It seems that the king was impressed by the Lindhagen Plan, because even though it hadn’t been accepted and implemented by the City of Stockholm, the king asked Lindhagen to update the nation’s Building Code. Many aspects of the 1874 ordinance were updates of the same themes that had been developed in the periodically updated building codes since the 1700’s, but the updated code of 1874 had two very significant new provisions: First, all Swedish cities were now required to draw up comprehensive city plans to direct future development of the city. Secondly, the Building Code required each city to establish a Building Board to review permit applications. The Stockholm Building Code of 1876 was Stockholm’s response to these new requirements.
The National Building Code of 1874: Same old, same old
The goal of this updated code was “neatness, cleanliness, air exchange, and safety.” However, the code didn’t give a lot of specific guidelines as to cleanliness or safety other than that roofs could not be of straw, peat, wooden shingles, or wooden boards and that they were required to be of terracotta, slate, or metal (a repeated regulation from the previous building code). Interestingly, pure white buildings were prohibited, and in general, buildings weren’t allowed to be so bright so as to create glare. The vast majority of the Building Code instead focused on the planning of cities.
The National Building Code of 1874: Planning requirement
I’m guessing that the King and Lindhagen included the requirement that all cities were to draw up comprehensive city plans as a means to prevent the long, drawn out process of planning that Stockholm had suffered since the 1850’s. The requirement for a Building Board as well as the specific protocols regulating how the Building Board was to operate were probably meant to prevent the likes of Stockholm’s planning gridlock where no city committee had clear authority or the budget to implement plans. Without a plan or clearly defined Building Board, development in Stockholm had more or less stalled for decades, resulting in a huge housing crisis.
Not only were cities now required to draw up a plan, but they were required to do it quickly: plans were to be submitted to the king for approval within a mere two years! However, the comprehensive city plan was not required to cover existing areas of the city; instead, it was meant to guide new development. Areas beyond the city plan were not allowed to be developed until a new city plan could be drawn up and approved by the king. All future development was required to be according to the city plan.
The goal of the city plans was to “correspond to traffic needs, space requirements and convenience; health’s requirements for light and fresh air; the desire for the highest possible level of security against widespread fires; and the sense of beauty’s requirement for free space, variation, and neatness.” In order to achieve these goals, the Building Code laid out specific requirements which were to be met in every city plan, ultimately controlling the plans’ content and the resulting appearance of every city in Sweden:
The National Building Code of 1874: Same old, same old
The goal of this updated code was “neatness, cleanliness, air exchange, and safety.” However, the code didn’t give a lot of specific guidelines as to cleanliness or safety other than that roofs could not be of straw, peat, wooden shingles, or wooden boards and that they were required to be of terracotta, slate, or metal (a repeated regulation from the previous building code). Interestingly, pure white buildings were prohibited, and in general, buildings weren’t allowed to be so bright so as to create glare. The vast majority of the Building Code instead focused on the planning of cities.
The National Building Code of 1874: Planning requirement
I’m guessing that the King and Lindhagen included the requirement that all cities were to draw up comprehensive city plans as a means to prevent the long, drawn out process of planning that Stockholm had suffered since the 1850’s. The requirement for a Building Board as well as the specific protocols regulating how the Building Board was to operate were probably meant to prevent the likes of Stockholm’s planning gridlock where no city committee had clear authority or the budget to implement plans. Without a plan or clearly defined Building Board, development in Stockholm had more or less stalled for decades, resulting in a huge housing crisis.
Not only were cities now required to draw up a plan, but they were required to do it quickly: plans were to be submitted to the king for approval within a mere two years! However, the comprehensive city plan was not required to cover existing areas of the city; instead, it was meant to guide new development. Areas beyond the city plan were not allowed to be developed until a new city plan could be drawn up and approved by the king. All future development was required to be according to the city plan.
The goal of the city plans was to “correspond to traffic needs, space requirements and convenience; health’s requirements for light and fresh air; the desire for the highest possible level of security against widespread fires; and the sense of beauty’s requirement for free space, variation, and neatness.” In order to achieve these goals, the Building Code laid out specific requirements which were to be met in every city plan, ultimately controlling the plans’ content and the resulting appearance of every city in Sweden:
1) The plan was to include all blocks, streets, squares, and public spaces.
2) Squares, harbors, and other larger areas meant for high traffic flows were to be spacious and placed conveniently (“spacious” and “convenient” were not defined)
3) At least one (but hopefully several) wide esplanade with tree plantings in the middle and streets to either side was to be included in every plan (the purpose here was to create a fire break)
 |
| Narvavägen is one of Stockholm's esplanades corresponding to this provision of the National Building Code |
4) Other planted areas, both large and small, were to be as abundant as possible
 |
| Vitabergsparken is one of Stockholm's characteristic parks |
5) Streets were to be wide and laid out in appropriate directions. The streets were to be at least 60’ or 18m wide (with some exceptions for 40’ or 12m wide streets).
6) Blocks should be just the right size, not too large and not too small. Lots should not be too small so that air is not blocked from circulating, and the lots should be large enough to accommodate open and airy courtyards.
7) Lots lines, wherever possible, were to be perpendicular to streets. In order to meet this requirement, streets were de facto required to be perpendicular to each other. Without specifically mentioning it, this Building Code required that cities be developed in a grid pattern.
8) Buildings were to be built at the lot line along the street.
 |
| Buildings built to the lot line at the street along Upplandsgatan and Roslagsgatan |
9) Where desired and appropriate, narrow gardens between the street and building line can be designated in certain areas. These gardens were to be fenced from the street.
 |
| Karlsbergvägen is one area of Stockholm with small gardens between the buildings and the street |
10) Corner buildings were to have symmetrically rounded or faceted corners and the cut plane of the rounding or faceting was to be a minimum of 8’or 2.4m wide
 |
| Rounded and faceted corners |
11) Residential buildings were to be maximum 5 stories tall, and their max height was to be the street’s width plus 5’ or 1.5m. An attic with a fireplace was considered to be a floor. The back courtyard building was to be a maximum of 4 stories and the maximum height corresponded to the courtyard’s width. These maximum heights were to the roof line, not the peak.
12) The minimum interior ceiling height was 9’or 2.7m.
13) Buildings with a wooden structure had to be built at least 15’ or 4.5m from neighboring buildings, drastically limiting their potential size. Buildings with a brick or stone structure could be built right up to neighboring buildings. (Stockholm had been outlawing flammable wooden buildings for centuries without success. This provision was a smart way to make developers want to build in safer materials.)
14) The area of the courtyard was to be at least 50% of the lot’s building footprint. The courtyard was to be at least 40’or 12m wide between the street and back courtyard building (although small parts of the courtyard were allowed to be as narrow as 15’ or 4.5m.)
15) Courtyards and the narrow gardens between street and building line were to remain unbuilt. It was hoped that these courtyards would be planted.
 |
| Two Stockholm courtyards. The building to the right is a courtyard building and demonstrates the 4 story limit for courtyard buildings. |
16) The plans were to be drawn up with rainwater in mind—water was to drain naturally away from streets and squares and from courtyards and lots to public sewer pipes.
The National Building Code of 1874: Significance
Lindhagen’s work on Stockholm’s plan was hugely influential in the 1874 National Building Code. This code was in turn hugely influential in the development of all other Swedish cities. In this roundabout way, the 1866 Lindhagen Plan for Stockholm ended up influencing all of Sweden.
One of the most important changes between the Building Code of 1842 and this new updated Building Code of 1874 was the increase in maximum building height from 4 to 5 stories. This increased density was probably partly in response to the nation’s housing crisis as well as to pressure from developers to make new development more profitable. This increase in building height was too early to be influenced by new building science. The resulting increase in density had long-lasting effects on everything from the types of commercial activity that neighborhoods could support to the layout of public transportation stops. (As a side note, I find it interesting that there was a NATIONAL maximum building height. No residential building in the entire nation was allowed to be higher.)
The National Building Code of 1874: Significance
Lindhagen’s work on Stockholm’s plan was hugely influential in the 1874 National Building Code. This code was in turn hugely influential in the development of all other Swedish cities. In this roundabout way, the 1866 Lindhagen Plan for Stockholm ended up influencing all of Sweden.
One of the most important changes between the Building Code of 1842 and this new updated Building Code of 1874 was the increase in maximum building height from 4 to 5 stories. This increased density was probably partly in response to the nation’s housing crisis as well as to pressure from developers to make new development more profitable. This increase in building height was too early to be influenced by new building science. The resulting increase in density had long-lasting effects on everything from the types of commercial activity that neighborhoods could support to the layout of public transportation stops. (As a side note, I find it interesting that there was a NATIONAL maximum building height. No residential building in the entire nation was allowed to be higher.)
 |
| These buildings on Cardellgatan show the difference in scale between the earlier 4 story limitation and the new 5 story limitation. |
While Lindhagen’s Building Code had very few specific guidelines pertaining to style or aesthetics, he did place huge importance on the spatiality of the street environment by regulating the proportion between street width and building height. And by regulating both the maximum building height and the minimum interior ceiling height, the building code ensured a uniform cornice line from one building to the next along an entire streetscape. This uniformity is extra evident when the street is flat and does not slope.
 |
| Uniformity on Upplandsgatan |
The provision for rounded or faceted corners resulted in one of Stockholm’s trademark aesthetics. I have never experienced a city with such a consistent design element spanning both geography and time. Architects dreamed up thousands of variations, and these corners became a way to distinguish one building from the next, one block from the next, one century from the next. The rounded and faceted corners became small, neighborhood landmarks and the visual accent of each block. Additionally, these rounded and faceted corners give the dense, gridded city fabric small but frequent breaks, making the city feel much more airy and open than it would otherwise be.
|
| Some relatively meek rounded and faceted corners |
 |
| Some more pronounced rounded corners |
 |
| Even buildings built in the 70's had faceted corners. By this time, however, the stories above the street were not required to be faceted, and the result much more subtle. These corners are not nearly as visually interesting as the earlier corners which were faceted along the entire building, and they do not create the same kind of break in the city fabric as the earlier facets. |
Stockholm’s Building Code of 1876
Not only did Lindhagen write the National Building Code, but he also wrote Stockholm’s new building code, updating it to be in accordance with the national standards. Many of the provisions were about ensuring fire safety:
1) Firewalls between directly adjacent buildings were required
2) Ceilings were to be of gips, not wood
3) Stairs were not allowed to be of wood and were required to be of stone or iron
4) In addition , there were pages of regulations about chimneys and fireplaces
5) Specific regulations for factories
One of the provisions was a requirement for gutters and drainpipes. It’s unfathomable now but just imagine how drippy a city sidewalk would be without gutters!
More interestingly, a few specific provisions in the Stockholm code allowed the city to develop its own slight flavor, differentiating it from other Swedish cities:
Not only did Lindhagen write the National Building Code, but he also wrote Stockholm’s new building code, updating it to be in accordance with the national standards. Many of the provisions were about ensuring fire safety:
1) Firewalls between directly adjacent buildings were required
2) Ceilings were to be of gips, not wood
3) Stairs were not allowed to be of wood and were required to be of stone or iron
4) In addition , there were pages of regulations about chimneys and fireplaces
5) Specific regulations for factories
One of the provisions was a requirement for gutters and drainpipes. It’s unfathomable now but just imagine how drippy a city sidewalk would be without gutters!
More interestingly, a few specific provisions in the Stockholm code allowed the city to develop its own slight flavor, differentiating it from other Swedish cities:
1) In addition to the national provision that limited residential buildings to 5 stories, the Stockholm code limited all types of buildings to 65’or 19.8m in height. The exceptions were churches and public buildings, which were allowed to be higher.
2) The maximum roof angle was 45 degrees, further limiting building height
3) Bridges between buildings over streets was no longer permitted
4) Balconies were allowed to jut out over the property line over public sidewalks (maximum of 4’or 1.2m in width, with a minimum clearance over the sidewalk of 14’or 4.3m)
 |
| Balconies! |
The Stockholm code also repeated many of the regulations in the National Building Code such as faceted corners and a right-angled street grid. It’s as if these components of city-building were so important that Lindhagen didn’t want there to be any chance of them being forgotten.
Of the specifically Stockholm regulations, I find the height limitations to be most significant. The height limitations on all other buildings ensured that churches and important public building would literally stick up out of the crowd. Residential buildings would form the consistent, muted background of the city while the churches and important public buildings would become the literal and figurative high points in the cityscape through both their more lavish design and their height.
Conclusion
The groundbreaking element of the National Building Code of 1874 was the requirement that all cities must plan, and that no development was allowed to occur outside of these plans. The city government was thus given full authority and control over what would be built, where it would be built, and how it would be built. From 1874 on, it was self-evident that cities would plan future development and that cities would have control over what was built. Of course, reality never fully corresponds to the law, but this was a huge step forward. When this law was drawn up, there wasn’t even a planning profession, and now planning had become a municipal responsibility!
For Stockholm, these Building Codes were the foundation for the creation of a relatively uniform and understated but very beautiful cityscape. Later on, the uniformity resulting from the Lindhagen Plan and these Building Codes would be criticized, but this uniform, gridded background was an important counterpoint for future areas which would deviate in scale and design.
Sources
The 1874 National Building Code:
https://www.boverket.se/contentassets/22140678c50841128f99d542d6ab2eb7/1874-byggnadsstadga-brandstadga.pdfOf the specifically Stockholm regulations, I find the height limitations to be most significant. The height limitations on all other buildings ensured that churches and important public building would literally stick up out of the crowd. Residential buildings would form the consistent, muted background of the city while the churches and important public buildings would become the literal and figurative high points in the cityscape through both their more lavish design and their height.
Conclusion
The groundbreaking element of the National Building Code of 1874 was the requirement that all cities must plan, and that no development was allowed to occur outside of these plans. The city government was thus given full authority and control over what would be built, where it would be built, and how it would be built. From 1874 on, it was self-evident that cities would plan future development and that cities would have control over what was built. Of course, reality never fully corresponds to the law, but this was a huge step forward. When this law was drawn up, there wasn’t even a planning profession, and now planning had become a municipal responsibility!
For Stockholm, these Building Codes were the foundation for the creation of a relatively uniform and understated but very beautiful cityscape. Later on, the uniformity resulting from the Lindhagen Plan and these Building Codes would be criticized, but this uniform, gridded background was an important counterpoint for future areas which would deviate in scale and design.
Sources
The 1874 National Building Code:
The 1876 Stockholm Building Code:
https://sok.stadsarkivet.stockholm.se/Bildarkiv/Egenproducerat/Kommuntrycket/KTR0013_004_ps.pdf
Thomas Hall, Huvudstad i Omvandling (2002)
Peter Lundewall, Stockholm den planerade staden (2006)
Alla Tiders Stockholm (2014)
Images
All images are my own.
