Hammarby Sjöstad, Stockholm, Sweden
An International Example of Sustainable Development and its Challenges
By Cameron Grannis and Abigail Cohen
The vision for Hammarby Sjöstad outlined an eco-village with a strong consideration for environmental performance, as well as a high quality of life for its residents. In addition to the ecological model created for Hammarby, the designers sought to create a desirable, livable neighborhood just outside Stockholm’s inner city. The mixed-use public realm and robust transit system has given Hammarby Sjöstad its international acclaim as a sustainable city.
The planner’s vision for a lively public realm is created by integrating public green space and amenities throughout the neighborhoods. A carefully designed public transportation system, largely powered by biofuels generated from resident’s waste, facilitates an inner-city lifestyle. The network of cycling and pedestrian pathways compliment the public transportation system (Manna 2015). A network of greenspace provides relief from the compact development. Canals used to manage stormwater add to Hammarby Sjöstad’s lakeside character (Gaffney, et. al. 2007). Hammarby Sjöstad is a perfect place to live with the goals of sustainability at its core.
When we looked deeper at Hammarby Sjöstad and its performance since its construction, the flaws in the design of the development begin to surface. Critics of the development argue that it may be regarded as more sustainable than it actually is (Farahani 2013). In particular, Hammarby Sjöstad’s flaws begin to paint a picture that rings ever too familiar in the world of sustainable development. The performance problems Hammarby Sjöstad faces are largely due to a prioritization of aesthetic appearances over social and environmental sustainability, resulting in an “eco-village” that does not meet its energy-saving goals and prices low-income residents out of the development. For this reason, this article dives deeper into the shortcomings of Hammarby Sjöstad and potential areas for improvement to serve as a guideline for future sustainable development projects.
History and Context
The location of the current Hammarby Sjöstad is the area surrounding Hammarby Sjö. The site was historically a highly industrial, polluted area, and the history as a brownfield site quickly became part of the developments sustainable agenda (GlashutEtt 2007). The plans for Hammarby Sjöstad were prepared in 1990 and picked up by the city in 1997 as an Olympic village for Stockholm’s bid for the 2004 Olympics. The city wanted to focus on impressive environmental goals for the development in order to impress the Olympic committee (Manna 2015). Alas, the city lost the Olympic bid but continued with plans to develop Hammarby Sjöstad. The City of Stockholm was in need of additional housing, and a development like Hammarby Sjöstad held the potential to set a precedent for environmental performance of future Swedish developments. With these goals in mind, Stockholm began development of Hammarby Sjöstad in 1996 (Gaffney, et. al. 2007).
Hammarby Sjöstad’s beginnings as a selling point for an Olympic bid prompted Stockholm to set the ambitious environmental goal of “twice as good.” This meant reducing the consumption of resources by half, compared to similar developments in Stockholm. The City of Stockholm set out to set a precedent for future developments in Sweden and the world (Manna 2015). The ambitious environmental goals of the project attracted many developers and designers to the project. Though the city initiated the project, by the neighborhood’s completion 41 developers and 29 architects and designers were involved (Manna 2015).
Energy Use : Aesthetics over Efficiency
Hammarby Sjöstad’s inability to meet its energy goal remains one of the biggest criticisms of the project. The goal for electricity in Hammarby Sjöstad was 100 kWh/m2. This compares to the average Swedish household energy use of 110 kWh/m2. In terms of whether Hammarby Sjöstad met this goal, however, the development falls shockingly short. The average household in Hammarby Sjöstad uses electricity at a rate of 142 kWh/ms, which not only exceeds the development’s energy goal, but is also more than the electricity use of the average Swedish household (Lindholm 2019). The culprit of this discrepancy between the development’s goals and its actual performance point to the building design as the culprit, and in particular a prioritization of aesthetics over building energy efficiency.
Polycrystalline Photovoltaic Cell Application
Polycrystalline solar panels were incorporated into the facade of the Holmen and Kobben buildings in Hammarby Sjöstad in an effort to expose the building’s sustainability to the community. This public display of renewable energy production efforts, in reality, is not an efficient use of the solar cells. The positioning on the facade of the building is advantageous for public visibility, however is less favorable in terms of capturing solar energy (Ganton 2005). In this application, the PV cells are not producing the maximum amount of renewable energy. This evokes concerns in terms of energy efficiency as well as wastefulness in terms of materials.
The life cycle of polycrystalline solar cells elicits some sustainability concerns. After the 25–30 year lifetime of the solar cells, the vast majority of the waste goes to landfills. In 2016, there was 250,000 metric tons of PV waste, which is expected to increase by 5.5–6 million tons by 2055 (Hong 2016). Though PV cells can be recycled, this is not currently standard practice in the industry due to the high cost and low economic incentive (Hong 2016). Reducing pollution was a priority in Hammarby Sjöstad, so the potential for chemicals from the solar cells to leach into the environment during the solar cells life cycle should be a concern for the designers. Overall, the reduction in emissions from the renewable energy created by PV cells could considerably outweigh waste concerns created by the material. However, this also requires that the cells are utilized to their maximum potential. By prioritizing the public visibility of the solar cells over solar energy capture in the application of PV cells on Holmen and Kobben, Hammarby Sjöstad is engaging in a wasteful use of materials that goes against the guidelines set by the development.
Building Energy Use
Building Orientation
The current orientation of the buildings prioritize a view of Lake Hammarby but are designed inefficiently for energy use and human comfort. The temperatures in the apartment reach uncomfortably high levels due to poor air circulation, causing discomfort for residents and increased cooling energy demand (Poldermans 2005). This design choice does not align with the goals of an environmentally friendly housing development, posing questions regarding the priorities in Hammarby Sjöstad.
In a more efficient design scheme, buildings should be oriented within 30 degrees of due South in order to maximize solar exposure (Poldermans 2005). The redesign below proposes a reorientation of the buildings in Sickla Udde, one section of Hammarby Sjöstad, to orient as many building facades towards the South as possible, maximizing solar energy capture. In combination with other passive solar design strategies, this building layout could help reduce the household’s energy use substantially.
Facade Design & Materials
Part of the design guidelines for Hammarby Sjöstad were to maintain a modern appearance. The use or large windows are common in modern design as an aesthetic choice and because they are desirable to residents. In terms of sustainability, however, they go against goals of energy efficiency (Poldermans 2005) The windows on the majority of the buildings in Hammarby Sjöstad are large and unshaded, leading to unmitigated heat gain in the summer and a loss of heat in cold, Scandinavian winters. Rethinking these facades for energy efficiency involves an overhaul of the building materials and an integration of passive solar shade design strategies.
The figure to the above shows an infrared image of a building in Sickla Udde. The image reveals a high degree of heat loss through the windows, a highly inefficient reality in terms of energy use. The choice of glass is important because it allows for increased window area without significant additional loss of heat. For example, vacuum insulated glass has lower heat loss compared to a traditional double glazed window and only costs 30% more (Farahani 2013). An investment in a material with a higher capacity to limit heat loss would have allowed the building designer to maintain the desired modern design scheme of large windows without sacrificing efficiency. However, the existing design and materials choice prioritizes the modern appearance of the facade over the building’s efficiency.
Additionally, designers could have included shade structures on the facade to block solar rays in the summer when the sun is high and allow sunlight into the building in the winter when the sun is low. This is a common design strategy employed in passive solar design to reduce energy use. These shades could have been integrated into the facade design, yet there is no sign of an attempt to regulate the solar energy that enters the building.
Social Equity: The Social Cost of Sustainability
Housing in Hammarby Sjöstad is in high demand, public transportation is widely used, and businesses are successful. However, one of the largest critiques of Hammarby Sjöstad is the inadequate focus on social equity. Hammarby Sjostad failed to make its sustainable city accessible to everyone. This is a problem worldwide because new green design is very expensive and therefore only accessible to people can afford it. This failure in Hammarby plays into a larger failure in green building and unless it is addressed sustainable design will never reach its full potential.
The goal for the neighborhood was to have a ratio of 50% owner occupied to 50% renter occupied. This goal has not yet been met (Gaffney, et. al. 2007). Additionally, the cost of an apartment in Hammarby Sjöstad has been criticized for being so highly priced that low-income residents can not afford to reside there. Despite Stockholm’s problems with socio-economic segregation, Hammarby Sjöstad’s high prices have not allowed for an environment that can promote progress towards more social equity within the Swedish capital (Gaffney, et. al. 2007).
Hammarby Sjostad was built because the city of Stockholm had a housing shortage, however the prices per square meter are higher than the city of Stockholm (Sweco 2015). It is understandable that the prices in Hammarby Sjostad are high because it cost 20 Billion SEK to build, however the developers should have implemented a system to account for this social inequity. With the money saved on maintenance and energy, some should be used to subsidize cost of living. With the focus placed on sustainable technologies and aesthetics, social sustainability was overlooked.
The residents of Hammarby Sjöstad were mostly attracted to the location because of its beautiful design. A beautiful design, which also comes at a high cost. This design includes mixed housing types and promotes density, however there is a clear lack of affordable housing. There is no affordable housing policy within Hammarby, and the stakeholders are companies driven by profit. This narrative shows a clear failure in the equity and sustainability of the whole project. The lack of affordability creates a homogenous environment in the city, and further pushes the idea that sustainable design is only for the rich.
Equity in design is a fault of many sustainable projects, and Hammarby Sjöstad is not exempt from this phenomenon. The high prices of sustainable developments often restrict out lower-income groups from being able to engage in the sustainability conversation. I ranked equity as a high priority in regards to achieving sustainability goals. However, it is apparent that it is not necessarily regarded as a priority because there are only a few criteria from LEED ND that address equity and no evidence of a strong focus on equity in Hammarby Sjöstad.
If sustainability is not affordable it will be impossible to implement on as large a scale as needed. To solve this issue, I suggest that 35% of the housing in Hammarby Sjostad is subsidized. The money to fund this subsidy could come from the money that is saved on energy, water, and waste through the Hammarby model. Enforcing this subsidy would promote a more inclusive environment that would benefit everyone. Education about why the subsidies were necessary an overall culture of equality would make the space more just and therefore more green.
If this affordability model was implemented it would have a great impact on sustainability in Stockholm. Making Hammarby green and equitable would promote sustainability outside the elite and spread to diverse populations. It would serve as a model for the ways innovation can be accessible for everyone and help fight against green gentrification that can occur in projects like this. In order for green building to truly help in the fight against climate change there needs to be economic incentive for people and companies to live in ways that promote the earth’s wellbeing.
Sources
FARAHANI, A., & MOHAMMADI, M. 2013. Analysis and optimization of building energy efficiency in Hammarby Sjöstad [PDF]. Department of Energy Technology, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH).
Fthenakis, Vasilis M., Hyung Chul Kim, and Erik Alsema. “Emissions from Photovoltaic Life Cycles.” Environmental Science & Technology 42, no. 6 (2008): 2168–74. https://doi.org/10.1021/es071763q.
Gaffney, Andrea, Vinita Huang, Kristin Maravilla, and Nadine Soubotin. “Hammarby, Sjostad, Stockholm, Sweden: A Case Study,” 2007.Manna, Ashim Kumar. Hammarby Sjöstad — From Failure to twice as good, 2015.
GANTON, GEORGE ANTONIADIS — 2005-. “Title: Holmen and Grynnan, Stockholm, Sweden.” PERCH. Accessed November 21, 2020. http://www.cres.gr/perch/Sweden1.htm.
“Hammarby Sjöstad — A Unique Environmental Project in Stockholm.” GlashutEtt, 2007.
Hong, Jinglan, Wei Chen, Congcong Qi, Liping Ye, and Changqing Xu. “Life Cycle Assessment of Multicrystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cell Production in China.” Solar Energy 133 (2016): 283–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2016.04.013.
Jernberg, Jonas, Sara Hedenskog, and CC Huang. “Hammarby Sjöstad — An Urban Development Case Study.” China Development Bank Capital, October 2015.
Lindholm, N. (2019). The Case of Hammarby Sjöstad A model of the goals of the EU’s Urban Agenda? [PDF]. Malmö: Malmö University.
Rísen, Jonas. “Case Study — Hammarby Sjöstad.” Ziger/Snead Architects, 2007.
Ritchie, Hannah, and Max Roser. “Sweden: CO2 Country Profile.” Our World in Data, June 11, 2020.
Sweco, Jonas Jernberg. “HAMMARBY SJÖSTAD: AN URBAN DEVELOPMENT CASE STUDY OF HAMMARBY SJÖSTAD IN SWEDEN, STOCKHOLM.” energy innovation, 2015.
