National Tourist Route Trollstigen / RRA
Architects: Reiulf Ramstad Architects, Oslo Norway
Location: Romsdalen – Geiranger Fjord, Norway
Project team: Reiulf D Ramstad, Christian Fuglset, Anja Strandskogen, Christian Dahle, Nok Nimakorn
Client: Norwegian public roads administration
Structural Engineer: Dr Techn. Kristoffer Apeland AS, Oslo Norway
Mechanical Engineer: Erichsen & Horgen Engineering AS, Oslo Norway
Electrical Engineer: Norconsult, Norway
Contractor: Christie Opsahl AS, Norway
Landscape: Reiulf Ramstad Architects, Oslo Norway
Constructed Area: 200,000 sqm (the landscape area)
Design year: 2004-2010
Construction year: 2005-2010
Photographs: Reiulf Ramstad Architects, Oslo Norway
outlook point
The project will enhance the experience of the Trollstigen plateau’s location and nature. Thoughtfulness regarding features and materials will underscore the site’s temper and character, and well-adapted, functional facilities will augment the visitor’s experience. The architecture is to be characterised by clear and precise transitions between planned zones and the natural landscape. Through the notion of water as a dynamic element –from snow, to running and then falling water- and rock as a static element, the project creates a series of prepositional relations that describe and magnify the unique spatiality of the site.
-
- site plan
-
- outlook point 01
-
- outlook point 02
-
- building plans 01
-
- building plans 02
-
- building sections
Related articles:
29 comments »
I don´t really want to give a comment the project itself, rather the programm: in my opinion there should not be ANY building at such a place. Isn´t it an obvious contraversy, to build railing in a terrain, where you can fall down all over anyways? Why do you need a view platform, when you have the exact same view 3 meters away, off the platform? Wouldn´t it be even more spectacular without the structure?
The project therefore can not be more, then a good answer to a bad question.
i sort of agree, but i also think that sometimes a building can enhance the environment, by providing a contrast.
I disagree.
This is part of a bigger project that the public roads administration has going, and the way that I understand it these manifestations of often quite interesting architecture are built along a road that’s already there, and at places where there was a need for rest stops anyway. I think it’s a great idea to actually put some ambition into the making of these places, instead of following the usual [parking lot]+[shitter shed]+[benches] formula.
I also tend to agree with our psychopathic killer that the insertion of man made structures can heighten the impression of a site, through contrast. I think it’s a fallacy, sprung out of some romantic heritage, to be to overly protective of the “unspoilt” nature.
MZ,
You are not alone. Builders do this all the time. The natural landscape and plant and animal species do not respond to athletics the way humans do. Remember, human constructs always degrade the natural landscape at least 300 meters in all directions. So-called blending or harmonizing designs are used as an excuse to build in the natural landscape. People are always looking for excuses to expand their footprint into places that really should be left to natural processes and natural controls.
MZ, you are not alone.
Richard Stafursky
Brattleboro, VT USA
(802) 257-9158
World Species LIst Forest land trust
Conway, MA USA
Well said.
I agree, to an extent, but I can also see where the disagreement falls. Heidegger, for example, would disagree completely. By creating a structure, and one that is I think rather respectful and conscious of the landscape, a structure that is meant to bring a place for appreciation to those who lack it otherwise, we are just following our human nature to dwell/build/cultivate. It that place, by this structure, we are bringing together what already existed, something beautiful but lacking the woven integration a structure gives. Before this lookout was designed/created this spot along the ridge allowed for just as much as any other place, but now it is something special. It creates a moment for pausing, a place of destination, ect.
To disagree with this completely is to disagree with the basis of architecture, is it not?
The platform is most likely to enhance the view.
The idea is probably also to protect the surroundings – to concentrate the traffic in a specific and a secure way,
also to give access for the elderly and disabled to enjoy a stunning view.
In my opinion a wonderful project.
A thoughtful layout in a magnificent landscape – study the sections. The choice of materials is also fitting and underlines the surroundings and the purpose of the design.
As for me the the viewing platform is a good idea, its pretty much more spectacular to be over the the cliff to get the view.
i commend the norwegians for attempting something that would never be dreamt of in my country (scotland). We too have some stunning scenery, but it is often blighted by poorly designed rest stops (usually with a burger van sitting on some gravel, in a car park).
this is great!
very nice actually, as a travel destination it would be interesting.
Clearly nothing is the preferable solution. Why build anything at all? Just think about it. Roads are bad, cars are bad, people are certainly bad, so it follows that there should be nothing. If we are very careful not to give anyone motivation to enjoy the beauty that is their natural heritage then maybe they will just sit at home and eat fair-trade organic mung beans while staring into their computers.
This project is what infrastructure is supposed to do. The architects have intelligently and forcefully responded to an incredible site and made a place that is accessible and stimulating. Looking at this I thought I really ought to go to Norway and have a look at that, the place is beautiful.
Terry Glenn Phipps
http://web.me.com/tgphipps
Notwithstanding MZ’s misgivings, I think the project is remarkably timeless despite its modernity, and actually has a solidity/durability that befits the rugged landscape it overlooks.
Ordinarily, I’d prefer an emphasis on stone in such a setting, but the cor-ten steel actually seems like an appropriately honest way of presenting a human analogue of the toughness of the natural landscape, in all of its angular, gritty randomness.
I visited the site 3 times, before and during the construction (2002, 2007, 2008) and IMO the natural site was impressive enough without any architectural obstruction. Looks like an attempt to suck in more revenue from the site to me. I can understand the value of such construction if there would be a utility out of it, but in this case I really fail to see any. Admitted it is not an ugly piece of architecture, but ill positioned IMO. Much like whipped cream on top of a pizza. Good, but in the wrong place.
Falling Water was built on the top of a beautiful waterfall, does this mean that the house is a damper on the natural beauty of its suroundings?
Links to this article »