AAVV, Atlas of the Copenhagens, Ruby Press, 2018 ©

Atlas of the Copenhagens

Edited by Deane Simpson, Kathrin Gimmel, Anders Lonka, Marc Jay, Joost Grootens

Ruby Press

Atlas of the Copenhagens

3

Atlas of the Copenhagens

3

There’s nothing quite like the release of an urban quality of life index to send property developers into a spin and city halls into fits of rage.

Tyler Brûlé (Brûlé 2010)

I call Copenhagen a Jekyll and Hyde town – a double city. […] On the one hand you have a dense inner city and the phenomenon of Copenhagen as a cycle city. On the other hand there are the postwar suburban districts. There, distances are too great for cycling and people simply use their cars.

4

Introduction

5

Jens Kvorning (Lowenstein 2009)

By reducing the city to a set of checked boxes on a chart, rankings on liveability such as those of Monocle, Mercer and the EIU unwittingly serve as evidence of the collapse of an adequate, comprehensive system of planning. […] By agreeing to compete for a number-one spot, cities will merely ensure their eventual demise.

Reinier de Graaf (de Graaf 2010)

Deane Simpson, Kathrin Gimmel, Anders Lonka, Marc Jay, Joost Grootens

The last two decades have seen an explosion of urban metrics and city-ranking indexes. This tendency may be closely related to broader contemporary pressures influencing how our cities are understood, represented, compared, planned, governed, and transformed. This publication has emerged as a response to this condition – first as an educational project at the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, School of Architecture, and later as a research project under the umbrella of the same institution and the studios of the coeditors. The publication addresses the territories referred to as Copenhagen, presented in recent years in a range of international city-ranking indexes – from Siemens’s European Green City Index to Monocle’s Quality of Life Survey – as Europe’s and the world’s most sustainable and livable city, a position that may be placed in the context of the city’s considerable restructuring in functional, socioeconomic, and demographic terms since the early 1990s.

The city’s position in urban metrics such as these suggests Copenhagen as a fitting site to study and engage in a broad debate on the themes of urban sustainability and livability, as well as the urban metrics that quantify them. In this respect, the Atlas attempts to demystify some of these mechanisms to advance a wider and more nuanced framing of the city, both spatially and conceptually. This is not intended to discredit Copenhagen’s status as a model city nor to undermine urban environmental claims or agendas. Instead, it is intended to support a critical and pluralistic discourse addressing how sustainability and livability logics are “created, legitimized, and contested” H – as well as communicated and exported. In the context of the Atlas, this involves a dialogue with two intertwined questions: first, What constitutes the conceptual and territorial limits of a city, in this case, Copenhagen?; and second, What constitutes sustainable and livable urbanity?

What Is Copenhagen?

This question refers to the problematics of urban categorization and the role of borders and borderlines in the production of cities as distinct objects of measurement. Can one measure something as complex and manifold as a city? Can one draw a line around

Hannigan 1995

There’s nothing quite like the release of an urban quality of life index to send property developers into a spin and city halls into fits of rage.

Tyler Brûlé (Brûlé 2010)

I call Copenhagen a Jekyll and Hyde town – a double city. […] On the one hand you have a dense inner city and the phenomenon of Copenhagen as a cycle city. On the other hand there are the postwar suburban districts. There, distances are too great for cycling and people simply use their cars.

4

Introduction

5

Jens Kvorning (Lowenstein 2009)

By reducing the city to a set of checked boxes on a chart, rankings on liveability such as those of Monocle, Mercer and the EIU unwittingly serve as evidence of the collapse of an adequate, comprehensive system of planning. […] By agreeing to compete for a number-one spot, cities will merely ensure their eventual demise.

Reinier de Graaf (de Graaf 2010)

Deane Simpson, Kathrin Gimmel, Anders Lonka, Marc Jay, Joost Grootens

The last two decades have seen an explosion of urban metrics and city-ranking indexes. This tendency may be closely related to broader contemporary pressures influencing how our cities are understood, represented, compared, planned, governed, and transformed. This publication has emerged as a response to this condition – first as an educational project at the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, School of Architecture, and later as a research project under the umbrella of the same institution and the studios of the coeditors. The publication addresses the territories referred to as Copenhagen, presented in recent years in a range of international city-ranking indexes – from Siemens’s European Green City Index to Monocle’s Quality of Life Survey – as Europe’s and the world’s most sustainable and livable city, a position that may be placed in the context of the city’s considerable restructuring in functional, socioeconomic, and demographic terms since the early 1990s.

The city’s position in urban metrics such as these suggests Copenhagen as a fitting site to study and engage in a broad debate on the themes of urban sustainability and livability, as well as the urban metrics that quantify them. In this respect, the Atlas attempts to demystify some of these mechanisms to advance a wider and more nuanced framing of the city, both spatially and conceptually. This is not intended to discredit Copenhagen’s status as a model city nor to undermine urban environmental claims or agendas. Instead, it is intended to support a critical and pluralistic discourse addressing how sustainability and livability logics are “created, legitimized, and contested” H – as well as communicated and exported. In the context of the Atlas, this involves a dialogue with two intertwined questions: first, What constitutes the conceptual and territorial limits of a city, in this case, Copenhagen?; and second, What constitutes sustainable and livable urbanity?

What Is Copenhagen?

This question refers to the problematics of urban categorization and the role of borders and borderlines in the production of cities as distinct objects of measurement. Can one measure something as complex and manifold as a city? Can one draw a line around

Hannigan 1995

6

Fig. 01 Borders of Various Copenhagens Copenhagen Municipality (Inner Copenhagen) Greater Copenhagen Capital Region Copenhagen Metropolitan Region City of Malmö Greater Malmö Skåne Region Øresund Region (Regional Copenhagen)

Fig. 02 CO2 Emissions Across Regional Copenhagen

City of Copenhagen

Greater Copenhagen

Capital Region

Copenhagen Metropolitan Region

City of Malmö

Greater Malmö

Skåne Region

Øresund Region

1000 kg CO2/capita/year <3 3–4 4–5 5–6 >6

Source: The City of Copenhagen , Territorial Review Copenhagen, (2009)

Introduction

a city to understand it as a quantifiable system? Should a city as an object be framed as its contiguous urban fabric above a certain thresh­ old of population density, or an everyday commuting catchment area, or an understanding of a coherent regional economic system? Or should it be measured based on the arbitrary borders of municipal jurisdiction?

Belgian architects ROTOR suggest the notion that projects such as Masdar City represent pockets of sustainability – urban entities deemed sustainable by the nature of the boundary drawn around them. They argue that “What is sustainable is within the walls: it is not the airport next to it, or the concrete factories bringing the materials inside the city. […] In an unsustainable world, each sustainable project has to find its way to take conceptual distance from its surroundings.” G Similar questioning may be applied to the urban metrics of various bordered definitions of cities. This points toward what could be described as a city-size problem, which suggests a range of possible scales and periodizations of the urban territory of Copenhagen – from the Municipality of Copenhagen and the largely historical urban fabric it encompasses to the late-twentieth-century territories defined by the Copenhagen Finger Plan, to the postmillennial transborder metropolitan region of Øresund, recently rebranded as Greater Copenhagen. It is these and other manifold boundings of Copenhagen that provide the plural form to the title of this publication: Atlas of the Copenhagens. Here the Atlas attempts to expand a range of territorial understandings of Copenhagen.

With the majority of indexes being assessed on a Copenhagen based within the borders of the municipality of the same name, reflection is prompted concerning the focus on the urban core that this implies, particularly in relation to the expanding regional and global economic relevance attached to the larger functional metropolitan system. This introduces an ambiguity to defining what has previously been loosely described as the city. Statistics suggest, for example, a considerably different CO2 per capita output between the municipality of Copenhagen on the one hand and the wider urban or metropolitan area or region on the other. Similarly, these assessments often do not take into account additional CO2 production related to other important Copenhagen-based actors, such as companies from within the global shipping and logistics industries. These situations draw attention to the influence of often arbitrarily imposed borders on the performance of cities within the various ranking indexes, and their subsequent export and adoption as model forms of urbanity elsewhere.

What Is Sustainability/Livability?

This second question is not directed toward arriving at an ideal or privileged definition of sustainable or livable urbanism. Rather, it is intended to draw attention to the socially constructed and therefore contestable nature of these concepts.

In this context, it is increasingly difficult to ignore that our urban settings face a broad and contested set of environmental and

7

Grima 2013

6

Fig. 01 Borders of Various Copenhagens Copenhagen Municipality (Inner Copenhagen) Greater Copenhagen Capital Region Copenhagen Metropolitan Region City of Malmö Greater Malmö Skåne Region Øresund Region (Regional Copenhagen)

Fig. 02 CO2 Emissions Across Regional Copenhagen

City of Copenhagen

Greater Copenhagen

Capital Region

Copenhagen Metropolitan Region

City of Malmö

Greater Malmö

Skåne Region

Øresund Region

1000 kg CO2/capita/year <3 3–4 4–5 5–6 >6

Source: The City of Copenhagen , Territorial Review Copenhagen, (2009)

Introduction

a city to understand it as a quantifiable system? Should a city as an object be framed as its contiguous urban fabric above a certain thresh­ old of population density, or an everyday commuting catchment area, or an understanding of a coherent regional economic system? Or should it be measured based on the arbitrary borders of municipal jurisdiction?

Belgian architects ROTOR suggest the notion that projects such as Masdar City represent pockets of sustainability – urban entities deemed sustainable by the nature of the boundary drawn around them. They argue that “What is sustainable is within the walls: it is not the airport next to it, or the concrete factories bringing the materials inside the city. […] In an unsustainable world, each sustainable project has to find its way to take conceptual distance from its surroundings.” G Similar questioning may be applied to the urban metrics of various bordered definitions of cities. This points toward what could be described as a city-size problem, which suggests a range of possible scales and periodizations of the urban territory of Copenhagen – from the Municipality of Copenhagen and the largely historical urban fabric it encompasses to the late-twentieth-century territories defined by the Copenhagen Finger Plan, to the postmillennial transborder metropolitan region of Øresund, recently rebranded as Greater Copenhagen. It is these and other manifold boundings of Copenhagen that provide the plural form to the title of this publication: Atlas of the Copenhagens. Here the Atlas attempts to expand a range of territorial understandings of Copenhagen.

With the majority of indexes being assessed on a Copenhagen based within the borders of the municipality of the same name, reflection is prompted concerning the focus on the urban core that this implies, particularly in relation to the expanding regional and global economic relevance attached to the larger functional metropolitan system. This introduces an ambiguity to defining what has previously been loosely described as the city. Statistics suggest, for example, a considerably different CO2 per capita output between the municipality of Copenhagen on the one hand and the wider urban or metropolitan area or region on the other. Similarly, these assessments often do not take into account additional CO2 production related to other important Copenhagen-based actors, such as companies from within the global shipping and logistics industries. These situations draw attention to the influence of often arbitrarily imposed borders on the performance of cities within the various ranking indexes, and their subsequent export and adoption as model forms of urbanity elsewhere.

What Is Sustainability/Livability?

This second question is not directed toward arriving at an ideal or privileged definition of sustainable or livable urbanism. Rather, it is intended to draw attention to the socially constructed and therefore contestable nature of these concepts.

In this context, it is increasingly difficult to ignore that our urban settings face a broad and contested set of environmental and

7

Grima 2013

8

social challenges both in the present and future. Increasing urbanization around the world has made urban areas the leading producers of energy-based greenhouse gas emissions, and at the same time, urban territories are some of the most vulnerable areas to climate change effects, from, for example, sea-level rise, extreme weather events, increased temperatures, food insecurity, freshwater scarcity, etc. I Urban environments internationally also face challenges to their social sustainability, with expanding concerns associated with urban inequality, segregation, gentrification, spatial sorting, etc. H L F The terms sustainability and livability (and to an extent, smartness) therefore have emerged in recent years to perhaps define our epoch’s primary urban goals or objectives. At the same time, in their orthodoxy and frequency of use, terms such as sustainability and livability have arrived at a form of semantic fatigue, just as they have been deployed with a range of intended meanings by various actors to serve different agendas.

The socially constructed nature of these terms may be framed, for example, by contrasting positions within sustainability discourse.

On the one hand, it is possible to characterize an increasing orthodoxy in terms of how sustainability is defined, regulated, measured, and practiced. On the architectural scale, this tends to be dominated by a discourse focused on the low-energy or passive-energy house, for example; and on the urban scale, by the Compact City, Eco-City, or Resilient City models. Theorists Simon Guy and Graham Farmer (2001)

See IPCC 2014

See Harvey 2006; Lees et al. 2016; and Florida 2017

Fig. 03 Suggested Correlation Between Wealth and Environmental Performance Siemens European Green City Index Score

Actual Fitted

90

• Berlin

80

• Copenhagen • Stockholm Vienna • Zurich • • Amsterdam • Brussels • Helsinki • Paris

70

Oslo •

• London

• Madrid Vilnius •

60

50

• Rome • Riga • Warsaw Budapest • • Lisbon • Bratislava • • Tallinn Ljubljana • Athens • Prague

• Dublin

• Istanbul • Zagreb Belgrade • • Bucharest • Sofia • Kiev

40

30

GDP per person (Euros)

20 10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

Introduction

have described this orthodoxy in terms of an ecotechnical logic of sustainability – dominated by the tenets of technocratic rationalization and quantification – characterizing a position that is often falsely presented as apolitical in nature. It is within this interpretative framework that indexes like Siemens’s can be predominantly situated.

This is reinforced by aspects of the Siemens ranking indexes, which identify correlations between GVA per capita and sustainability performance on their index – defining sustainability through ecoinfrastructural consumption.

On the other hand, such a discourse may be framed in terms of a series of competing interpretative frameworks. Each, according to Guy and Farmer, “underpinned by a disparate concept of the space through which environmental benefits and detriments flow and are represented; differing sources of environmental knowledge through which we come to experience and understand the environment; and distinct images of buildings in relation to the environments they inhabit.” G Beyond the dominant ecotechnical framework outlined above, these counterlogics of sustainability are described in terms such as ecocentric, ecoaesthetic, ecocultural, ecomedical, and ecosocial. Logics in this context refer to “a specific ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categorizations that are produced, reproduced, and transformed in a particular set of practices through which meaning is given to social and physical realities.” G According to Guy and Farmer, an ecosocial logic, for example, privileges social coherency and locally managed participatory communities, whereas an ecoaesthetic logic is based upon a transformed ecological consciousness of nature. Architectural theorist Panayiota Pyla reinforces a similar counterframework focused on the sociopolitical dimension of sustainability intended to challenge dominant metanarratives of a common cause of sustainability in architecture and urbanism – metanarratives she believes hold the “danger of turning into a totalizing doctrine that subsumes critical thinking.” P The notion of urban livability encourages a similar potential for critical reflection. Architect Sam Jacob, for example, argues “City [livability] rankings may present themselves as innocent and objective, but the reality is they frame a very particular idea of the metropolis. They measure in relation to particular expectations of what life and living might be.” J Within such a framework, Jacob suggests urban entities are portrayed in terms of their “compatibility with global corporatism”; a framework biased toward certain types and scales of cities: “cities that score well barely qualify as cities, blessed with attributes of small scale, wealth and stable populations.” J These examples and a number of others suggest that the agendas of the index sponsor, index designer, and index researcher often deeply influence the construction of the index or ranking system – and thus influence how model cities are constructed, interpreted, exported, and reproduced. Here, the Atlas attempts to draw attention to these mechanisms and touch upon alternative frames and lenses with which to address wider complex matters of urban concern.

9

Guy and Farmer 2001, 141

Ibid.

Pyla 2008

Jacob 2014

Ibid.

8

social challenges both in the present and future. Increasing urbanization around the world has made urban areas the leading producers of energy-based greenhouse gas emissions, and at the same time, urban territories are some of the most vulnerable areas to climate change effects, from, for example, sea-level rise, extreme weather events, increased temperatures, food insecurity, freshwater scarcity, etc. I Urban environments internationally also face challenges to their social sustainability, with expanding concerns associated with urban inequality, segregation, gentrification, spatial sorting, etc. H L F The terms sustainability and livability (and to an extent, smartness) therefore have emerged in recent years to perhaps define our epoch’s primary urban goals or objectives. At the same time, in their orthodoxy and frequency of use, terms such as sustainability and livability have arrived at a form of semantic fatigue, just as they have been deployed with a range of intended meanings by various actors to serve different agendas.

The socially constructed nature of these terms may be framed, for example, by contrasting positions within sustainability discourse.

On the one hand, it is possible to characterize an increasing orthodoxy in terms of how sustainability is defined, regulated, measured, and practiced. On the architectural scale, this tends to be dominated by a discourse focused on the low-energy or passive-energy house, for example; and on the urban scale, by the Compact City, Eco-City, or Resilient City models. Theorists Simon Guy and Graham Farmer (2001)

See IPCC 2014

See Harvey 2006; Lees et al. 2016; and Florida 2017

Fig. 03 Suggested Correlation Between Wealth and Environmental Performance Siemens European Green City Index Score

Actual Fitted

90

• Berlin

80

• Copenhagen • Stockholm Vienna • Zurich • • Amsterdam • Brussels • Helsinki • Paris

70

Oslo •

• London

• Madrid Vilnius •

60

50

• Rome • Riga • Warsaw Budapest • • Lisbon • Bratislava • • Tallinn Ljubljana • Athens • Prague

• Dublin

• Istanbul • Zagreb Belgrade • • Bucharest • Sofia • Kiev

40

30

GDP per person (Euros)

20 10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

Introduction

have described this orthodoxy in terms of an ecotechnical logic of sustainability – dominated by the tenets of technocratic rationalization and quantification – characterizing a position that is often falsely presented as apolitical in nature. It is within this interpretative framework that indexes like Siemens’s can be predominantly situated.

This is reinforced by aspects of the Siemens ranking indexes, which identify correlations between GVA per capita and sustainability performance on their index – defining sustainability through ecoinfrastructural consumption.

On the other hand, such a discourse may be framed in terms of a series of competing interpretative frameworks. Each, according to Guy and Farmer, “underpinned by a disparate concept of the space through which environmental benefits and detriments flow and are represented; differing sources of environmental knowledge through which we come to experience and understand the environment; and distinct images of buildings in relation to the environments they inhabit.” G Beyond the dominant ecotechnical framework outlined above, these counterlogics of sustainability are described in terms such as ecocentric, ecoaesthetic, ecocultural, ecomedical, and ecosocial. Logics in this context refer to “a specific ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categorizations that are produced, reproduced, and transformed in a particular set of practices through which meaning is given to social and physical realities.” G According to Guy and Farmer, an ecosocial logic, for example, privileges social coherency and locally managed participatory communities, whereas an ecoaesthetic logic is based upon a transformed ecological consciousness of nature. Architectural theorist Panayiota Pyla reinforces a similar counterframework focused on the sociopolitical dimension of sustainability intended to challenge dominant metanarratives of a common cause of sustainability in architecture and urbanism – metanarratives she believes hold the “danger of turning into a totalizing doctrine that subsumes critical thinking.” P The notion of urban livability encourages a similar potential for critical reflection. Architect Sam Jacob, for example, argues “City [livability] rankings may present themselves as innocent and objective, but the reality is they frame a very particular idea of the metropolis. They measure in relation to particular expectations of what life and living might be.” J Within such a framework, Jacob suggests urban entities are portrayed in terms of their “compatibility with global corporatism”; a framework biased toward certain types and scales of cities: “cities that score well barely qualify as cities, blessed with attributes of small scale, wealth and stable populations.” J These examples and a number of others suggest that the agendas of the index sponsor, index designer, and index researcher often deeply influence the construction of the index or ranking system – and thus influence how model cities are constructed, interpreted, exported, and reproduced. Here, the Atlas attempts to draw attention to these mechanisms and touch upon alternative frames and lenses with which to address wider complex matters of urban concern.

9

Guy and Farmer 2001, 141

Ibid.

Pyla 2008

Jacob 2014

Ibid.

10

Introduction

Fig. 04 Urban Density in Relation to Transport-Related Energy Consumption

Fig. 05 Six Competing Logics of Sustainable Architecture

Transport-related energy consumption (GJ/capita/year)

North American cities Australian cities European cities Asian cities

80

70

11

From: Guy and Marvin, 2001. Reinterpreting Sustainable Architecture: The Place of Technology Logic

Image of Space

Source of Environmental Knowledge

Building Image

Technologies

Idealized Concept of Place

Houston

Eco-technic

Global context Macrophysical

Technorational Scientific

Commercial Modern Future-oriented

Integrated Energy-efficient High-tech Intelligent

Integration of global environmental concerns into conventional building design strategies.

Urban vision of the compact and dense city.

Phoenix

Eco-centric

Fragile Macrobiotic

Systematic ecology Metaphysical holism

Polluter Parasitic Consumer

Autonomous Renewable Recycled Intermediate

Harmony with nature through decentralized autonomous buildings with limited ecological footprints. Ensuring the stability, integrity, and flourishing of local and global biodiversity.

Eco-aesthetic

Alienating Anthropocentric

Sensual Postmodern Science

Iconic Architectural New Age

Pragmatic new Non-linear organic

Universally reconstructed in the light of new ecological knowledge and transforming our consciousness of nature.

Eco-cultural

Cultural context Regional

Phenomenology Cultural ecology

Authentic Harmonious Typological

Local Low-tech Commonplace Vernacular

Learning to dwell through buildings adapted to local and bioregional physical and cultural characteristics.

Eco-medical

Polluted Hazardous

Medical Clinical ecology

Healthy Living Caring

Passive Nontoxic Natural Tactile

A natural and tactile environment which ensures the health, well-being, and quality of life for individuals.

Eco-social

Social context Hierarchical

Sociology Social ecology

Democratic Home Individual

Flexible Participatory Appropriate locally Managed

Reconciliation of individual and community in socially cohesive manner through decentralized organic, nonhierarchical, and participatory communities.

Detroit Denver 60

Los Angeles San Francisco Boston Washington 50

Chicago New York

Fig. 06 Monocle Global Quality of Life Survey: Top 12 Cities Historically

40

Toronto

30

Perth Brisbane Melbourne Sydney

Hamburg Stockholm Frankfurt Zurich

20

Brussels London

Paris 10

Copenhagen

Vienna

Amsterdam Munich Berlin

Tokyo

Hong Kong

Singapore Moscow

0 25

50

75

100

125

150

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

1

Zurich

Munich

Helsinki

Zurich

Copenhagen

Copenhagen

Tokyo

Tokyo

Tokyo

2

Copenhagen

Copenhagen

Zurich

Helsinki

Melbourne

Tokyo

Vienna

Berlin

Vienna

3

Tokyo

Zurich

Copenhagen

Copenhagen

Helsinki

Melbourne

Berlin

Vienna

Berlin

4

Munich

Tokyo

Munich

Vienna

Tokyo

Stockholm

Melbourne

Copenhagen

Munich

5

Helsinki

Helsinki

Melbourne

Munich

Vienna

Helsinki

Sydney

Munich

Melbourne

6

Stockholm

Stockholm

Vienna

Melbourne

Zurich

Vienna

Stockholm

Melbourne

Copenhagen

7

Vienna

Paris

Sydney

Tokyo

Stockholm

Zurich

Vancouver

Fukuoka

Sydney

8

Paris

Vienna

Berlin

Sydney

Munich

Munich

Helsinki

Sydney

Zurich

9

Melbourne

Melbourne

Tokyo

Auckland

Sydney

Kyoto

Munich

Kyoto

Hamburg

10

Berlin

Madrid

Madrid

Stockholm

Auckland

Fukuoka

Zurich

Stockholm

Madrid

11

Honolulu

Berlin

Stockholm

Kyoto

Hong Kong

Sydney

Copenhagen

Vancouver

Stockholm

12

Madrid

Sydney

Paris

Fukuoka

Fukuoka

Auckland

Fukuoka

Helsinki

Kyoto

Urban density (inhabitants/hectare)

175

200

225

250

275

300

10

Introduction

Fig. 04 Urban Density in Relation to Transport-Related Energy Consumption

Fig. 05 Six Competing Logics of Sustainable Architecture

Transport-related energy consumption (GJ/capita/year)

North American cities Australian cities European cities Asian cities

80

70

11

From: Guy and Marvin, 2001. Reinterpreting Sustainable Architecture: The Place of Technology Logic

Image of Space

Source of Environmental Knowledge

Building Image

Technologies

Idealized Concept of Place

Houston

Eco-technic

Global context Macrophysical

Technorational Scientific

Commercial Modern Future-oriented

Integrated Energy-efficient High-tech Intelligent

Integration of global environmental concerns into conventional building design strategies.

Urban vision of the compact and dense city.

Phoenix

Eco-centric

Fragile Macrobiotic

Systematic ecology Metaphysical holism

Polluter Parasitic Consumer

Autonomous Renewable Recycled Intermediate

Harmony with nature through decentralized autonomous buildings with limited ecological footprints. Ensuring the stability, integrity, and flourishing of local and global biodiversity.

Eco-aesthetic

Alienating Anthropocentric

Sensual Postmodern Science

Iconic Architectural New Age

Pragmatic new Non-linear organic

Universally reconstructed in the light of new ecological knowledge and transforming our consciousness of nature.

Eco-cultural

Cultural context Regional

Phenomenology Cultural ecology

Authentic Harmonious Typological

Local Low-tech Commonplace Vernacular

Learning to dwell through buildings adapted to local and bioregional physical and cultural characteristics.

Eco-medical

Polluted Hazardous

Medical Clinical ecology

Healthy Living Caring

Passive Nontoxic Natural Tactile

A natural and tactile environment which ensures the health, well-being, and quality of life for individuals.

Eco-social

Social context Hierarchical

Sociology Social ecology

Democratic Home Individual

Flexible Participatory Appropriate locally Managed

Reconciliation of individual and community in socially cohesive manner through decentralized organic, nonhierarchical, and participatory communities.

Detroit Denver 60

Los Angeles San Francisco Boston Washington 50

Chicago New York

Fig. 06 Monocle Global Quality of Life Survey: Top 12 Cities Historically

40

Toronto

30

Perth Brisbane Melbourne Sydney

Hamburg Stockholm Frankfurt Zurich

20

Brussels London

Paris 10

Copenhagen

Vienna

Amsterdam Munich Berlin

Tokyo

Hong Kong

Singapore Moscow

0 25

50

75

100

125

150

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

1

Zurich

Munich

Helsinki

Zurich

Copenhagen

Copenhagen

Tokyo

Tokyo

Tokyo

2

Copenhagen

Copenhagen

Zurich

Helsinki

Melbourne

Tokyo

Vienna

Berlin

Vienna

3

Tokyo

Zurich

Copenhagen

Copenhagen

Helsinki

Melbourne

Berlin

Vienna

Berlin

4

Munich

Tokyo

Munich

Vienna

Tokyo

Stockholm

Melbourne

Copenhagen

Munich

5

Helsinki

Helsinki

Melbourne

Munich

Vienna

Helsinki

Sydney

Munich

Melbourne

6

Stockholm

Stockholm

Vienna

Melbourne

Zurich

Vienna

Stockholm

Melbourne

Copenhagen

7

Vienna

Paris

Sydney

Tokyo

Stockholm

Zurich

Vancouver

Fukuoka

Sydney

8

Paris

Vienna

Berlin

Sydney

Munich

Munich

Helsinki

Sydney

Zurich

9

Melbourne

Melbourne

Tokyo

Auckland

Sydney

Kyoto

Munich

Kyoto

Hamburg

10

Berlin

Madrid

Madrid

Stockholm

Auckland

Fukuoka

Zurich

Stockholm

Madrid

11

Honolulu

Berlin

Stockholm

Kyoto

Hong Kong

Sydney

Copenhagen

Vancouver

Stockholm

12

Madrid

Sydney

Paris

Fukuoka

Fukuoka

Auckland

Fukuoka

Helsinki

Kyoto

Urban density (inhabitants/hectare)

175

200

225

250

275

300

12

Atlas as Instrument Reacting to the possibility of an expanded interpretation of sustainability and livability discourse, the range of maps, diagrams, statistics, drawings, and information graphics of the Atlas document multiple aspects and registers of the architecture and urbanism of Copenhagen – ones not necessarily incorporated within current indexes such as that of Siemens or Monocle. In such a context, the ambition is that the Atlas might speak to the potential of an openended tool capable of supporting a pluralistic debate over urban sustainability and livability discourse in general, and upon Copenhagen – or the various Copenhagens – in particular.

This, it may be argued, is especially necessary in a context in which much of the authority and control of information – particularly around the theme of environmental sustainability – has been black-boxed by technical specialists. The intention of the graphic format of the Atlas is to allow for a more intuitive understanding of complex conditions or systems, which are often couched in more disciplinary specific and exclusive language and visualizations. In these terms, a goal of the project is to democratize and make more accessible enhanced levels of understanding to support a more informed general debate on themes related to urban sustainability and livability. This aligns to the ambition for the publication to support a pluralistic debate on the future of the city at its various scales of understanding – to embrace the potential of multiple possible sustainable, livable, or usable futures. It is in these terms that the Atlas is not intended as a comprehensive or exhaustive rendering of the territory in the form of an authoritative reference atlas, but rather as a nonlinear document offering various points of entry into a range of debates and reflections.

Just as the editors were forced to accept the impossibility of capturing all aspects, registers, or interpretations of a particular city, territory, or place in the atlas format – this dilemma coincides with the infinite possible range of registers of materials, documents, and perspectives that might have been incorporated into such a publication format. This also relates to the extended level of depth with which many spreads could have been developed – in some cases, a spread could have formed the introduction to an atlas of several hundred pages itself. During the development of this version of the Atlas, conceptual frameworks were developed for a number of alternative atlases. For example: one incorporating extensive photographic documentation and interpretation (with Gerhard Richter’s Atlas project as inspiration); another focused on subjective mappings, citizen surveys, and GPS tracking data, etc., articulating a citizen’s Copenhagen from eye level; or another unfolding the story of the city and its territories through the curation of a diverse range of archival documents, newspaper clippings, and other media formats, to name just a few. For now, these alternative atlases are postponed to the possibility of later volumes. The current publication has instead remained focused upon responding to the registers of information typically

Introduction

incorporated into ranking indexes or expanding those areas that are not included in such discussions, but perhaps could be if a more critical, open, and encompassing view of environmental and social sustainability and livability is to be embraced.

It is not solely intended that readers approach the publication in a linear way through the lens of the themes described above; the Atlas can also be read in a range of other ways, for example, as a collection of articles addressing contemporary Copenhagen, or articles introducing aspects of the discourse on urban sustainability; as an experiment in urban atlas-making, or what an atlas could do; or as an introduction to possible deeper study related to one of the themed chapters.

Chapters In addressing an object as complex as a city or urban territory, the main body of the Atlas is divided into chapters which each organize different lenses through which the city and region is imaged or represented, and through which a variety of territories with their own internal consistencies and differences emerge. Each lens privileges a certain thematic focus and typically implies a particular relation to the concepts of sustainability or livability – each of which are introduced at the beginning of each chapter.

1 The Urban Formation chapter unfolds aspects of the periodization of the various historical phases of development of the city, and the changing contexts, ambitions, and logics present during these different periods in the city’s formation.

2 Urban Demography explores spatially the various demographic characteristics relating to themes such as health, wealth, happiness, education, and equity – unfolding a series of possible interpretations at the intersection of the spatial and the social.

3 The Urban Textures chapter examines the character of different urban patterns and typologies constituting various Copenhagens – each based on different ambitions, ideologies, and formats of societal organization at the time of their realization.

Each pattern or texture represents a certain dis­position in relation to density, height, spatiality, building geometry, programmatic mixity, green space, infrastructural organization, etc.

4 The Urban Spaces chapter emerges from the context of Copenhagen’s reputation internationally as a model of high-quality democratic public space – through the municipality’s high level of investment in such spaces, its image-branding efforts, as well of those of companies such as Gehl Architects.

5 Urban Mobility examines the theme of mobility across and within the various Copenhagens – particularly in the context of the central role it plays in sustainability discourse, from Copenhagen’s reputation as a bike-friendly city to the role of transport-oriented development (TOD) thinking in the development of the Copenhagen Finger Plan.

13

12

Atlas as Instrument Reacting to the possibility of an expanded interpretation of sustainability and livability discourse, the range of maps, diagrams, statistics, drawings, and information graphics of the Atlas document multiple aspects and registers of the architecture and urbanism of Copenhagen – ones not necessarily incorporated within current indexes such as that of Siemens or Monocle. In such a context, the ambition is that the Atlas might speak to the potential of an openended tool capable of supporting a pluralistic debate over urban sustainability and livability discourse in general, and upon Copenhagen – or the various Copenhagens – in particular.

This, it may be argued, is especially necessary in a context in which much of the authority and control of information – particularly around the theme of environmental sustainability – has been black-boxed by technical specialists. The intention of the graphic format of the Atlas is to allow for a more intuitive understanding of complex conditions or systems, which are often couched in more disciplinary specific and exclusive language and visualizations. In these terms, a goal of the project is to democratize and make more accessible enhanced levels of understanding to support a more informed general debate on themes related to urban sustainability and livability. This aligns to the ambition for the publication to support a pluralistic debate on the future of the city at its various scales of understanding – to embrace the potential of multiple possible sustainable, livable, or usable futures. It is in these terms that the Atlas is not intended as a comprehensive or exhaustive rendering of the territory in the form of an authoritative reference atlas, but rather as a nonlinear document offering various points of entry into a range of debates and reflections.

Just as the editors were forced to accept the impossibility of capturing all aspects, registers, or interpretations of a particular city, territory, or place in the atlas format – this dilemma coincides with the infinite possible range of registers of materials, documents, and perspectives that might have been incorporated into such a publication format. This also relates to the extended level of depth with which many spreads could have been developed – in some cases, a spread could have formed the introduction to an atlas of several hundred pages itself. During the development of this version of the Atlas, conceptual frameworks were developed for a number of alternative atlases. For example: one incorporating extensive photographic documentation and interpretation (with Gerhard Richter’s Atlas project as inspiration); another focused on subjective mappings, citizen surveys, and GPS tracking data, etc., articulating a citizen’s Copenhagen from eye level; or another unfolding the story of the city and its territories through the curation of a diverse range of archival documents, newspaper clippings, and other media formats, to name just a few. For now, these alternative atlases are postponed to the possibility of later volumes. The current publication has instead remained focused upon responding to the registers of information typically

Introduction

incorporated into ranking indexes or expanding those areas that are not included in such discussions, but perhaps could be if a more critical, open, and encompassing view of environmental and social sustainability and livability is to be embraced.

It is not solely intended that readers approach the publication in a linear way through the lens of the themes described above; the Atlas can also be read in a range of other ways, for example, as a collection of articles addressing contemporary Copenhagen, or articles introducing aspects of the discourse on urban sustainability; as an experiment in urban atlas-making, or what an atlas could do; or as an introduction to possible deeper study related to one of the themed chapters.

Chapters In addressing an object as complex as a city or urban territory, the main body of the Atlas is divided into chapters which each organize different lenses through which the city and region is imaged or represented, and through which a variety of territories with their own internal consistencies and differences emerge. Each lens privileges a certain thematic focus and typically implies a particular relation to the concepts of sustainability or livability – each of which are introduced at the beginning of each chapter.

1 The Urban Formation chapter unfolds aspects of the periodization of the various historical phases of development of the city, and the changing contexts, ambitions, and logics present during these different periods in the city’s formation.

2 Urban Demography explores spatially the various demographic characteristics relating to themes such as health, wealth, happiness, education, and equity – unfolding a series of possible interpretations at the intersection of the spatial and the social.

3 The Urban Textures chapter examines the character of different urban patterns and typologies constituting various Copenhagens – each based on different ambitions, ideologies, and formats of societal organization at the time of their realization.

Each pattern or texture represents a certain dis­position in relation to density, height, spatiality, building geometry, programmatic mixity, green space, infrastructural organization, etc.

4 The Urban Spaces chapter emerges from the context of Copenhagen’s reputation internationally as a model of high-quality democratic public space – through the municipality’s high level of investment in such spaces, its image-branding efforts, as well of those of companies such as Gehl Architects.

5 Urban Mobility examines the theme of mobility across and within the various Copenhagens – particularly in the context of the central role it plays in sustainability discourse, from Copenhagen’s reputation as a bike-friendly city to the role of transport-oriented development (TOD) thinking in the development of the Copenhagen Finger Plan.

13

14

6

Urban Metabolism examines aspects of Copenhagen’s environmental and infrastructural conditions, systems, and performance, including water, waste, air pollution, and energy.

Articles Supporting the chapters with their various maps, diagrams, statistics, drawings, and information graphics are a series of articles at the beginning of the publication intended to contextualize or bring into focus key themes and issues of concern.

The role that the terms and indexes addressing livability and sustainability have played in the post-1990s transformation of the city and region is addressed by architect Deane Simpson – with focus on the influence of the imperatives of the attractive and competitive city on that shift. The article explores the implications of this regime of city development, addressing its by-products – for example, what Roberta Cucca has referred to as ecogentrification – a term extended to include the notion of livability-gentrification in this context.

Cultural geographer Birgit Stöber’s article addresses the predominantly nonscientific field of city-ranking instruments – unfolding a series of questions as to how expressive, sound, or valid they are, and their use. In referring to the role of indexes in place-branding activities, she discusses their embedded positioning within the media and consulting worlds in contrast to the fields of urban planning or urban governance.

Sustainability theorist Simon Guy addresses the contested nature of the term sustainability defined by a competing field of contradictory certainties – certainties articulated in particular from the dominant technorational perspective. He suggests the productivity of a pluralistic engagement in different eco-/environmental logics as a starting point for flexible, situated, and pragmatic responses to the fundamental challenges of our urban future.

Several territorial framings of Copenhagen beyond the dense historical urban core of the city are outlined by architect Tom Nielsen.

He argues for this approach, based on the necessity for a broader engagement in the complexity of the city “as an ecological, social, and economic organism.” Each of the four boundings of Copenhagen he describes are linked to associated sustainability logics. From his perspective, it is the regional scale system in particular – as one that is both network and physical structure – that represents a fertile site upon which to develop alternative formats of sustainable urbanism, encompassing both built area and landscape.

The translation of sustainability agendas into urban and architectural policy in the context of Copenhagen and the municipality’s ambition to be positioned as the Eco-Metropolis of the World is the focus of architect Peter Hemmersam’s article. His analysis of key municipal policy documents draw into focus the role of policy enforcement instruments such as environmental assessment methods (EAM), which potentially reinforce conformity in solutions, and the role of design-based innovation and experimentation as a potentially more

Introduction

15

open pathway to new constellations of sustainable urbanism at the intersection of technology, nature, and society.

Mobility researcher Thomas Sick Nielsen addresses evolving forms of mobility, unfolding how “Commuting produces, and is produced by, an expanding urban region.” Nielsen describes the historical development in increased speed and evolving forms of everyday mobility – and the corresponding scale and orientation of urban systems. These tendencies are related to the development of altered lifestyles, employment market transformations, shifting consumption patterns, etc. within the metropolitan region of Copenhagen.

As a prolific producer of atlases, book designer and architect Joost Grootens addresses more specifically the instrumentality of the atlas format – particularly in relation to the development of digital map platforms and interfaces and the reinterpretation of the atlas it suggests. He touches upon the relevant traditions of atlases’ framing the recurring theme of objectivity within the reference book medium.

Finally, architect Peter Henning Jørgensen, a longtime supporter of the Atlas project, unfolds the dilemmas associated with the production of knowledge on a specific territory and on the social life it supports. He reflects on the production of such a project as a potentially endless enterprise in the unfolding of complexity – but an important and necessary one nonetheless.

While this limitless set of possibilities was by necessity narrowed down in the later stages of the Atlas’s development, the ambition for this resulting publication is that it might nevertheless contribute in a modest way toward a more expanded discourse upon themes such as urban sustainability and livability, and upon an object – or rather a set of objects (or Copenhagens) – with which to do so.

References Brûlé, T. 2010. “Metropolis Now,” Financial Times, June 11, https:// www.ft.com/content/27e43fe8-741c-11df-87f5-00144fea bdc0/. de Graaf, R. 2010. “Look Past the Liveability Ranks,” Financial Times, April 6, https://www.ft.com/content/e6d98b84-38d411df-9998-00144feabdc0/.

Florida, R. 2017. The New Urban Crisis. New York: Basic Books.

Guy, S., and G. Farmer, “Reinterpreting Sustainable Architecture: The Place of Technology,” Journal of Architectural Education 54, no. 2 (February 2001): 140–48.

Grima, J. 2013. “Really Sustainable?” Domus, no. 967 (March), http://www.domusweb.it/en/architecture/really-sustainable/.

Hannigan, J. 1995. Environmental Sociology: A Social Constructivist Perspective. London: Routledge.

Harvey, D. 2006. Spaces of Global Capitalism: Towards a Theory of Uneven Geographical Development. London: Verso.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014.

Climate Change 2014 – Synthesis Report. Geneva: IPCC. Jacob, S. 2014. “Cities That Score Well Barely Qualify as Cities,” Dezeen, September 4, 2014, https://www.dezeen.com/2014/ 09/04/sam-jacob-opinion-city-rankings-flawed-way-to-judgebest-cities-in-the-world/.

Lees, L., et al. 2016. Planetary Gentrification. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Lowenstein, O. 2009. “A Green Reckoning,” Financial Times, December 12, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4e55de48e44d-11de-a0ea-00144feab49a/.

Pyla, P. 2008. “Counter-Histories of Sustainability,” Volume, no. 18 (December):14–17. Accessed January 7, 2018, http:// volumeproject.org/counter-histories-of-sustainability/.

14

6

Urban Metabolism examines aspects of Copenhagen’s environmental and infrastructural conditions, systems, and performance, including water, waste, air pollution, and energy.

Articles Supporting the chapters with their various maps, diagrams, statistics, drawings, and information graphics are a series of articles at the beginning of the publication intended to contextualize or bring into focus key themes and issues of concern.

The role that the terms and indexes addressing livability and sustainability have played in the post-1990s transformation of the city and region is addressed by architect Deane Simpson – with focus on the influence of the imperatives of the attractive and competitive city on that shift. The article explores the implications of this regime of city development, addressing its by-products – for example, what Roberta Cucca has referred to as ecogentrification – a term extended to include the notion of livability-gentrification in this context.

Cultural geographer Birgit Stöber’s article addresses the predominantly nonscientific field of city-ranking instruments – unfolding a series of questions as to how expressive, sound, or valid they are, and their use. In referring to the role of indexes in place-branding activities, she discusses their embedded positioning within the media and consulting worlds in contrast to the fields of urban planning or urban governance.

Sustainability theorist Simon Guy addresses the contested nature of the term sustainability defined by a competing field of contradictory certainties – certainties articulated in particular from the dominant technorational perspective. He suggests the productivity of a pluralistic engagement in different eco-/environmental logics as a starting point for flexible, situated, and pragmatic responses to the fundamental challenges of our urban future.

Several territorial framings of Copenhagen beyond the dense historical urban core of the city are outlined by architect Tom Nielsen.

He argues for this approach, based on the necessity for a broader engagement in the complexity of the city “as an ecological, social, and economic organism.” Each of the four boundings of Copenhagen he describes are linked to associated sustainability logics. From his perspective, it is the regional scale system in particular – as one that is both network and physical structure – that represents a fertile site upon which to develop alternative formats of sustainable urbanism, encompassing both built area and landscape.

The translation of sustainability agendas into urban and architectural policy in the context of Copenhagen and the municipality’s ambition to be positioned as the Eco-Metropolis of the World is the focus of architect Peter Hemmersam’s article. His analysis of key municipal policy documents draw into focus the role of policy enforcement instruments such as environmental assessment methods (EAM), which potentially reinforce conformity in solutions, and the role of design-based innovation and experimentation as a potentially more

Introduction

15

open pathway to new constellations of sustainable urbanism at the intersection of technology, nature, and society.

Mobility researcher Thomas Sick Nielsen addresses evolving forms of mobility, unfolding how “Commuting produces, and is produced by, an expanding urban region.” Nielsen describes the historical development in increased speed and evolving forms of everyday mobility – and the corresponding scale and orientation of urban systems. These tendencies are related to the development of altered lifestyles, employment market transformations, shifting consumption patterns, etc. within the metropolitan region of Copenhagen.

As a prolific producer of atlases, book designer and architect Joost Grootens addresses more specifically the instrumentality of the atlas format – particularly in relation to the development of digital map platforms and interfaces and the reinterpretation of the atlas it suggests. He touches upon the relevant traditions of atlases’ framing the recurring theme of objectivity within the reference book medium.

Finally, architect Peter Henning Jørgensen, a longtime supporter of the Atlas project, unfolds the dilemmas associated with the production of knowledge on a specific territory and on the social life it supports. He reflects on the production of such a project as a potentially endless enterprise in the unfolding of complexity – but an important and necessary one nonetheless.

While this limitless set of possibilities was by necessity narrowed down in the later stages of the Atlas’s development, the ambition for this resulting publication is that it might nevertheless contribute in a modest way toward a more expanded discourse upon themes such as urban sustainability and livability, and upon an object – or rather a set of objects (or Copenhagens) – with which to do so.

References Brûlé, T. 2010. “Metropolis Now,” Financial Times, June 11, https:// www.ft.com/content/27e43fe8-741c-11df-87f5-00144fea bdc0/. de Graaf, R. 2010. “Look Past the Liveability Ranks,” Financial Times, April 6, https://www.ft.com/content/e6d98b84-38d411df-9998-00144feabdc0/.

Florida, R. 2017. The New Urban Crisis. New York: Basic Books.

Guy, S., and G. Farmer, “Reinterpreting Sustainable Architecture: The Place of Technology,” Journal of Architectural Education 54, no. 2 (February 2001): 140–48.

Grima, J. 2013. “Really Sustainable?” Domus, no. 967 (March), http://www.domusweb.it/en/architecture/really-sustainable/.

Hannigan, J. 1995. Environmental Sociology: A Social Constructivist Perspective. London: Routledge.

Harvey, D. 2006. Spaces of Global Capitalism: Towards a Theory of Uneven Geographical Development. London: Verso.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014.

Climate Change 2014 – Synthesis Report. Geneva: IPCC. Jacob, S. 2014. “Cities That Score Well Barely Qualify as Cities,” Dezeen, September 4, 2014, https://www.dezeen.com/2014/ 09/04/sam-jacob-opinion-city-rankings-flawed-way-to-judgebest-cities-in-the-world/.

Lees, L., et al. 2016. Planetary Gentrification. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Lowenstein, O. 2009. “A Green Reckoning,” Financial Times, December 12, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4e55de48e44d-11de-a0ea-00144feab49a/.

Pyla, P. 2008. “Counter-Histories of Sustainability,” Volume, no. 18 (December):14–17. Accessed January 7, 2018, http:// volumeproject.org/counter-histories-of-sustainability/.

Imprint

480

This publication has been developed by faculty, students, and researchers at The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, School of Architecture (KADK), Institute for Architecture, Urbanism and Landscape (IBBL) and the former Department 10. The project has been completed as a collaboration between KADK, jaja architects, ADEPT, WE architecture, and Studio Joost Grootens.

Editors Deane Simpson, Kathrin Gimmel, Anders Lonka, Marc Jay, Joost Grootens Texts Deane Simpson, Birgit Stöber, Simon Guy, Tom Nielsen, Peter Hemmersam, Thomas Sick Nielsen, Joost Grootens Afterword Peter Henning Jørgensen Copyediting and Proofreading Keonaona Peterson Translation Cornelius Holck Colding Design SJG / Joost Grootens, Dimitri Jeannottat Infographics and Map design SJG / Joost Grootens, Dimitri Jeannottat, Julie da Silva, Hanae Shimizu, Silke Koeck, Raphael Mathias, Carina Schwake Lithography Marjeta Morinc Typefaces Neue Haas Unica, Ceremony Paper Amber Graphic 100gr Printing NPN Drukkers Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie. Detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.ddb.de. This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in other ways, and storage in data banks. For any kind of use, permission of the copyright holder must be obtained. © 2018 Ruby Press Berlin © Contributors of texts and images Every effort has been made to obtain proper credit information and permission. However, we have used a small number of images for which copyright holders could not be identified. It has been our assumption that such images belong to the public domain. If you claim ownership of any of the images presented here and have not been properly identified, please notify Ruby Press and we will be happy to make an acknowledgment in a reprint of this publication.

Ruby Press Schönholzer Str. 13/14 D–10115 Berlin www.kadk.dk www.ruby-press.com Printed in The Netherlands ISBN 978-3-944074-23-8 This publication has been made possible with the generous support of: Realdania, Dreyers Fond, Statens Kunstfond, 15. Juni Fonden, Martha and Paul Kerrn-Jespersens Fond, and the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, School of Architecture (KADK), Institute of Architecture, Urbanism and Landscape (IBBL)

The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, Schools of Architecture, Design and Conservation Institute of Architecture, Urbanism and Landscape