“No decision has been made in this matter,” says Líf Magneudóttir, chairman of the Environment and Planning Council. In December, Vísir reported on residents’ concerns about the construction of apartment buildings and the demolition of two buildings on the corner of Holtsgatu 10-12 and Brekkustíg 16. The City History Museum subsequently commented on the report of a new dispute plan, stating that it was not correct that the building had a medium preservation value, but a high one.
Surprised that a new proposal is not published
“The proposal that is currently being processed is dated April 21, 2026, but the comment period expired in December 2025, so residents never had the opportunity to comment on the data on which the decision is based,” says Árni Björn Helgason, one of the residents in the western part of Reykjavík, in an interview with Vísi. Residents feel that development should be approved under the cover of night.
He says that a new proposal was presented to the residents at a residents’ meeting in January, among other things, it is assumed that the building at Holtsgatu 10 will be rebuilt but not replaced, that the highest point of the building will be lowered by four meters from the advertised proposal and that the building volume will be reduced by eighty square meters.
“This is ‘better’ than the previous proposal, but not automatically acceptable.” If the building has a high conservation value, is aged and part of the protection of the neighborhood, then the first requirement should be the preservation and improvement of the existing building and not demolition and reconstruction, “reconstruction” is not the same as conservation.”
Doesn’t happen often
It is not possible to access data on a new proposal in the planning portal. It is stated in the minutes of the meeting of the planning representative from April 21 that a report on a new dispute structure on the field was referred to the city’s Environment and Planning Council. In its minutes states that the case has been adjourned. Líf says that it is not customary to advertise proposals again after a consultation has taken place.
“There are changes to the dispute structure that are submitted as a proposal in the planning portal, then everyone submits comments, then the comments are processed and changes are made if relevant points of view are expressed, but the dispute structure is not sent back to advertising,” says Líf. She says that the proposal to postpone the case was submitted so that the councilors can examine the case more closely.
“Most of the time, the chairman has to comply if there is a postponement request. There is a lot of data available in these cases and they are often postponed so that they can be examined more closely.”
Life says it fully understands the residents’ concerns. She herself has met often with the residents regarding the matter and says she emphasizes that no decision has been made in the matter.
“So when this case comes back in, it’s either for approval or rejection, we’re an administrative authority, we make administrative decisions, and there must always be valid reasons if something is refused.”
