What is the role of developers, architects, landscape architects and designers during transitional stages of integrating these revitalized public spaces into the community consciousness and use? You and Ólafur spoke to putting tools and attitudes in place that will facilitate the public’s embrace of such spaces. Could one of these shifts in attitude have something to do with dissolving the concept of “public versus private”?

One of the amazing things about these post-industrial territories is how they have really remained outside the realm of public consciousness for the better part of a century. Obviously, people are cognizant that these shipping ports, airports, factories, landfills, warehouses, etc. are present within a city. However, I would argue that even when operational, these industrial territories are voids within the public sphere of a city’s fabric in the sense that people’s relationships with them are a geographic awareness that they are present and that they hold a structural place within the city. But it’s not as if the majority of people have any real direct physical or experiential contact with these places (unless they actually work there).

The crisis comes when people (and politicians) are suddenly confronted with this supposed “new void” within the city once the industry vacates. There is always a rush to fill it in with the ubiquitous cultural facility paired with a bit of mixed-use residential/commercial development and some tidy little public open space to tie it all together (or, more importantly, to assuage the objections of the surrounding community). The problem with this response is not only the generic product it creates but the missed opportunity to transform the broader public realm of a given city. The rush to do something often leads to mediocre solutions that are based on models that have (supposedly) worked elsewhere rather than ones calibrated specifically to a culture, climate and place. I would argue that the reality is that these places have been voids within the city for decades, and they will take a decade or more to redevelop. So the big question is really, “what’s the hurry?”

I think this is where artists have the advantage over architects and planners: The ability to propose provisional transformations of a place is a fantastic way to reintroduce an environment or site back into the realm of public consciousness without creating the uproar surrounding the making of a “permanent” decision about transformation or redevelopment. Oftentimes, these sites are places with spectacular, undiscovered views; are home to curious industrial structures that enliven the imagination through their unfamiliarity; and retain an implicit organizational structure that can often inform and enrich any new development proposed within their territory. The chance to just bring the public in to experience the place can quickly transform the wider perception of it.

I strongly believe that for the vast majority of the public, experiencing a place is the only way they will understand and appreciate it—and a rendering of how it might look just isn’t going to cut it.

From your observations and conversations during your time here, is there anything that stands out in your mind as an approach Reykjavík should consider as we move forward with this discussion of development?

I think Reykjavík is in an enviable, but also somewhat dangerous position. The city is currently considering the redevelopment of both its harbor front and a sizable mass of land that was formerly home to its international airport. This is a substantial amount of land area in question for a city of Reykjavík’s size, and brings up a whole series of issues, the most immediate of which is “what is driving this redevelopment other than the availability of all this land?”

It seems to me there is a particular valuation of social equity here (whether real or aspirational) that, coming from the bureaucracy and have, have-not reality of New York seems almost quaint, but also quite interesting. In addition, it seems to me that the definition of what constitutes social space in Iceland is certainly far different than our definition in the States, or even that of mainland Western Europe. We certainly don’t have anything like the public pools and baths that function so efficiently here in creating opportunities for status-free social interaction. From my point of view, these eccentricities seem like fantastic points of departure for considering the development of entire new districts within the city. What worries me is the rush to look at models of urban development from cities and contexts that have very little to do with how Reykjavík really functions. I think there is only so much value that can really be gleaned from studying their models. Maybe most importantly is what not to do.

Really, the chance to define a locally authentic urban transformation for Reykjavík is something that is nothing short of exhilarating. There is something interesting in the fact it is the artists and art historians putting this together and not Reykjavík’s planners or developers. Maybe that is the great opportunity?