- Via@ Tourism Review

Tourism Review
Publication details, including instructions for authors: Viatourismreview.com
Tourism Review makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in
the publications on our platform.
Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views
of or endorsed by
Tourism Review. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be
independently verified with primary sources of information.
Tourism Review shall not be liable for any losses,
actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever
caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden.
Online publication: November 2015 ©Viatourismreview.com
Via@ Tourism Review
MERMET, A-C., 2015, “Brief: From wasteland to a Hilton hotel: the trajectory of a
block in Reykjavík after the economic crisis (2008-2015)”, Via@, 2015-2(8),
http://viatourismreview.com/en/2015/10/varia-br2/
BRIEF
From wasteland to a Hilton hotel: the trajectory of a block in
Reykjavík after the economic crisis (2008-2015)
Via@ 2015-2 (8)
Anne-Cécile Mermet
École Normale Supérieure de Lyon
Figure 1. The Hljómalind block in July 2015
Source: Mermet, 2015
After the two years of recession that followed the bankruptcy of the three main
banks of the country in October 2008, Iceland is currently undergoing a significant
economic recovery (Bergmann 2014) largely driven by the tourism industry1. This
recovery is witnessed by the increasing number of building sites in the Icelandic
1
Source: Report from the Central Bank of Iceland, 2014.
-2-
Via@ Tourism Review
capital, especially in the city center where many of them have a touristic purpose
(building of new hotels, renewal of the old harbor into an entertainment area for
example), reflecting the interweaving between urban development and the quick,
indeed sudden, succession of economic cycles that characterizes this country. While
the fleeting triumph of the “neo-Vikings”’s neoliberalism – “a small elite that seemed
to have appeared almost out of nowhere and that flaunted its wealth rather crassly at
times” (Benediktsson et Karlsdóttir 2011, p. 229) – in the 2000s (Bergmann, 2014)
was embodied by the building of a business district located next to the city center,
the change of seafront fishery warehouses into luxurious and modern residential
complex or the launching of the building of an architectural icon (the concert hall
and conference center Harpa), the economic collapse resulted in the sudden freeze of
numerous projects, such as the Harpa, the residential towers Skuggi or of the
Hljómalind lot. Except for the construction of Harpa, which resumed as soon as
2010 and completed in May 2011 due to the high symbolic stakes involved2, most of
other building sites have only recently resumed, after several years of delay.
Via@ 2015-2 (8)
A recent book gives an account of this close link between the built environment of
Reykjavík capital area and the economic situation of the country and its banks. The
authors suggest that crisis can be seen as period of adjustment for a system, allowing
the development of solutions to major problems, and unfold the hypothesis that this
crisis can be interpreted as an opportunity for the city to set up alternative - less
financial and speculative, more participative and sustainable - ways to produce the
city (Mathiesen, Forget and Zaccariotto, 2014).
This paper aims to explore the validity of this thesis through the specific case of the
Hljómalind block, which is located right in the city center and can be seen in its
current state on Figure 1. This image shows two snapshots of the site: the building
site that should end in the spring of 2016 in the opening of a new Hilton hotel
indicates the economic recovery, whereas the street art fresco appears as the
remainder of a former artistic appropriation. The Hljómalind block thus provides an
interesting example to analyze to what extent the delay suddenly imposed on this
block by the crisis has been seen as a chance to apply innovative urban development
principles which henceforth put more emphasis on participative aims than financial
profits, and to understand which role is played by tourism industry in this process.
Looking back at the seven years following the collapse and taking into account the
original context of economic recovery, this piece intends to track the evolution of
this block before, during and after the crisis and to determine whether the new
appropriation forms of the site that appeared in the recession years tend to resist to
the return of the economic growth.
Several alternative options were sketched out: leaving the gaping hole as a mark of the consequences
of a completely deregulated neoliberalism; destroying what was already built, etc. The resumption of
the building has eventually been decided.
2
-3-
Via@ Tourism Review
Hjartagarðurinn or the times of the creative wasteland and
participative utopia (2008-2013)
Via@ 2015-2 (8)
Located between Laugavegur, the main shopping street of the city, and the more
administrative Hverfisgata (see Fig. 2), the Hljómalind block is in the heart of the old
center of Reykjavík. Lined with several historic buildings from the first half of the
XXth century, which today host commercial, residential but also entertainment
functions (notably with the presence of the famous concert hall Faktóry), but also
newer and less qualitative buildings, the inner part of the lot used to be a parking lot.
During the economic boom of the 2000s, the entire lot, which is strategically located,
has been bought by Laugavegsreitir, a subsidiary company of the real estate company
Reginn, which is itself a subsidiary of Landsbankinn (one of the three banks involved
in the economic collapse) in order to develop the ground by building a shopping
mall.
Figure 2. Location of the block
Source: Reykjavíkurborg, 2015
After the bankruptcy of the bank in 2008, the project ground to a halt. The inner part
of the lot then became a wasteland which sheltered drug trafficking. But soon, as
described in the academic literature on creative wastelands, while awaiting reuse, the
site was spontaneously taken over, first by graffiti artists who very soon covered the
inner walls of the lot with colorful and continuously renewed frescos, then by the
inhabitants. Indeed, during the summer of 2011, three inhabitants living in the city
center and close to the artistic circles, launched a participative initiative through the
creation of a Facebook Group in order to turn this wasteland into a communal space
and a public playground, with the agreement of the owner and the City Hall who
both saw this as a way to cheaply maintain and normalize this central site in times of
severe economic constraints. This initiative has been realized by the organization of
several volunteer cleaning meetings and laying-out workshops : making of a stage and
-4-
Via@ Tourism Review
Via@ 2015-2 (8)
several skateboard ramps, installation of small street furniture (benches, tables),
creation of heart-shaped brick paving intended to symbolize the attachment to this
place (as its name, Hjartagarðurinn, the heart garden) (Figure 3). The square soon
started to host events such as concerts or secondhand markets, and became a
photographic “spot” for tourists, so well-liked that it is described in 2012 as “one of
Reykjavík’s most colourful and culturally appealing areas3”.
Figure 3. Hjartagarðurinn in September 2013.
Source: Wolfgang Sterneck (Creative Commons License BY-NC-SA)
Thus, the changes in the management of this site were at first consistent with the
theory of the emergence of more participative ways of practicing urban development,
as described for other cities (see for instance Orduña-Giró and Jacquot, 2014).
The return of financial priorities in the new form of the tourism
industry (2012-…)
However, as soon as 2012, as the Icelandic economy and real estate as well tended to
recover, largely due to the growth of tourism, the Laugavegsreitir decided to make
this lot profitable and, so, to reclaim its ownership of the site, for a touristic purpose.
3
Source: Reykjavík Grapevine, 8/10/2012.
-5-
Via@ Tourism Review
Indeed, notwithstanding the crisis, tourism kept expanding in Reykjavík, following
the strong growth of tourist influx converging on Iceland4. In a few years, Reykjavík
has become a destination in its own right, promoted by new offers like city-breaks or
stop-over on the way between North America and Europe, which entailed the need
for new tourism accommodation and thus the opening of new hotels in downtown5
often taking place of former establishments such as the building of the newspaper
Morgunblaðið in 2011 or the Nasa club in 2012.
Via@ 2015-2 (8)
Over the autumn of 2012, the City Hall of Reykjavík published a new planning
document for this area. It allows, in accordance with the Master Plan 2010-2030 for
the entire capital area which promotes densification, the construction of new
buildings in the inner part of the lot (see Fig.6), thus threatening the continuation of
the participative management, of the site. At the same time, the Laugavegsreitir
heralded the impending launching of a mixed-use property program on the
Hljómalind lot whose cornerstone is a new 7000 m² Hilton hotel, meaning the return
of financial priorities and the end of the participative initiatives in the management of
this site. Indeed the local stakeholders involved in the upkeep of the site did not
really have a say in these decisions and were offered instead to repeat this experience
in another neighborhood of the city (as a matter of fact at Breiðholt, a deprived
neighborhood far from the tourism influx and where the land is far less profitable),
despite claims to the contrary.
Figure 4. “[Mon]ey killing art and culture”, September 2013
Source: Wolfgand Sterneck (License Creative Commons BY-NC-SA)
502 000 tourists in 2008, 997 000 in 2014 according to the Icelandic Tourist Board, 2015.
The three most significant projects are all in downtown: Harpa Conference Hall (250 rooms),
Hofdatorg tower hotel (343 rooms) and the new Hilton hotel (115 rooms).
4
5
-6-
Via@ 2015-2 (8)
Via@ Tourism Review
Figure 5. “No place for kids to play, luxury apartment in the way”
Source: Mermet, 2015
-7-
Via@ Tourism Review
The project has become reality in September 2013 (in the meantime, the lot had been
bought by Þingvangur, another real estate company close to the Landsbankinn) when
a fence was put around the square6, bringing an end to the Hjartagarðurinn
experience. Several buildings which were not protected by the heritage law, including
the very popular concert hall Faktóry, have been destroyed, which gave rise to much
discontent.
Was the participative moment just fleeting? Towards a balanced
appraisal
Via@ 2015-2 (8)
For all that, should one conclude that the Hjartagarðurinn experience had no impact
at all on the trajectory of this lot? The comparison of the blueprint drawn before the
crisis and of the one published in 2012 leads to a more balanced appraisal.
Figure 6. The blueprints of the lot, 2004-2012
Source: Blueprints, Reykjavíkurborg, 2012
The 2004 blueprint indeed allowed the urbanization of the entire lot, including its
inner part – which was supposed to shelter a mall at that time. Conversely, the postIt is worth noting that the company chose to enclose the lot with blank board fence, temporarily
allowing graffiti artists to transfer their creativity there
6
-8-
Via@ Tourism Review
crisis plan clearly integrates the idea of, if not a public space, at least a pedestrian path
and an access to the inner part of the lot and the owner company has brought up the
idea of a place open to the organization of events such as concerts. Nevertheless, this
place will remain highly controlled, closed at night and tightly bound to the new
Hilton hotel, far from the fleeting participative utopia embodied by the
Hjartagarðurinn experience.
To sum up, while this experience led to the opening of the lot, the pre-crisis
rationales of production and management of urban space seem to have indeed
persisted. This case study calls into question Mathiesen, Forget and Zaccariotto’s
appealing theory. On the contrary, it suggests that this participative experience can
happen only in a context of capital disinvestment of the urban space, which has only
been very temporary here. The fact that the key stakeholders of the Hjartagarðurinn
experience have been offered to repeat the project in a deprived part of the city tends
to confirm it. The strong growth of tourism in Reykjavík played a crucial role by
maintaining the potential value of this central location, despite the crisis and the
decline of inhabitants’ purchasing power, the hotel option having henceforth been
seen as the best way to make the land profitable. Beyond these urban issues, this
example also leads to reconsider the widespread idea according to which Iceland is a
crisis exit model and an example of a hypothetical reform of the neoliberal economy.
Via@ 2015-2 (8)
NB: a complementary portfolio displaying pictures of the site from 2010 to 2015 can
be seen on this page: https://www.flickr.com/gp/134976284@N07/Sv247i
References
Andres L. (2006), « Temps de veille de la friche urbaine et diversité des processus
d’appropriation : la Belle de Mai (Marseille) et le Flon (Lausanne) », Géocarrefour,
vol. Vol. 81, n°2, pp. 159‑166.
Andres L. et Grésillon B. (2011), « Les figures de la friche dans les villes culturelles et
créatives », L’Espace géographique, vol. 40, n°1, pp. 15‑30.
Benediktsson K. et Karlsdóttir A. (2011), « Iceland crisis and regional development –
Thanks for all the fish? », European Urban and Regional Studies, vol. 18, n°2, pp.
228‑235.
Bergmann E. (2014), Iceland and the International Financial Crisis: Boom, Bust and
Recovery, Houndsmills, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 232 p.
Mathiesen A., Forget T. et Zaccariotto G. (2014), Scarcity in Excess: The Built
Environment and the Economic Crisis in Iceland, New York, ActarD Inc., 250 p.
Orduña-Giró P. et Jacquot S. (2014), « La production participative d’espaces publics
temporaires
en
temps
de
crise
»,
Métropolitiques,
http://www.metropolitiques.eu/La-production-participative-d.html.
-9-
Via@ Tourism Review
Websites accessed
(Last access to all websites: August 2015)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/sterneck/sets/72157635752698823.
Flickr Photo album from which Figures 4 and 5 have been taken, entitled “Killing art
and culture”, and taken by two German photographers on the eve of the closing of
Hjartagarðurinn. It shows the street art frescos and the different facilities created by
the community.
http://justonesuitcase.com/2013/02/05/will-the-heart-park-beat-go-on/
Page from the blog of a writer from the Huffington Post (which has published a
paper on the site) and which displays numerous pictures promoting the
appropriation and the success of Hjartagarðurinn.
http://grapevine.is/mag/articles/2011/08/11/hjartatorgid/
http://grapevine.is/mag/articles/2012/07/26/home-is-where-the-heart-is/
http://grapevine.is/mag/articles/2012/10/08/where-has-the-love-gone/
http://grapevine.is/mag/articles/2012/10/08/wait-not-so-fast/
Via@ 2015-2 (8)
http://grapevine.is/news/2013/09/24/razing-of-heart-park-begins/
The Reykjavík Grapevine is an English-speaking cultural semimonthly. This
succession of papers published between 2011 and 2013 relates the history of the site
as well as the debates raised by the closing of Hjartagarðurinn.
Translation French > English :
Anne-Cécile Mermet
- 10 -