De Vibe continues. Filipstad was the theme of the OUW. Here, you have to fight one battle at a time, explains the former head of town planning.

– There is no point in discussing the structure of the buildings in Filipstad, until you have made the state and the landowners pay and build the highway in a tunnel, so that the district of Skillebekk and Frogner can connect to the fjord . The debate over Filipstad is therefore taken at the wrong end. The state is not interested if we do not agree on what we want with the region.

She finally stresses that she obviously agrees with the starting point of the triennale and that it is true that much can be done better.

– It’s always like that, but I would have liked a debate where the positive lessons of Oslo would be highlighted more during the triennale, and not only from the other Nordic countries. And where one could concretely discuss how individual challenges can be better solved in the future. That would be more constructive than getting the big triennial media coverage. But then you have to be prepared to stand in the middle, she concludes.