the new oslo opera house

dear friends, now that we have discussed issues of both smell and olympic torch relays, i feel it is time for me to get into my field and discuss a little architecture.

the occasion is the opening of the new opera house in oslo, designed by norwegian architects snohetta (picture from saturday's opening galla)




following the opening of this massive new opera house comes, of course, much debate about whether we need an opera house, whether everybody should pay for the opera house (it is financed through taxes and cost approximately 4 billion norwegian kroner, or approx. 800 million dollars.) etc.

it is built in the harbour area of bjorvika in oslo, in front of the central station (when seen from the sea), and takes on the shape of an iceberg rising from the water. this whole area is one that is under development at the moment (anthony is doing his thesis project on the site right next to it, designing a new ferry terminal and hotel). i find it quite astonishing that, from what i can deduce from the debate pages on www.dagbladet.no, nobody seems to understand the importance of this building in terms of regenerating this area.



to enlighten you a bit more, the area around the central station has always been a major hang out spot for the drug addicts and hookers of oslo (the drug addicts have moved elsewhere after a government initiative was implemented a while back, but the hookers were definitely lined up two weeks ago when me and anthony went for an evening walk down there) and whereas most of the motorways in oslo are underground in tunnels, at this tricky place the road comes back up from the tunnel and separates the whole harbour area from the rest of the city.

in order to make the opera house work they have built a pedestrian bridge over this motorway, connecting the opera to the central station.

having studied issues like this in my "built environment" lectures, i found it incredibly interesting when anthony took me down there a couple of weeks ago. the whole area is rather cut off from the rest of the city, which was clear to me because it took an englishman doing his thesis to drag me down there (i had never been before, and i am from there. uhoh.)
i have since developed a burning interest in the development of the harbour area, because it is one where nothing has been done for years and years and there is so much land which has been left derelict because of this incredibly disruptive motorway (and also the train lines from oslo central).
i am very excited to learn from anthony that work has already started on building a tunnel for this road to go in. there is also a project called the "barcode" which will be a business park of high rise buildings organized in a "barcode" way behind the opera house. the first one has already been built and i happen to think it is an excellent building.

so i guess my concern is that people only seem to think of this as a building which has cost way too much money for everyone that is not going to use it (the common man doesn't go to the opera etc, but in fact let's say we have 4 million people in norway, so if you do the maths the opera will, if it stands for 100 years, cost each of us about 4 kroner pr year. which after all is pretty much the price of half a pack of bubblegum), but i think most people fail to see the real point of this. not only is it the first time in YEARS that a major new cultural building has been erected in oslo (i believe the last one was the national theatre in 1899), but it is also oslo's very first landmark building which will undoubtedly speed up the process of the urban renewal of oslo's harbour which it so badly needs.

also, i have real doubts that it will only be used for opera - rock concerts are already scheduled.
also, (again) i've already immensely enjoyed this building simply by walking around it and taking it in. also, the installation in the lobby by olafur eliasson is VERY nice.

On a lighter note...

One thing I have been struggling with recently is the concept of perfume. My roommate feels the need to spray it all over herself, and it is a very sweet and jarring smell to wake up to. I don't quite understand why she wishes to change the way she smells, because she bathes regularly and has pretty good hygiene habits, but I guess that's her business and none of mine.

I had attributed it earlier to the fact that my roommate is kind of a "fashion diva," by which I mean she has about twenty pairs of shoes in a nice straight line under her bed, and a cacophony of shiny, flimsy material in her closet. It's pretty admirable the way she puts herself together; it kind of makes me feel like a hobo.

But it turns out that this smell-changing phenomenon of changing one's natural smell doesn't stop at my roommate, and that's why I've decided to write about it. The other day I was cramming myself into a crowded elevator (as usual, for that is the way of NYU) on my way to class when a wall of musky cologne seemed to wash over me. This was a boy! And he did not seem like a "fashion diva" at all. Intriguing...

So, let us delve into the concept of changing one's scent! As I was saying, it's something I don't quite understand. I mean, I use deodorant, but other than that I don't really smell like anything, at least not anything I can detect. I've tended to quite like the unadulterated smell of the boys I've dated (maybe it has something to do with why we dated?), and been off-put by boys wearing perfume. We're animals, after all, and we learn a lot about each other and our potential compatibility from the way we smell.

That's my side of the story, anyway. I think I need to interview my roommate to get the other side of the story, because if I remember correctly, neither of you guys alters your smell, either. Readers? Scientists?

speechless.

so, after huge protests in london yesterday, the olympic torch relay has come to a finish in paris, with the torch actually being extinguished and transported though the streets on a bus rather than by foot.

i was sat in my bed yesterday, watching the bbc news from under my array of green, yellow, blue, red and white flags, following the torch on its way from a modest ceremony at some stadium to the streets to stop by gordon brown back to the streets and finally back into some other stadium. i am really torn about this. is it right for the olympics, the ultimate arena for peaceful (though rather sweaty) interaction between nations, to become the ground for political conflict? or is that just what the olympics should be; a way of highlighting relevant issues and pushing for change?

i am excited that the whole world seems to be engaged in this issue (except for inhabitants of beijing, it seems, answering with questionmark-like faces when asked by a bbc reporter yesterday about the protests in london) but also i am sad that the olympics have become an arena for world politics rather than sport.

as an avid olympics fan, who at 11 woke up in the middle of the night for two weeks in february 1998 to catch the action in nagano, i remember when the torch relay passed my house in 1994, how excited i was, and how proud we all were to organize the olympics. lucky for us our government was not torturing and depriving the lapps of their culture at the time.

thank god for the deserved publicity the tibetans struggle is getting.
i'm just upset it took the flame of the olympic torch with it.

The World in the Most Obvious Pictures

The other night, Ola & his friend Gautam were passing through New York on their way to Spring Break in Brazil (bitches). Over some over-priced hookah, we got to talking about national stereotypes, and I mentioned the photo to the right that Else had posted on Facebook that was just stereotypical Norway, in my mind. I described it and Ola said, "Yeah, that would be like the very first photo if you looked up 'Norway' on Google Images." Thus the idea for this blog-post was born (actually it was Gautam's, originally). So here are the first pictures, excluding maps and flags, that you find when you type in the names of the following countries.

Norway: The real one.

Uzbekistan: My friend Adam and I gave each other assignments over winter break to each research a country; he was supposed to learn about Switzerland and I Uzbekistan. We didn't really follow through, at least I didn't, so now I am -- visually! Now this is random.
Our Beloved Mother India: Gee, this one's a shocker.
Mali: The Mosque of Mud.
Yemen: Wow that blond woman is really a good Samaritan.
Ecuador: Now that I'm not so exhausted, I see that it really is a stunningly beautiful country.
Brazil: In honor of our intrepid friends. Oh man they are going to have an awesome time -- this comes up even before the map or flag!Samoa: There's a place in Humboldt County (Northern California) called Samoa, because so many Samoans live there, or they used to anyway. They have a cookhouse for lumberjacks, and I ate breakfast there once, even though I'm actually not a lumberjack. Not to be confused with this Samoa, the real Samoa.
Lichtenstein: Poor little guy. I actually had to search "Lichtenstein country" because when you type in Lichtenstein, all that comes up is the art of Roy Lichtenstien (which is, after all, amazing in its own right).
U.S.A.: Last but not least, the land of the free and the home of the brave. You have to wade through a number of flags to get to this one, but OMG. Thanks for representing me to the internets, lady!

**Amendment!!!**
Switzerland: Looks like Adam did his research too!

the glory of the story

I think most of us in the prosess of growing older gradually uncounsciously supress the creative part of our intellect. Meaning that we don't use the ability to make up stories as much as we did as children. I've started working as a substitute kindergarden assistent! It's stressful and tiresome but gives so much energy at the same time. And the other day when I was there I became aware of how the children constantly made up random little stories with no connection to reality. Do you make up stories? Should we write some stories on the blog?

My nerves are wracked, or, Last election post for awhile I promise

For those of you who don't obsessively check my Facebook:Just thought I'd put that out there. One last time. And we'll deal with John McCain when the time comes.

Ann Coulter: Hillary is "absolutely more conservative" than John McCain

Okay, so dramarama, brazenly conservative pundit Ann Coulter has come out and said that if it comes down to John McCain vs. Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton is the best choice for Republicans. Why? Because she's "absolutely more conservative" than he is! But what about all of that business about nationalizing health care and pulling out of Iraq? Coulter doesn't thing she actually will -- "she's running in a Democratic primary," after all, so what else would she say? Coulter reminds us of Clinton's Bush-like answer to a debate question as to what she would do if three cities were attacked: "I will find who did it, and I will go after them." (Sound familiar?) So, not only would Ann "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans" Coulter vote for Hillary Clinton, she would campaign for the former first lady.

ZOMG. I think this says a lot about Mrs. Clinton and her... broad-based appeal?