GHETTO VESTEGN- a study on the issues and potentials in the Danish suburbs and an development proposal for the area surrounding Gadehavegaard

Jaffer Janjooa - kqn207 Rami Al-Khumisi - lmc217

Supervisor: Gertrud Jørgensen

Ghetto Vestegn- a study on the issues and potentials in the Danish suburbs and an development pro-posal for the area surrounding Gadehavegaard

31. July 2015

45 ECTS masters projectLandscape ArchitectureUniversity of Copenhagen

Preface

This master thesis has been made in the period from November 2014 to July 2015. It includes 45 ETCS points and has been prepared within the profession of landscape architecture at the Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen.

The master thesis constitutes a general analysis and background for the Danish suburbs and ghetto areas associated Vestegnen. In addition, a con-ceptual design for a site near Gadehavegaard, a ghetto area in the Munici-pality of Høje Taastrup.

The purpose of this conceptual design is that it should meet the challen-ges, that applies to the distinction for these ghetto areas.

Thanks to our supervisor, Gertrud Jørgensen, for great supervision and to keep us in the ears. Thanks to Mohammed Abdulrahman M. Almahmood for inspiration and good advise regarding the interviews. Thanks to Rune Bæklund from Høje Taastrup municipality for pointing us in the right di-rection, and thanks to the club Gadehaven, for helping and letting us hold a Workshop.

Last but not least we would like to thank all the people living in the area north of Høje Taastrup Station for sharing their thoughts and ideas.

Jaffer Naveed Janjooa Dawid Rami Al-Khumisi

IndexIntroductionAbstract 6Resumé 7Introduction 8

Part I - Birth of the suburbsBirth of the suburbs 14 The station towns 16 Form follows function 17 Dansk Byplanlaboratorium 19 The time after World War II 24 The paradigm shift 25 The sustainable city 29 The Danish ghettos 32 Suburbs of the future 34 Birth of the suburbs - conclusion 35

Part II - The eight ghetto casesThe eight ghetto cases 38 The government´s ghetto list (2010-2014) 39(1) Hedemarken 42(2) Taastrupgaard 44(3) Charlotteager 46(4) Gadehavegaard 48

(5) Vejleåparken 50(6) Askerød 52(7) Karlemoseparken 54(8) Rønnebærparken / Æblehaven 56Positive traits 58Negative traits 60The eight ghetto cases - conclusion 62

Part III - The siteChoosing the site 66Station town 68Meeting the municipality 70The site 72Topography 74Districts and landmarks 76Paths, roads and connections 78Barriers 80The site - conclusion 82

Part IV - Resident participationInterviews 86Observations 88Interviews - Child 90Interviews - Young 92

Interviews - Adult 94Interviews - Senior 96Interviews - Results 98Workshop 100Resident participation - conclusion 102 Interviews 102 Observations 103 Workshop 103 Results and conclusion 103

Part V - Proposition for development planVision 106 Concept 106 Reclaim the road 106 Road concept 110 Path concept 111 Plant concept 112 Activity concept 113Proposal 114Children and play area 116Activities and sports area 118Orchard park 120Urban Park 122Conclusion and perspectivation 124

LitteratureLitterature 126 Books and articles 126 Movies and documentaries 127 Map sources 127 Web 127

Much of the Danish suburban landscape, which was built during the 60’ies and 70’ies, is heavily influenced by the thoughts and ideas of the modernism movement in the world at the time.

Modernism brought many good things; bigger apartments with more sunlight, integrated open green spaces in the city and the integration of traffic into the city. Everything was built big and looked good on paper, but somewhere in between the lines the planners forgot about the people.

This was also the case in Denmark, and the suburban dream was slowly turning into a nightmare. The big open spaces felt uncomfortable, the re-sidents were quickly replaced by low-income families, the cheap building materials resulted in damaged apartments, and the cars – not the people – took over the landscape.

To combat this, the Danish government released a paper called “Ghettoen tilbage til samfundet” in the fall of 2010. (roughly translated: “The ghetto back to society”). The paper points out several places with heightened criminal rates, a general lack of education and a high amount of denizens with foreign backgrounds.

Although the main focus was the social aspects, the paper also recognizes that these areas need to be enhanced through planning. But how do we bring the ghetto back to society through planning and architectural de-sign?

We can start by taking the sentence literally: we must break the isolation by looking at the borders of the areas, linking the different places not only through railroads and highways, but also on a local human scale.

This project is split into three parts: a 1) historical part, an 2) analytical part and a 3) project part.

The historical part contains historical figures and events that made an im-pact on the design of the suburbs from the late 1800’s to the early 2000’s. Many of the theories and thoughts from this part will be applied to the other two parts.

The analysis starts with pointing out and taking a closer look on the eight ghetto areas (according to the government’s ghetto list) in Copenhagen’s west region (Vestegnen). This is done in order to choose a site for the project part. Once the site is chosen, a more in depth analysis is applied, covering in-terviews with the locals, a small workshop as well as spatial and context analysis.

A development plan for the site is the goal for the proposal part. The de-velopment proposal is of course based on the earlier theory and analysis, and the main focus is on connection, coherence and multifunctionality.

Abstract

6

En stor del af det danske forstadslandskab, som blev bygget i løbet af 60’erne og 70’erne, er stærkt påvirket af de tanker og ideer fra den mo-dernistiske bevægelse i verden på dette tidspunkt.

Modernismen bragte mange gode ting; større lejligheder med mere sollys, integrerede åbne grønne områder i byen og integration af trafik og by. Alt blev bygget stort og så godt ud på papiret, men et eller andet sted i mel-lem linjerne glemte planlæggerne folket.

Dette var også tilfældet i Danmark, og forstadsdrømmen var langsomt ved at blive til et mareridt. De store åbne rum føltes utilpas, beboerne blev hurtigt erstattet af familier med lav indkomst, de billige byggema-terialer resulterede i beskadigede lejligheder, og biler - ikke mennesker - tog over landskabet.

For at bekæmpe dette, udgav den danske regering en rapport kaldet ”Ghettoen tilbage til Samfundet” i efteråret 2010. Rapporten påpeger flere sådanne modernistiske boligområder med forhøjet kriminalitet, en gene-rel mangel på uddannelse og en høj mængde af beboere med udenlandsk baggrund.

Selv om rapporten primært betegner de sociale aspekter, erkender den også, at disse områder skal styrkes gennem planlægning. Men hvordan bringer vi ghettoen tilbage til samfundet gennem planlægning og arkitek-tonisk design?

Vi kan starte med at tage sætningen bogstaveligt: Vi skal bryde isolati-onen ved at se på grænserne til de områder, der forbinder de forskellige steder ikke kun gennem jernbaner og motorveje, men også på en lokal menneskelig skala.

ResuméDette projekt er opdelt i tre dele: 1) en historisk del, 2) en analytisk del og 3) en projekt del.

Den historiske del indeholder historiske figurer og begivenheder, som havde indflydelse på udformningen af de danske forstæder fra slutningen af 1800-tallet til begyndelsen af 2000’erne. Mange af de teorier og tanker fra denne del vil blive anvendt til de to andre dele.

Analysen begynder med at påpege og tage et nærmere kig på de otte ghettoområder (ifølge regeringens ghetto liste) i Københavns vestlige region (Vestegnen). Dette gøres for senere at vælge et område til projekt-delen.Når området er valgt, anvendes en mere dybtgående analyse, som dæk-ker interviews med de lokale, en lille workshop, samt rumlige og kon-tekst-analyser.

En udviklingsplan for området er målet for sidste del af projektet. For-slaget til udviklingsplanen er naturligvis baseret på den tidligere teori og analyse, og den vigtigste fokus er på forbindelse, sammenhæng og multifunktionalitet.

7

IntroductionSince the introduction of the Danish ghetto-lists in 2010, the government, politicians and local citizens have constantly been striving to improve the situation in these so-called “socially strained areas” – often by enhancing the aforementioned areas through the use of social events and improve-ments in the apartments – but also through better planning and design. The discussion regarding the ghetto-issues has been very loud - both in the media and on a more local level in the suburbs. Especially the crite-ria that define a Danish ghetto have been up to discussion, and they have therefore changed several times since the first ghetto-list in 2010.

Architecture and planning are not a part of these criteria – even though physical planning is almost always used in the process of enhancing these areas.

In our case the interest is two-sided; - The personal perspective, due to us living in the suburbs, and thus having an interest in our surroundings and local areas.- The professional perspective, seeing the suburbs – both the potentials and problems – through the eyes of a landscape architect.

We believe that landscape architecture and planning have played – and is still playing - a big role in the shaping of the so-called ghettoes, and this is why we decided to work with the ghettos from a landscape architec-tural point of view.

Aim:

The aim of the project will be to define if some of the problems in the Danish ghettos can be solved or understood through landscape architectu-re and planning. Once the problems are defined, a series of solutions and enhancements based on the theoretical and analystical part of the project will be wor-ked out for a chosen site. The aim is to specifically focus on connections, cohersion and multifunctional use of outdoor areas.

8

VESTEGNEN

9

Method:

We chose to work with ghettos, and narrowed the work area to the su-burbs in Vestegnen - the west region of Copenhagen.

First part of the project covers the historical aspect to better understand the Danish suburbs and their development. Historical texts, theories and ideas from different planners and architectural events are placed chrono-logically on a timeline for the best overview.The chapter is summed up with the Ghetto list and the ten recommendati-ons for improvements in the suburbs from the Suburb’s Think Tank.

The second part is about visiting the eight ghetto areas in Vestegnen; Karlemoseparken (Køge), Askerød (Greve), Vejleåparken (Ishøj), He-demarken (Albertslund), Tåstrupgård (Høje Taastrup), Gadehavegaard (Høje Taastrup), Charlotteager (Høje Taastrup), Rønnebærparken/Æble-haven (Roskilde). We chose areas that have either been, or still are, on the official ghetto list. In this part we sum up some of the good and bad aspects of the suburbs based on the theories from the first chapter applied to our own field work.

In the third part we narrowed down the eight cases to one area in the municipality of Høje Taastrup due to it being the municipality with the highest number of ghetto areas. From there we chose a site based on a suggestion by Rune Bæklund from Høje Taastrup municipality.We then applied Kevin Lynch, landscape, road, barrier and spatial analy-zes to the site in order to figure out how to work with it in the proposition chapter. As a part of the analysis we built a 1:1000 model of the site.

The fourth part consists of a series of interviews and observations done on the site based on Jan Gehl’s methods regarding how people use the city. On top of this we arranged a workshop with the local youth club in which the children could share their opinions and thoughts about their city.

The interviews, workshop and observations are meant to give us an idea about what the locals would want and apply their thoughts and wishes to the final proposition chapter.

The fifth part, and final chapter, applies the knowledge gathered in the first four parts to a final design proposition for the chosen site.

10

Copenhagen

VESTEGNENRoskilde

Ballerup

Køge

The word ”Vestegn” or ”Vestegnen” is basically a substraction of ”Kø-benhavns vestegn” which roughly translates into ”The west region of Copenhagen”. Vestegnen is an area that stretches from the western border of Copenha-gen to Ballerup in the north, Roskilde in the west and Køge in the south.

11

”Form follows function - that has been misunderstood. Form and function should be one, joined in a spiritual union.”

- Frank Lloyd Wright, 1867-1959

IBirth of the suburbs

To understand the current state and layout of the Danish suburban ghet-tos, we have to dive back in time and investigate the development of the suburban landscape.

The timeline in this chapter is meant to help arranging the different im-portant people and events in context to eachother based on which years they occured to give us a better understanding of the legacy of the subur-ban landscape.

The timeline is of course seen in a Danish context, even though many of the events and people are of an international origin, and the focus lies on the period after the industrial revolution up to now.

The technological progress had exploded after the industrial revolution in the 1800’s, creating a big demand for changes in the urban context. Cars, railways, new building technology and materials - as well as the ever in-creasing flood of people moving from the countryside to the city - forced architects to rethink the classic city design and adapt to these changes.

The pictures on the opposite page are showing the development of Copenhagen from 1825 – 2001, and the rapid growth of the city is evident - even in the time before the Athens Charter.

In 1825 Copenhagen was nothing more than a medieval town with buil-dings surrounded by barricades, walls and moats. During the following 100 years the city took the next step in it’s evolution, and started devel-oping outwards as a response to the population boost from the countrysi-de.

Copenhagen had a total of 119.292 citizens in 1834. This number grew to 378.235 in 1901 – an increase of approximately 217% over a 67 year period. (Københavns Kommune, 1919)

In comparison, the count in the years before the abovementioned count show only a 29% population increase in Copenhagen during a period of 65 years from 1769-1834. (Danmarks Statisktik, 1935)

The diagram below clearly shows the exponential growth of the populati-on in Copenhagen from 1840-1960 (Københavns Kommune, 1961)

Birth of the suburbs

The capitolCopenhagen municipality

The capitol area

14

1825

1899

1939

2001

(www.historiskatlas.dk)15

1825The industrial revolution

The station towns:

Just like the population, technology was advancing faster than ever befo-re. Right before and during World War I there were many active railroad projects around Copenhagen, providing fast transport to the small towns where people often sought work in the fields.

These small towns were no more than a handful of houses surrounded by fields, and the stations were often placed without any thought regarding to planning or design, which often meant that the stations would be situa-ted in the middle of a field. (Bidstrup, 1971)

But as the cars got more common, the focus shifted from the railroads to this new means of transportation. There was around 3.000 cars in

Denmark in the early 1900’s – a number that grew to 100.000 during the 1920’s, which resulted in the first public parking lot in Copenhagen, the first traffic regulations and roads - and the first gas station. (Gehl & Svarre, 2013)

Even though the stations along the small farm towns became neglected, they were never forgotten, and the small towns started growing out tow-ards and around the stations as more people chose to move closer to the towns and cities in search of work in the expanding agriculture. (Bid-strup, 1971)

This literally meant that Denmark suddenly had 558 new developing towns in less than 50 years.

16

1899

These towns had several things in common: (Bidstrup, 1971)

- Their development was determined by the placement of the train stati-ons.- They developed without an overseeing planner – it was purely functio-nality that determined the layout.- At the time people living in these towns were considered second-class citizens by the “real” city denizens.

This would be the first real evolution of the classic medieval town struc-ture outside of the capital – in fact it was a giant leap towards what we would later call the suburbs.

Form follows function:

During the late 1920’s it became clear that city planning couldn’t only be considered as a form of art, but it needed a more technical definition as well. (Bidstrup, 1971)

In 1933 Copenhagen had a total population of 634.061 – which means that the population had increased with 68% in only 32 years from 1901 to 1933. (Københavns Kommune, 1933)

The growth of the European cities, as well as the problems that follow-ed; such as bad living conditions and poverty, would later in the 30’s be recognized at the CIAM conference and would later be included in the Athens Charter.

17

1902

Garden cities of tomorrow

Ebenezer Howard

But even before the conference these new changes were recognized by architects all over the world, and thus a massive amount of architectural ideas and discussions flourished in the time leading up to, and after, Wor-ld War I.

Ebenezer Howard, even though he had no architectural background, was one of the first to point out some of the problems and come up with solu-tions to how the city could adapt to these new changes.

Howard believed that both the town and the countryside had some values that attracted people. The town was about social interaction and econo-mic possibilities, while the country was about enjoying the nature and a healthy lifestyle.

In 1902 Howard published a book, “Garden Cities of Tomorrow”, in which he states, that the best way to expand the towns would be to mix the best aspects from the town and country, creating a new city that he called “Town-Country” or “Garden City of Tomorrow”. (Howard, 1902)

Above, on the timeline, is a diagram drawing of the basic concept of the garden cities; a central big city connected to a series of outer satellite cities: (Howard, 1902)

These cities would be recreational, self- sustainable and healthy places with the social and economic benefits of the capital – everything integra-ted with the new transportation technologies. At this time Howard did not consider these rural cities as a recreational retreat from work, but rather as an integrated part of an effective urban life. (Mumford, 1946)

18

World War I Dansk Byplanlaboratorium

1914 1921

In a way, this was the first time in modern history that anyone really tried to implement a regional planning system.

Dansk Byplanlaboratorium:

In Denmark it was also recognized that there was a need for a combined regional planning for the areas surrounding Copenhagen. That resulted in the creation of Dansk Byplanlaboratorium (Danish City Plan Laboratory) in 1921 - which by the way was a time when the Garden City ideas were flourishing amongst planners and architects.

The purpose of the “laboratory” was to gather information about city planning, and share the knowledge with anyone that would be interested in it. This changed the planning dynamic from a local scale to a more broad regional scale. (Bidstrup, 1971)

19

The City of To-morrow

Le Corbusier

1929

But the first real regional plan would be created much later in 1947- after World War II.

Howard’s ideas were based around a major technology that had been in the making the last century: the public railroad. Without a proper means of connection to the city center it would have been impossible to create the new satellite towns, or “Garden Cities”.

These ideas became very popular in Great Britain, and they are one of the reasons that London was developed with green wedges in between the ur-ban housing zones. Other architects and planners around the world started embracing some of Howard’s ideas, adapting them to their own cities and landscapes.

One of these planners, Le Corbusier, would take these ideas to the next step in the years after the First World War.

With the improvements of the mobile vehicle technology (cars, motor-bikes, etc.) there was a need for a better integration of the infrastructure inside the cities. Le Corbusier compared the infrastructure to “capillari-es” that were under the constant, never ending operations by surgeons – eventually concluding that there was a need for more “arteries” to make the infrastructure work. (Le Corbusier, 1929)

Le Corbusier claimed that traffic inside the city was a deadly affair as many people lost their lives crossing the street. He came up with the idea of isolating the roads, keeping cars and people divided, as well as dimi-nishing the existing streets by two-thirds.

20

These ideas would play a big role in the planning of the suburbs in the coming years.

At the same time he acknowledged that there had been a lack of focus on the roads in prior city design, and the technological progress now deser-ved and craved better roads with the increased use of motor vehicles.

Le Corbusier divides the traffic into three categories: (Le Corbusier, 1929)

1) Heavy good traffic. This type of traffic would be below ground, and this would only be for loading and unloading goods.2) Lighter goods traffic. Traditional ground floor traffic, allowing move-ment in all directions with the delicate and complicated road network.

These would be the capillaries.3) Fast traffic. Corbusier describes this as a highway running in two axes on bridges above the city east/west and north/south. These are the arteries allowing quick travel to and away from the city.

If we look at our modern cities, we can recognize many of these ideas – maybe not implemented as Le Corbusier saw them – but they are evi-dently present in the infrastructure design.

As the railroads got more open to the main public, it became evident, that there was a great potential in building the cities around this efficient transportation method, allowing a quick connection to the outer munici-palities.

21

Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture ModerneFourth CIAM conference

1933

Le Corbusier quickly recognized the value of the railroad. He stated that the railway station is the “hub of the wheel” and should therefore be a central element in the city, connecting all the other roads and paths. (Le Corbusier, 1929)

Many of Le Corbusier’s ideas revolved around the division of areas (hou-sing, industrial, schools, parks, etc.), clearly defining the activity for each area in the city. Even these already divided areas would be divided into even more specified areas such as different types of housing.

Today the best example of this type of urban design would be Brasilia in Brazil. The city is shaped as an airplane, with the governmental offices in the “cockpit”, industrial areas where the “engines” would be, and housing for people along the wings.

In Denmark we see this type of physical urban division as well – alt-hough not as prominent as in Brasilia, it is still used to some degree in the city, and even more in the suburban areas.

Another “theme”, that Le Corbusier was slightly obsessed about, was the geometrical layout of the city. In his own words he claims that “urban de-sign must be industrialized”, so that it is easier and cheaper to build. “The result of true geometrical layout is repetition”.

Even though the best place to start building would be in the open, starting anew from a clean slate, Le Corbusier was against building outside of the already established cities. He believed that the answers should be found in building vertically, both under, as well as above, the current city. (Le Corbusier, 1929)

22

1939 1943

World War II The Athens Charter

Le Corbusier

In 1933 the fourth CIAM (Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moder-ne) conference was held aboard a boat, which sailed from Marseilles to Athens. The congress, which was founded in 1928, consisted of a wide community of architects, technical engineers and others interested in urban design.

Their goal was to discuss how to improve the urban environments in a world that was in the process of recovering from World War I.

But the idea, that there should be nothing hindering the geometric design, and it should be allowed to continue infinitely, started establishing itself in the minds of many architects and planners of the early 20th century. This way of thinking definitely appealed to the open, rural landscapes surrounding the cities – landscapes where the suburbs would later be

developed.

In 1943 Le Corbusier published a book he called ”The Athens Charter”, in which he collected many of his own ideas as well as the thoughts and ideas from the CIAM conference in 1933.

With ”The Athens Charter” Le Corbusier managed to influence the next generations of post-war planners, and the paradigm shift from pre-moder-nism to modernism was complete.

23

1947

Fingerplanen

The time after World War II:

When Nazi-Germany invaded Denmark in 1940, the swift surrender of the Danish government assured that Copenhagen did not suffer the same fate as many other European cities, and was more or less left undamaged when the war ended in 1945.

The rapid growth of the cities increased now more than ever before all over Europe. Rebuilding the cities was a necessity after the heavy bom-bardments during the war, and the technology had reached a level that could supply the demand with cheap and quick housings.

Especially european countries adapted to the mindset of modernism planning - one could argue that modernism fits well into the socialistic

and communistic ideologies in Europe, but the main reason was of course the beforementied increase in people migrating to the cities. We see the same tendency in developing countries in Asia, Africa and South America today.

In Denmark it was quickly recognized that this rapid growth couldn’t continue without any planning, so in 1947 a team of architects from ”Egnsplanskontoret for Storkøbenhavn” created “The Fingerplan” – a plan that would define how Copenhagen would grow outwards.

Even though there had been a focus on creating a comprehensive overall plan for the region surrounding Copenhagen since around 1920, it was first after World War II that something actually happened – and even then, it was more guidelines rather than rules.

24

1961

The Death and Life of Great American CitiesJane Jacobs

The Fingerplan mainly focus on two basic, yet very clever, ideas; to maintain and conserve the green open spaces between the urban areas, and to make sure that the urban development would be placed alongside the railroad development to assure a working infrastructure and connecti-on with the capitol city.

There are many similarities in this and the development plan for Lon-don – and with good reason: because they were both based on the initial thoughts of Howard and the later thinking of Le Corbusier.

The paradigm shift:

As it so often happens, all action create reaction, and the modernism brought with it rebellious planners and designers with a post-modernistic ideology.

Jane Jacobs was one of these planners. She pointed out many of the issues that came out of the low-income projects that were supposed to repla-ce the slums. According to her, especially the distribution of ressources plays an important role in solving the issues.

If the billions used on centers of vandalism, delinquency and general so-cial hopelessness were used on developing and rebuilding the cities, they would have been better spent. Currently they only make the place even

25

1967

An Ecological Method for Landscape Architecture

Design With Nature

Ian Mcharg

worse than before. The money that were supposed to rebuild the cities, are destroying them even more.

Jacobs claims, that we could wipe out all the slums, gray belts that were yesterday’s and day-before-yesterday’s suburbs, and we could even fix the traffic problem with the money. (Jacobs, 1961)

She states that modernistic planners think that if they solve the issue of traffic, then they can solve the issue of the cities. This is of course becau-se it’s easier to be pleased by the reasons of why we need the automobiles than the reasons of why we need the cities. The cars are a big need in the suburbs, because sometimes there is a very long distance between point A and point B, but one must figure out how the city works before figuring out what to do about the traffic.

As an example Jacobs mentions that drinking a soda on a street corner is as much a sign of life in the city as anything else. There is a value in any kind of life in the city, no matter whether it is on the sidewalk, in the park or around the cafes and restaurants on the shopping streets. People, who have made an assumption that there is a ”wrong” kind of city-life, have completely misunderstood the city.

The point of the social life on the streets, is that its public and it brings people together. Its people who don’t know each other, and don’t care to know each other, that still are being put together in a public area. The most important things the public streets needs to give the people are safe-ty, privacy, trust and togetherness. If a street lives up to this, then a lot of people will use it.

26

1972

Defensible SpaceOscar Newman

To assure the best physical conditions for urban life, Jacobs suggests that planning should involve multifunctional neighborhoods, varied age resi-dential areas, a high concentration of people, short blocks and connected street systems. (Jacobs, 1961)

The focus slowly shifted from a mainly functional point of view to caring for the people that actually use the city.

Jan Gehl, a Danish planner, has been focusing on implementing the hu-man scale and needs into planning. (Gehl, 1987)

He argues that interaction between people is a good basis for creating life in the outdoor spaces - but to achieve interaction the outdoor spaces must be capable of offering some sort of activity based on visual or sound

stimulation.

Interaction between people stimulate the human senses. According to Gehl, the ”see and hear” contact should be a priority in future planning. (Gehl, 1987)

Just like Jacobs anticipated, the first proofs of failed modernistic urban planning would start showing up in the following years.

In 1954 a huge modernism inspired social housing project was built in Saint Louis, Missouri. With modern conveniences such as elevators, electricity, heating, plumbing and plenty of light and space, it stood as a symbol of hope in a landscape of poor neighbourhoods and overcrowded slums. (Friedrichs, 2011)

27

1975

Pruitt-Igoe demolished

It’s name was Pruitt-Igoe, and just as it started as a symbol of all the good things connected to modernism, it ended up being a symbol of the oppo-site.

Just like in many of the Danish suburbs, problems arose in the 1960’ies and 1970’ies. Poverty and crime lead to more problems, and slowly Pru-itt-Igoe started decaying due to lack of funds, neglect and resident flight.

Only twenty years after it was built, Pruitt-Igoe was demolished by the government in the mid 1970’ies. Even to this day, the area stands as a stark reminder of failed modernistic planning.

Oscar Newman, an american planner, developed some theoretical ideas about why the big housing projects went wrong. He called the theory

”Defensible Space” and published a book of the same name in 1972. (Newman, 1996)

Newman claims that there is a connection between physical city design and crime, and the theories are based around a ”feeling of ownership” - if someone has this feeling towards a place, they will maintain it, but if the feeling is lacking, the place will be neglected.

Since the big suburban housing projects often share a concrete-grey homogeneous look, they don’t create an identity that is worth maintai-ning.

28

2001

According to Newman, five factors define a defensible space:

1) Territoriality - a territorial feeling towards home and nearby surroun-dings.2) Natural surveillance - the resident’s ability to see in the area.3) Image - creating a sense of security through physical design.4) Milieu - other security factors, such as busy areas or a police station.5) Safe Adjoining Areas - adjoint areas are planned in a way that they become integrated, allowing surveillance across different areas.

The abovementioned factor’s main goal is to give the local community more control of the outdoor spaces, and the community will in return help maintain these areas and deter crime. (Newman, 1996)

The sustainable city: Many people originally moved to the suburbs in search of space, light and nature - a more healthy lifestyle than the big cities offered. These aspects still draw people to the suburbs, and sustainablity, health and nature all play an even bigger role in modern day planning.

Already in 1967, the beginning of the post-modernistic era, Ian Mcharg wrote that he believed that ”ecology provides the single indispensible basis for landscape architecture and regional planning.” (Mcharg, 1967)

From the days way back, religion made man over nature. The people where given authority, and this is what Mcharg points out. He sees the idea of ”god made man, and gave him authority over nature”, as a we-

29

2006

Sustainable Urban FormsYosef Rafeq Jabareen

stern mentality.

Man took advances of this authority, and will in the eyes of Mcharg subdue the earth. He claims that more people in the cities equal more housing and less nature.

This is of course a direct reaction against the modernism, an ideology where the all-knowing planner choose the most functional layout for the city without any regard towards the already existing landscape.

Ian Mcharg points out, that in some places the mentality changed because of the writers, poets and artists. These creative minds came up and devel-oped the harmony of man and nature gave the cities identity, made them aesthetically pleasing and beautiful. Ian Mcharg calls this mentality for

the oriental mentality. (Mcharg, 1967)

Some of the abovementioned ideas of combining housing and nature were already a part of Le Corbusier’s modernism. Mcharg only took what already existed, and moved the focus towards nature and sustainability.

The view of the cities has developed through the years, and today plan-ners often have a more ecological approach when it comes to city devel-opment.

Yosef Rafeq Jabareen, is one of these planners, and he looks at different things that make the cities and suburbs more sustainable; (Jabareen, 2006)

30

Density is important according to Jabareen, because density is people. He argues that high density means low car use and sustainable cities are a matter of density.

He also points out that cities and the suburbs need diversity, this is because if you have diversity then the people don’t need to take their car somewhere else. Diversity covers both people and activities. The social and cultural context, multifunctionality and mixed land use are important factors in a sustainable city.

There is a great potential in developing the already existing landscape of the suburbs. Re-using and developing the current buildings and housing areas, are some of Jabareen’s main ideas.

”Green Urbanism”, as Jabareen calls it, is a more sustainable way of developing the urban landscape. Using the sun that to make free energy by the use of passive solar designs, air flow, clever use of materials, gre-ening and building orientations are all factors that define Jabareen’s idea of a sustainable, less polluted, green city that enhances biodiversity and quality of life.

According to Yosef Rafeq Jabareen, we should not just work on the spaces and the buildings, but we should also look at the transportation to create Green Urbanism – sustainable transportation such as bicycles is better than cars. (Jabareen, 2006)

31

The Danish ghettos:

In the 1960’s and 1970’s there was a great influx of immigrants seeking work in Denmark. Even though most only planned to work abroad and eventually return to their home countries, many decided to stay.

At the same time, new and cheap modernistic housing projects were built to satisfy the increasing demand for housing. At first, these new proje-cts were a success. New residents quickly moved into the suburbs in the search for fresh air, nature and space.

As the wealth of the common Danish worker family increased, their dream home changed from the modernistic apartment to a small house with a garden. This happened so quickly that many of the newly built

modernistic housing projects suddenly stood empty.

Empty apartments means no income for the municipality, so the rent went down to attract new residents. This resulted in a economically homogeni-zed population, with many less wealthy families and the immigrants that chose to stay in Denmark.

Before and through the 1990’s and during the 2000’s, crime and poverty was increasing in the socially strained suburban areas, and the Danish government began to realize that something had to be done to keep these problems from escalating.

In 2010 the Danish government made an official ”ghetto list” that poin-ted out the most socially loaded areas based on a series of criteria. The

32

2010

”The Ghetto back to Society”Official Danish ghetto list

emphasis of the criteria were the number of immigrants, unemployment and crime rates.

However, the list and it’s criteria didn’t live up to the target, and didn’t identify the problems in the areas. There was therefore added two addi-tional criteria in 2014 that looked at income and education level. (www.politiken.dk, 2014)

33

2012

”The Suburb’s Think Tank”

Suburbs of the future:

Realdania, an organisation that consists of many different individuals and groups that all share the same interest for developing the cities, have sin-ce 2000 worked on countless enhancement projects all around Denmark.

Between 2011 and 2013 Realdania and Naturstyrelsen created ”The Suburb’s Think Tank”. The aim was to adress the problems in the suburbs and come up with solutions.

During this period 29 architectural teams worked on enhancing six cho-sen Danish suburban areas. In 2013 these projects, thoughts and ideas were published in a book called ”Fremtidens Forstæder”. (Suburbs of the future)

In 2012 the think tank had 10 recommendations that can help with enhan-cing the suburbs: (Realdania, 2012)

1) Urban redevelopment instead of urban sprawl2) Find financial backing3) Make use of local ressources4) Identify and exploit dynamics in the suburbs5) Adapt the urban structure6) Strengthen sustainable mobility7) Secure and elaborate the attractive qualities of the suburbs8) Exert an influence on behaviour9) Renew urban planning10) Dismantle adminstrative and legislative obstacles

34

2015

Conclusion:

The physcial layout of the Danish suburban ghettos today is mainly based on the modernistic architecture and ideology from the early to mid 1900’s.

From the mid 1900’s and towards 2000 planners began realizing that the big, functional, modernistic housing projects such as Pruitt Igoe did not quite work out as expected, and they started questioning the modernistic ideology.

This lead to the post-modernism, where the functional design was inte-grated with the human scale, the life on the streets, ecology and sustaina-bility.

The Suburb’s Think Tank’s 10 recommendations for the development of the suburbs are a good summary of the post-modernistic solutions to the issues modernism created. Some of the keywords are integration, densifi-cation, connection, ecology and sustainability.

It is no longer the ”all knowing planner” who decides how the city should look like from his office, but the work has to be taken to the field and the residents must be included in the planning process.

Some of these recommendations will be used in the final proposition chapter.

35

”The ghettos are often secluded and isolated from the rest of the city and in a number of cases there are only a few routes to and from the ghettos. It constitutes a barrier for close interaction with the surrounding areas.”

- The ghetto back to society, 2010

IIThe eight ghetto cases

The term ”Ghetto” is very broad and might even be slightly misleading when used in a Danish context.

Naturally there are many negative aspects (such as poverty, crime and neglect) connected to the word - but it would almost be utter madness to compare a Danish ghetto with let’s say the conditions in the Warsaw Ghetto during World War II, Harlem in northern Manhattan or even the slums in any poor country. Even the suburban ghetto areas in other parts of Europe in 2015 - such as around Paris or London - are arguably more ”ghetto-like” than any of the Danish ghetto areas.

There are undeniably plenty of socially strained areas in Denmark, and for the sake of simplicity we will keep calling them ”ghettoes” here, even though the word might be exaggerating the issues.

In October 2010 the Danish government published a paper called ”Ghet-toen tilbage til samfundet” (The ghetto back to society, 2010) in which they pointed out 29 problematic areas in Denmark and gave them the official ghetto stamp.

The green box on the opposite page shows the criteria for whether an area would become a ghetto or not in 2010. The red box has addtional criteria that were added in 2014.

Of course these criteria sparked a huge debate. Some of the areas were placed on the list merely due to only slightly higher percentages in a certain criteria, while others could avoid the list by only marginal diffe-rences in the criteria.

And there was of course moral questions considering the stigmatization the word ”ghetto” would apply to these areas and the denizens.

Specifically there was great skepticism regarding these criteria, since they are based on data collected through several years (4-5 years) and are therefore outdated.

None of the criteria are based on any physical appearances of the socially strained areas. Only the social problems seem to define the Danish ghetto, even though the politicians themself dedicated the very first chapter in the beforementioned paper (The ghetto back to society, 2010) to solutions through physical planning, renovation and enhancements.

We have of course another view on the matter from a planner’s perspec-tive, for what defines an area more than it’s own physical appearance, the infrastructure and relation to the rest of the city? These questions will be clarified further in the conclusion part of this chapter.

The ghetto list itself can be seen on the opposite side. The grey lines defi-ne when an area was on the ghetto list, while the white (empty) slots tell us when the area was not on the list. The grey lines come in two colors for easier recognizion of an area on the list and it’s timeline. Since 2010 more than 50 areas have been on and off the ghetto list.

The eight ghetto cases

38

2010-2014: If the area meets 2/3 criteria it is considered a ghetto. - More than 50% non-western foreigners and their descendants.- More than 40% between the age of 18-64 without con-nection to any work or education. (average numbers for the last four years)- Amount of people above 18 years of age, who are convicted for acts against the criminal law, drug law and weapon law, is more than 270 out of 10.000 denizens. (average numbers for the last four years)

2014: If the area meets 3/5 criteria it is considered a ghetto. - More than 50% non-western foreigners and their descendants.- More than 40% between the age of 18-64 without con-nection to any work or education. (average numbers for the last four years)- Amount of people above 18 years of age, who are convicted for acts against the criminal law, drug law and weapon law, is more than 2.70% (270 out of 10.000 denizens) (average numbers for the last four years)- Amount of people in the age of 30-59 with only a base education (as well as unknown education) is more than 50% of the age group.- Average income for tax payers in the age of 15-64 (ex-cluding people under education) is less than 55% of the average income in the region.

Ghetto criteria

The government’s ghetto list (2010-2014)

39

123 4

56

8

7

We decided to visit the eight Vestegn-areas that either have been, or still are, on the ghetto list.

The next part of this chapter consists of our field notes and pictures. The idea was to visit each area and gain a first hand impression of the physical structure and note down similarities that perhaps could connect some of the problems.

In the end we will chose to work on a development plan for one of the eight areas.

40

The government’s ghetto list (2010-2014)

Taastrupgaard

Hedemarken1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Charlotteager

Gadehavegaard

Vejleåparken

Askerød

Karlemoseparken

Rønnebærparken/Æblehaven

41

1 Hedemarken

GHETTO

The area is completely closed off by walls and buildings towards the roads and parking lots, only a few paths allow movement to and from the green spaces in the middle.

In a proper Le Corbusier style the area offers everything you need to never have to leave it. Public laundry rooms, kebab shops and small shops can be found on every almost every corner.

Several playgrounds tells us that there are many children in the area. Some of the playgrounds are ”high tech” such as this goal that consists of several touch-screens.

The green areas on the inside are very nice and well maintained.

Albertslund - built: 1969

2014 - February

2010 - October

2011 - January

2011 - October

2012 - October

2013 - October

42

POSITIVE

NEGATIVE

Focus on children and enhancing the playgrounds. Small shops in the area create a good basis for outdo-or activity

50mN

The area is physically isolated from it’s surroundings by walls and roads.

43

2 Taastrupgaard

GHETTO

GHETTO

GHETTO

GHETTO

GHETTO

Høje Taastrup - built: 1972

2014 - February

2010 - October

2011 - January

2011 - October

2012 - October

2013 - October

The big ”wall” of buildings creates a physical barrier to the north. Even though there are several gaps in the ”wall”, they are so small compared to the buildings that you barely notice them if you are just driving by.

The area is in general built in a very big scale staying true to the modernistic ideology. From the parking lots, to the huge wall of buildings and the big main path going east-west.The green areas are well main-

tained along the main path.

Some of the buildings seem very old and neglected.

44

50mN

Renovation projects have lifted the area’s looks and connections, and big underground parking lots were removed to increase safety.

NEGATIVEThe big wall of buildings to the north still maintain a sense of separation from the outside. The area lacks small scale identity projects.

POSITIVE

45

3 Charlotteager

GHETTO

GHETTO

GHETTO

GHETTO

GHETTO

GHETTO

Høje Taastrup - built: 1973

2014 - February

2010 - October

2011 - January

2011 - October

2012 - October

2013 - October

Compared to the other ghetto areas that we visited Charlotte-ager was probably the one that had the most appealing look. The facades were renewed du-ring 2005-2009, leaving the area with a fresh new look.

Unfortunatly the outdoor areas seemed extremely large and dull.

The locals are focusing on social projects to enhance the area.

The local sportsfield/arena was clearly very negleted. The woodwork was almost falling apart some places.

46

50mN

The buildings have new fresh facades and look very appealing, and the small areas between the buildings feel private and well kept.

NEGATIVE

The green strip to the south has great potential, but the facilities seem old and neglected.

POSITIVE

47

4 Gadehavegaard

GHETTO

GHETTO

GHETTO

Høje Taastrup - built: 1976-1981

2014 - February

2010 - October

2011 - January

2011 - October

2012 - October

2013 - October

Just like many of the other areas we visited the small spaces between the buildings consisted of playgrounds and they were generally well maintained.

Many of the neighbouring areas are physically closed off with fences. Creates a feeling of iso-lation and distance.

In the basement level there were different clubs - a shame that they are hidden away.

In an attempt to improve the looks and sustainability of the buildings, there is an ongiong renevation project.

48

50mN

A new building-enhancement project is currently in progress.

NEGATIVEThe buildings seem old and neglected, and the area is surrounded by a big road.

POSITIVE

49

5 Vejleåparken

GHETTO

Ishøj - built: 1970-1973

2014 - February

2010 - October

2011 - January

2011 - October

2012 - October

2013 - October

Vejleåparken is the biggest of the eight areas that we visited. Everything from the green areas to the buildings are built in a very big - maybe even incom-prehensible - scale. Just like many of the other areas

we visited the main path conne-ctions lead through tunnels.

How many acres of grassfields does a person need? Very dull and unimaginative planning.

Not long after it was built, as early as in the early 1980’ies, it became clear that the area needed several improvements. From 2001-2010 the area had several renovation projects to enhance identity and improve the housing.

50

100mN

The enhancement projects that were done from 2001-2010 surely helped on the image of the area. There is a stronger feeling of identity in the outdoor spaces, and the buildings have been renovated.

NEGATIVE The very big scale is still a negative factor, especially the big green areas are left as big, boring and unima-ginative grass fields.

POSITIVE

51

6 Askerød

GHETTO

GHETTO

GHETTO

GHETTO

Greve - built: 1975

2014 - February

2010 - October

2011 - January

2011 - October

2012 - October

2013 - October

Compared to the other areas, Askerød is built in a more small scale. The houses consists of smaller ”apartment-boxes” pla-ced on top of eachother rather than one huge block.

Well maintained green areas with different functions. These areas are mainly located on the eastern side, although a few spread out green strips can be found inside Askerød.

Askerød is truly a maze, and might feel very closed off and dark if you are just passing by.

A building stood here once. To open up the area a couple of buildings have been demolished.

52

50mN

The buildings have recieved renovations recently, and seem less neglected than they used to, but the facades are still the same old grey concrete. Some of the buil-dings have been removed to open up the area.

The area feels very closed off and mazelike due to a lack of small scale identity, as well as the big road surrounding it.

NEGATIVE

POSITIVE

53

7 Karlemoseparken

GHETTO

GHETTO

Køge - built: 1970

2014 - February

2010 - October

2011 - January

2011 - October

2012 - October

2013 - October

The green areas are very domi-nating in Karlemoseparken. Not only is more than half of the area consisting of green areas, the neighbouring area to the southwest unbuilt green area as well.

Big roads are isolating the area, and the easiest way of transport is by car through the parking lot.

The green area is framed by big trees on one side and buildings on another, creating a very inte-resting big space. Unfortunatly there are very few small scale spaces.

Well maintained outdoor spaces in front of the buildings.

54

50mN

The placement of this area is very nice with the big hospital-park, green areas, fields and allotment gar-dens to the west and southwest.

Lack of identity due to the big scale and isolation by roads, as well as an overdimensioned green area that does not really contribute with much considering all the other green areas.

NEGATIVE

POSITIVE

55

8 Rønnebærparken/Æblehaven

GHETTO

GHETTO

GHETTO

Roskilde - built: 1975-1978 and 1992

2014 - February

2010 - October

2011 - January

2011 - October

2012 - October

2013 - October

The concrete buildings look old and neglected. The coloring and structure is dark and unappea-ling to the eye.

Tunnels through the buildings secure easy access to the other side but create safety issues as well.

The elongated shape of the area could be a sign that it was built as a ”plaster-solution” between other areas. The area feels not only disconnected from the out-side, but also from itself.

Smaller green areas on the back are hidden away behind the buildings.

56

100mN

A very interesting placement in between many diffe-rent types of buildings and the park area to the south. Good potential for connection.

Lack of identity due to the big scale and isolation by roads and parking lots. The area feels isolated from itself due to the elongated structure.

NEGATIVE

POSITIVE

57

POSITIVEThe suburban potential:

Even though the are many issues in the suburbs, we must also recognize the great potential.On this and the opposite page we point out some of the potential in the suburbs.

The drawings on these pages are of an area north of Høje Taastrup station, but they could have been from any of the other cases.

Safety on the playground:

The green spaces between the buildings create a safe haven for small chil-dren. Their parents, as well as the other residents, can easily keep an eye on them from the balconies and windows, and as long as the children stay within a close proximity to the buildings they can avoid cars and other dangers.

This relation between the outdoor space and the residents creates a fee-ling of ownership and connection with the areas in front of the buildings.

Density and resident diversity:

In the history chapter Jane Jacobs, Jabareen and other post-modernism planners argue that increasing the density and diversity of the residents can help lifting the suburban areas towards a more sustainable solution.

There is definitely potential for both in the suburbs - mostly due to the big amounts of unused space.Densifying the suburbs is almost inevitable, seeing as the population is growing exponentially and the city keeps growing outwards.

58

Nature and green spaces:

Le Corbusier, and Howard before him, had initially some great ideas about adding nature in an urban environment - ideas that hold great po-tential.

Compared to the cities, the suburbs offer more nature and green areas - a good basis for future sustainable development according to Ian Mcharg as seen in the history chapter.

The green spaces are often secluded from the surrounding housing areas, but in most cases it is easy to re-integrate them through thinning of the vegetation.

Big roads:

There is some potential in working on the distribution of the suburban space.

Big roads take up a lot of space, even though some of that space could easily be redistributed for other functions such as recreation and bicycle paths.

59

The suburban issues:

The beforementioned eight ghetto cases we visited had many similar phy-sical planning issues that are rather common in the suburbs.On this and the opposite page we point out some of the issues as well as possible solutions.

The drawings on these pages are of an area north of Høje Taastrup station, but they could have been from any of the other cases.

The physical appearance:

Grey, dull and neglected buildings are often the first thing you notice in these areas - this certainly only adds to the whole ”ghetto-feeling”. Con-crete definitely does not age well.The big scale and monotone look does not create any identity for the dif-ferent blocks or staircases.

To fight these issues, some of the areas have spent a lot of time and ressources on renovation of the facades, as well as general enhancements in the apartments to keep them up to date. Different facade colors and materials brings back some identity to the areas.

Tunnels:

During the modernism it was common to separate the different areas from the car roads. This was often done by leading the paths under the roads, thus creating tunnels.The tunnels are often considered as some of the most unsafe areas due to their darkness and closed nature - the irony is that they were supposed to create safety.

In some tunnels the local governments have tried to increase lighting to make them more safe, but removing the tunnels and leading the paths across the road is probably the best, although the most expensive, soluti-on.

NEGATIVE

60

Isolation and separation of functions:

As mentioned before, separation of functions was a common thing during the modernism.

The ideology was very appealing to planners,but in practice this created isolation andsegregation in the suburbs.

Many places are separated into housing,industry, institutional areas, shopping andgreen spaces. The roads are used to dividethe different areas, and fences and hedges close of the areas not only physically but alsoto the eye.

Spreading out the functions in areas that are already less populated than the big cities results in some of these areas becoming completely abandoned.

By thinning out the greenery, removing barriers and establishing new paths to allow better connection between the areas, planners can help with breaking down the isolation and give the suburbs a better flow as well as promoting multifunctionaluse of areas.

According to Oscar Newman (as seen in the history chapter), oneof the most effective ways to prevent crime is to give the residents inthe area a personal connection to the outdoor spaces. This connection can very simply be a sight-line from an apartment to a local park, both giving the area a ”wholeness feeling” as well as increasing safety.

61

The eight cases, even though very different, share many similarities. For one, they were all built in or around the 70’ies, just like most of the suburban landscape. Despite the oil crisis there was a need for more housing at the time, and new and cheap materials allowed huge building projects.

Modernism is the main theme in all of these areas. The planning is he-avily influenced by Le Corbusier’s ideas about a ”city within the city” and separation of functions, inevitably leading to isolation and segregati-on. This is not only an isolated case for the areas on the ghetto list though, it applies to most of the suburbs.

On a local scale there is a big focus on social projects such as local hobby organizations and allowance-jobs to promote interaction between people. Some areas have undergone many physical changes, and some are still working on enhancing the outdoor areas and facades of neglected buil-dings. For us the focus will lie on the physical planning.

One of the areas, Vejleåparken, already started physical renovation proje-cts in 2001 - long before the ghetto list existed. When it was built it was called Ishøjplanen, but the name was changed in 1996 in an attempt to escape the negative legacy. Vejleåparken is probably the area that endured the biggest physical changes of the eight cases, and it was only on the ghetto list from October 2010 to January 2011 - not even half a year.

But the area was very early recognized as a failure, even back in the late 1970’ies it became clear that changes were needed. In a way, Vejleåpar-ken was the very symbol of failed suburban planning - both physical and

on a social plan. Denmark’s very own Pruitt-Igoe.

It’s huge scale was one of the biggest problems, since it stripped the individual blocks and staircases of any potential identity. A big influx of uneducated foreigners created problems as well. Failed integration, lack of diversity in income and cultural isolation quickly added to the increa-sing crime rate. As time went by, only the poor and uneducated stayed behind in the ghettos, while the more priviledged and ressourceful left for greener pastures.

Any of the eight ghetto cases would fit the describtion above. On our fieldtrip the same planning issues were evident on almost every stop. Some of the areas had definitely undergone big improvements, but the physical isolation was very evident.

On the opposite page are the eight Vestegn ghetto areas listed in a dia-gram that shows when the areas were on the ghetto list. From this some things can be concluded:

- Hedemarken (1) was only added on the ghetto list after the criteria were changed in 2014.- Høje Taastrup is the municipality with the most (2)+(3)+(4) ghetto areas as well as areas that have been on the ghetto list for the longest period of time.- Vejleåparken (5) was only on the ghetto list for a very short time, pro-bably due to the many enhancements the area recieved during 2001-2010.- The remaining ghetto areas (6)+(7)+(8) seem to be more on and off the ghetto list. This might be due to more or less successful social projects as well as new people moving to and from the areas more frequently - as well as the criteria changes in 2014.

The eight ghetto cases - conclusion

62

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Taastrupgaard

Hedem

arkenA

lbertslund

Høje Taastrup

Høje Taastrup

Høje Taastrup

Ishøj

Greve

Køge

Roskilde

Charlotteager

Gadehavegaard

Vejleåparken

Askerød

Karlem

oseparken

Rønnebæ

rparken/Æ

blehaven

2014 - February

2010 - October

2011 - January

2011 - October

2012 - October

2013 - October

63

”If we can help connect the disparate dots on land use, lifestyle and mobili-ty to make a more sustainable, accessible and livable society, we will have helped change the world in a way that is desperately needed”

- Douglas Kelbaugh, 2001

IIIThe site

We wanted to take a closer look at Høje Taastrup Municipality, since this was the municipality, that had the most areas on the ghetto list:

Taastrupgaard Charlotteager

Gadehavegaard

Høje Taastrup Municipality is located on the railroad stretch from Copen-hagen to Roskilde - also known as the ”index finger” in the finger plan. As can be seen on the map on the opposite page, most of the municipality consists of fields to the north. Most of the urban areas can be found along the three big transport paths.

Of the three ghettos, Charlotteager (3) has been on the ghetto list the longest. Taastrupgaard (2) has been on and off the ghetto list, while Gade-havegaard (4) was added to the list in 2012.

The two latest mentioned ghettos, Taastrupgaard (2) and Gadehavegaard (4), are neighbouring areas only separated by a bigger road. We decided to take a closer look on these areas.

Choosing the site 2 3 4

TaastrupgaardH

øje Taastrup

Høje Taastrup

Høje Taastrup

Charlotteager

Gadehavegaard

2014 - February

2010 - October

2011 - January

2011 - October

2012 - October

2013 - October

3

2

4

66

2000m

243

RailroadRoskildevej (80 km/h)

Høje Taastrup Municipality

Highway (110 km/h)

N

67

The two neighbouring ghettos, Taastrupgaard (2) and Gadehavegaard (4), are located between Høje Taastrup Station and Taastrup Station in the urban area in the southeastern corner of Høje Taastrup Municipality. The general layout in this area is much like the rest of the suburban land-scape mainly dominated by straight lines (roads) and geometrical patterns (areas) - clearly based on the modernistic ideology.

Taastrup Station existed back in in the late 1800’s, and Taastrup was already developing back then as a station town. Høje Taastrup Station and much of it’s surrounding areas were only just built in 1986 and in the years after that.

The eastern part of the city is therefore older than the western part. The shopping street south of Taastrup Station sprouted up due to the trade along the rails before the modernism, which resulted in it being an inte-grated part of the old city, while new and big-scale modernistic structures like City2 stands isolated and segregated in the west.

Station town1899

1945

1976

1986(www.historiskatlas.dk)68

(www.historiskatlas.dk)

24

500m

Høje Taastrup Station

RailroadTrain station

Roskildevej (80 km/h)

Heavily trafficed roads

Highway (110 km/h)

Taastrup Station

TaastrupgaardGadehavegaard

City2Shopping center

Taastrup Hovedgade Shopping street

N

69

Meeting the municipality

This connection from Taastrupgaard to Taastrup Station has recently been enhanced by the municipality, linking the stati-on to Taastrupgaard through the park area.

To narrow down the project area, we arranged a meeting with Rune Bæklund from Høje Taastrup Municipality’s Kultur og Fritidsforvaltning (Culture and Recreation Management). We learned that the municipality had already done some enhancement projects on the stretch from Taastrup Station to Taastrupgaard, and they could therefore be interested in a project on Gadehavegaard (4) and the surrounding areas, so this would be the next step in our project.

Area of choice: This area south of Gadehavegaard has a good potential for future development, so we chose to look further into what could be done here.

South of Taastrup Station lies this area with plenty of shops and housing along a shopping street. This is the old part of the town, and therefore built in a pre-modernistic style, although the straight road secured a functional connection to the train station

Høje Taastrup municipality is currently working on creating a connection from Høje Taastrup Station to the shopping center City2. The connection includes densification of the stretch by adding low-scale housing and street-activites. (www.htk.dk, 2015)

70

Gadehavegaard2

4

CITY 2

Taastrup Station

Høje Taastrup Station

200m

Taastrupgaard

RailroadTrain station

N

Roskildevej (80 km/h)

71

The site

Many of the areas are separated by fences and tunnels.

The green park area in the middle has many different functions and great potential for connecting the surroun-ding areas.

Big, but sparcely trafficed, roads sur-round the areas around Gadehavegaard.

The site we have chosen to work with is located north of Høje Taastrup Station and south of Roskildevej.

The landscape is typical modernistic, with a separation of functions, many green areas and big housing projects. Everything is of course neatly divided by big roads - and the sidewalks, bicycle lanes and small paths are hidden away amongst the fences and hedges.

72

100mN

Gadehavegaard Taastrupgaard

Mechanic workshop

Electronics and cars

Housing

Industry

School

Kindergardens

Football fieldPark, fitness, allotment gar-dens, dogs

Unbuilt site

Park, water basin

Train depot

Youth club

Hallandsparken

Øtoftegårdsvej

Gadehavegårdsvej

Fields

Hammeren/MurskeenHousing

Housing Housing

Housing

Roskildevej

Teknologisk institut Police station Bank

Super market

Gadevang

Høje Taastrup Station

The Høje Taastrup Municipality offices

Municipal building

Gymnasium

Mixed housing, school and shops

Mixed housing and shops

4

73

TopographyHøje Taastrup is placed higher in the terrain compared to Taastrup to the east, but the terrain is rather flat except of some man-made hills and slopes.

The train tracks are dug down into the terrain, and hills have been placed along the big roads to block out some of the noise.

The map on the opposite page shows 0.5 m height curves for the area, and some of the holes (low) and hills (high) have been pointed out. The orange arrows are meant to emphasize where the terrain is sloping.

School

Building topography:

Football field

Park

InstitutionsGadehavegaard

Supermarket

74

100mN

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

LowHigh

High

High

High

The terrain slopes down towards east.

The train tracks are dug down. 75

Districts and landmarks Housing

Industry and shopping

Institutions and municipal buildings

Green spaces

Mixed hou-sing, shops and instituti-ons

Landmark for the area:Høje Taastrup Station

To better understand the site we have chosen to work with a spatial kevin lynch analysis. (Nellemann & Stahlschmidt, 2009)

Modernism brought with it the idea to separate the city into smaller districts with different functions. On the opposite page is shown a map of the separated functions in the area around Gadehavegaard.

The yellow area around Høje Taastrup Station is built in a more city-like fashion, with different functions mixed.

The lack of recognizable landmarks makes the whole area seem like a maze for anyone but the residents. One could argue that the only noti-cable landmarks are the station and the big shopping center south of the area, but smaller landmarks such as a certain road or a shop might also help with orientation.

Due to it’s very central location, the park area in the middle has great potential of connecting the surrounding areas.

76

100mN

77

Paths, roads and connections

Railroad

Big roads

Smaller, less trafficed roads

Pathways and bicykle

Path under a bridge

Ladder GridTunnel under road

The separation does not stop at the districts. The paths, sidewalks, bicy-cle lanes and car roads are also separated in an attempt to never let the fast-paced car traffic get in contact with people and bicycles.

On the map on the opposite page the most important roads and paths are highlighted.

Traffic nodes, such as a road crossing a walk-path or vice versa, are mostly avoided by leading the paths under the roads through tunnels. The main nodes are found where two roads cross. The roads themself serve only one function; fast travel to, and from, the housing areas.

Albert Pope argued that the road and path layout play a big role in the collapse of urban space. (Pope, 1996)

Before the modernism, cities would be built around an open ”grid” system of paths and roads, allowing connection between areas through multiple routes. People would walk through different areas to reach their destination point.

During the modernism, many parts of the city were built around a ”lad-der” system, creating dead ends with only one way in and out. This only encourages people to visit an area if they have some business in it, often leaving areas abandoned and neglected.

In theory the smaller roads surrounding the northern housing areas, the institutions and the park (Gadehavegårdsvej and Øtoftegårdsvej) are a part of a grid system, but the bigger roads on the outside of the area offer a faster way of travel, which leaves the smaller roads less used and essen-tially forces them to become the ladder system.

In the future there might be some potential in developing these smaller roads - especially since they are very wide (four tracks) compared to their use. Making them smaller could free up some unused space that could be used for recreational purposes.

78

Øtoftegårdsvej

Gadehavegårdsvej

100mN

79

Barriers

Wall:other side not visible.

Roof & obstacle:other side visi-ble.

Roof:other side visi-ble.

Smaller wall: almost able to peek over.

Metal fence: other side visi-ble.

Obstacle: other side visi-ble.

Penetrable wall: able to look through.

To determine the spatial layout of the site, we have to look at the bar-riers and edges that define the spaces. We have chosen to work with an eye-height analysis that has emphasis on the human scale and the visual space. (Nellemann & Stahlschmidt, 2009)

As shown on the map on the opposite page, the site is littered with many different edges and barriers. Some of the barriers are penetrable physical-ly or by sight, while others live completely up to their name.

The most dominant barrier in the area - the one we chose to call the ”Wall” - is not penetrable by sight or by physically walking through it. All the buildings on the map are considered as part of this cathegory.

The ”Smaller wall” and ”Metal fence” are not penetrable as such, but they have entry points or gates through which people can pass.

The ”Penetrable wall” is penetrable visually, but also to some degree physically. Compare to the ”Wall”, it is less dense.

The remaining barriers - ”Roof & obstacle”, ”Roof”, ”Obstacle” - are so-metimes physical barriers, but function more as visual or mental barriers, leaving an impression of a closed space even though it’s not.

80

100mN

81

The site has many different interesting functions, but lacks connection between them.

Spread out functions is not the only dividing factor. As we learned in the path and barrier analysis, the site is littered with big roads that divide the different areas. Mental and physical barriers add to the feeling of segre-gation and lack of ownership.

Fortunatly, the main public area is located in the very middle of the site - that creates great potential for a meeting point, and an area that can connect the other parts of the site.

The site - Conclusion

82

100mN

There is a potential in connecting the surrounding areas through the mid-dle public park area.

83

”We must consider not just the city as a thing in itself, but the city being percieved by it’s inhabitants.”

- Kevin Lynch, 1959

IVResident participation

We chose to make around a hundred quantitative interviews to gather inside knowledge from the locals in our Høje Taastrup worksite – located north of Høje Taastrup Station. On top of the interviews we did a series of “stalking sessions” to understand the use and movements in the project area.

We divided people into four age groups: child, young, adult, senior. The plan was to get the same amount of each group to answer the questions, which we managed to some extent.

The interviews, as well as the observation sessions, were not aimed at a specific gender, ethnicity or age (although we tried to get equal amounts of each gender) and the results are therefore a good summary of the mo-vements in the area and the use of the outdoor spaces. The results are also a good indicator of the local denizens’ general thoughts about the area, as well as ideas to how it can be improved.

To make sure we didn’t bother the locals too much in their daily business, we chose to keep the questions in the interview short and pretty direct. The aim was to keep the interview sessions at around 1-2 minutes per person.

Our aim was to answer some of the questions in our project by taking our research to the field and including around a hundred locals in the planning to gain a better and wider understanding of the area.

Hypothesis: before doing the interviews we wrote down some of our thoughts and ideas of what we expected would happen:

- Children’s playground: our assumption was that the main users of the outdoor areas would be young children. Adults and young people mainly move through the area.

- Weather dictates: as it usually is in Denmark – the weather will dictate and define how the area is used.

- Safety first: considering that Gadehavegaard is on the “Ghettolist” we assumed that the biggest concern would be safety – especially in the night time. Emphasis on tunnels and lighting.

(A) Passive observation

Interviews

86

(B) Active observation

Methods: are based on Jan Gehl’s research on how people use the city: (Gehl & Svarre, 2013)

Observation: how do people move through and use the area at different times of the day?

(A) Passive: choose certain activity-heavy places, stay and observe move-ments and area use.(B) Active: follow someone through the area - often combined with an interview.

Interviews: asking people about their opinions and experiences. See our interview guide to the right.

INTERVIEW GUIDE

1) Do you live in the area?

2) Where have you been?

3) Where are you going?

4) Do you use the outdoor areas? How?

5) What is your favourite place?

6) What is your least favourite place?

7) If you could, what would you change?

Child Young Adult Senior

Male Female

87

The research was done during and around the easter break in April, and it was done at different times of the day as well as on different days of the week to gain the most broad understanding possible of the movements and area use.

The observation sessions gave us a good understanding of the movement patterns in the area. It seems that the most important destination areas were the Høje Taastrup Station in the southwest and the super market in the east.

The diagrams below show the people count and weather in the area at the time we spent observing and interviewing people. A car counts as a person in our observations.

As we assumed to begin with, the weather played a big role in how many we met outside, but so did the day of the week, and time of the day. The general first impression was that this was a family dominated area.

ObservationsThe map on the opposite page shows the general flow through the area based on our observations.

Fences and closed off areas had of course a big say in how the movement flow had developed in the area. The shortest way to a certain destination is almost always the most used, and the shortest way is always defined by the amount of obstacles along it.

Almost no people used the tunnels along the west-east road (Gadehave-gårdsvej) that divides the area. This is probably mainly due to saving time by avoiding going down a ramp and then up again, but safety and lighting might play a role. It was far more common to just cross the road and con-tinue through the parking lots.

Wednesday25th March 2015 16:00 + 1 hour

people seen people seen people seen people seen people seen people seen people seen people seen54 43 267 133 230 383 167 253

Thursday26th March 2015 15:00 + 1 hour

Saturday28th March 2015 12:00 + 3 hours

Monday30th March 2015 12:00 + 2 hours

Wednesday 01st April 2015 16:30 + 3 hours

Friday03rd April 201513:00 + 3 hours

Sunday05th April 2015 13:00 + 1 hour

Monday06th April 201513:00 + 3 hours

88

100mN

Less used routesMost used route

89

We were able to interview 30 children - 13 females and 17 males – all of them were living in the area.

Question 1 - Where have you been? ”School” and ”Home” were the most common answers to that question. The children we met were usually going around with their parents, grand-parents or older siblings.

Question 2 - Where are you going?”Home” and ”Football” were the most common answers to that question. Next answers in the table were ”Out Playing” and ”Shopping”. Taking into consideration that it is children that we are dealing with, these an-swers were expected.

Question 3 - Are you using the outdoor areas?”Playing” was the most common answer, then came ”Football”. Again not very surprising answers – children are usually very active.

Question 4 - Which is your favourite place?”Football field” and ”Playground” ended up being the most common an-swers, then ”School area”, ”Club” and last ”Green Spaces”. Considering children are usually not allowed to go far away from the house on their own, their favourite places were mostly very local.

Question 5 - Which is your least favourite place?”Tunnels” and ”Roads” were the common answers to this question. Most children didn’t really have an idea of what places they liked the least, but they often answered with which places they weren’t allowed to go to by their parents.

Question 6 - What to change? With this question we got more different answers, spread on ”Cars”, ”More Light”, ”Better Playground”, ”Dogs Away From Football Field”, ”Skate Area”, ”No Scooters” and at last ”More Safety”. We have to remember that the children we interviewed rarely were alone, and the answers were of course slightly influenced by their guardians - especially some of the interest in increasing the safety seems to be a parental con-cern rather than the thoughts of the children.

Summing up:- Most of the children came from home or school, and were going home or out playing football. - They are usually using the area for playing or football, and their favouri-te places are also the places where they can do that. - Tunnels and roads ended up being their least favourite places. - While many had safety concerns, we consider the most realistic child answers the ones regarding sport and play; skate area, football field and better playground.

Interviews - Child

90

43 %Male

Female

57 %

What is your favourite place?

What is your least favourite place?

Where have you been?

PlaygroundPlayground

Green

spaces

Tunnels

No scooters

Shopping

ShoppingPlaying

Playing

Parking

Playground

City2

More light

SchoolSchool area

Station

Cars

Station Club

Roads

Skate area

Home

Home Football

FootballWalk

Football

field

Dog area

Safety Remove

dogs from

football

field

12

12

1212

14

1414

16

16 16

10

10

10 10

8

8

8

8 8

20

25

6

6

6

6 6

15

4

4

4

4 4

10

2

2

2

2 2

5

0

0

0

0 0

0

Where are you going?

Use of outdoor areas? What to change?

91

We were able to interview 30 young people - 8 females and 22 males – almost all of them were living in the area.

Question 1 - Where have you been? ”School” and ”Home” were as we expected the most common answers to this question.

Question 2 - Where are you going?”Station” and ”City 2” were the most common answers, which made us feel like the young people didn’t want to stay in the area, and that they rather want to do something outside the area. Next came; ”Home”, ”Meet With Friends”, ”Dog Walking” and last ”Walk”.

Question 3 - Are you using the outdoor areas?”Football” was the most common answer to this question, considering most of the young interviewees were boys, this makes sense. Next came ”Fitness”, ”Walk”, ”Meet With Friends” and last ”Dog Walking”. Seeing as many are using the outdoor areas to play football tells us that the foot-ball field in the center of the site is often used. Some would also use the new outdoor fitness area in the park.

Question 4 - Which is your favourite place?”Football Field” was the most common answer, next came ”Fitness Spa-ce” and last ”Benches”. From this we can conclude that the young people are active and need a place to hang out - perhaps near one of the sport facilities?

Question 5 - Which is your least favourite place?”Tunnels” was what almost all the young answered as their least favourite place. The tunnels are often avoided - mostly because it is just easier to cross the street rather than walking down and up a tunnel ramp.

Question 6 - What to change?”More Light” was the most common answer, then comes ”No Tunnels”, ”More Benches”, ”Better Football Field” and last ”No Dog Poo On Foot-ball Field”. We might have polluted the answers as we often offered the words ”light” and ”tunnels” when people didn’t know what to answer, but seeing as young people often are outside in the evening, then a lack light might be a legitimate issue.

Summing up:- Most of the young people comes from home or school, and go mainly to places outside the area like the station or City2. - They are usually using the outdoor areas to play football or doing fit-ness. - The Tunnels are their least favourite place, and they often avoid them. If they could change something, most of them answered ”More Light” and ”No Tunnels”, but considering our involuntary influence, the more rea-listic assumption would be that they would be interested in a place they could hang out in.

Interviews - Young

92

27 %

73 %Male

Female

What is your favourite place?

What is your least favourite place?

Where have you been?

Where are you going?

Use of outdoor areas? What to change?

12

12

12

12

12

12

1416

16

16

20

10

1010

10

8

8 8

8

8

8

6

6 6

6

4

4 4

4

4

4

2

22

2

0

00

0

0

0

FriendsHome

Home

City2 Walk Sation

Station

Dog

walking

SchoolFootball

field BenchesFitness area

TunnelsParking

Remove

dogs from

football

field

Better foot-

ball field More

benchesMore lightNo tunnels

Dog

walkingWalkFitnessFriends

Football

93

We were able to interview 32 adults - 17 females and 15 males – almost all of them were living in the area.

Question 1 - Where have you been? ”Home” and ”Shopping” were the most common answers to this questi-on. Next came ”Station”, ”City 2”, ”Family”, ”Work”, ”Playground” and last ”School”.

Question 2 - Where are you going?”Home” was the most common answers. Next comes; Walk, Shopping, Station, Work and last Dog Walking. The lack of people going to and from work in the first two questions is probably due to them stopping by a supermarket or the station on the way, and only stating that in the answers.

Question 3 - Are you using the outdoor areas?Almost all the adults we interviewed answered ”Walk” as what they used the area for. This gives us a picture of that there aren’t many places for the adults to go other then their homes, but maybe this was determined by the weather. Next came ”Dog Walking”, ”Football”, ”Shopping” and last ”Biking”.

Question 4 - Which is your favourite place?”Green Spaces” and ”Playground” were the most common answer, and this tells us that most of the adults we talk with might have children. They like the ”Playground” because it’s close to their homes and their children can play there. The same applies for why they have answered the ”Green Spaces”.

Question 5 - Which is your least favourite place?”Tunnels” and ”Parking lot” were the most common answers to this ques-tion, and next came ”Roads”, ”Scooter” and last ”Station”. This gives us a picture of that they don’t like the tunnels in the area, and they rather walk over the roads than use the tunnels. Big roads and cars are conside-red unsafe and are avoided if possible.

Question 6 - What to change?”More Light” were the most used answer, and then ”More Green”, ”More Benches”, ”Better Playground”, ”Less Motor Vehicles”, ”Station” and last ”More Safety”. Safety was the main concern - probably due to the adults raising their children in the area.

Summing up:- Most were coming from their home or going there, and they usually use the outdoor area to take a walk. - Their favourite places were the green spaces and the playground, which tells that it probably is mostly families with children that live out there. - Their least favourite places are the parking lots and the tunnels due to safety concerns. - If they could change anything, they would install more light and in ge-neral increase the safety for their children.

Interviews - Adult

94

53 %47 %

Male Female

What is your favourite place?

What is your least favourite place?

Where have you been?

Where are you going?

Use of outdoor areas? What to change?

12

12

1214

14

1416

1618

16

10

10

10

10

8

8

8

8

6

6

6

6

6

4

4

4

4

4

2

2

2

2

2

0

0

0

0

0

12

16

20

8

4

0

City2HomeFamily School

Playground

PlaygroundLake

Green areasStation

Work

Work

BikingFootball

Dog walking

Dog walking

Walk

Walk

Station StationParking

SafetyMore green

More lightMore

benchesLess

motor

vehiclesPlayground

RoadsTunnels

ScooterHome

Shopping

Shopping

Shopping

95

We were able to interview 12 seniors - 8 females and 4 males – almost all of them were living in the area. We unfortunatly didn’t get as many se-niors as we did in the other age groups since we had to stop questioning people seeing as we already had reached the planned 100 interviews.

Question 1 - Where have you been? ”Home” was the most common answer to this question, and next came ”Shopping”, ”Out With The Grandchildren” and last ”Station”.

Question 2 - Where are you going?Again ”Home” was the most common answer, which shows us, combined with the answers to where they have been, that they mainly stay at home and just go for a little walk once in a while. Other answers were ”Walk” and ”Shopping”.

Question 3 - Are you using the outdoor areas?”Walk” was the most used answer to this question, and next came ”Sit On Bench” and last ”Feed Ducks”. The answers tell us that they use the area very locally and usually don’t stray too far away.

Question 4 - Which is your favourite place?”Green Spaces” was the most common answer to this, and then some answered ”Benches”.

Question 5 - Which is your least favourite place?”Parking lot”, ”Roads” and last ”Tunnels” were the answers to this ques-tion, which tells us that they are more into nature rather than the urban landscape. This could also be seen as a safety issue, maybe the seniors feel unsafe in the area.

Question 6 - What to change?”More Green”, ”Better Crossings” and ”Less Cars” were the common answers to this question. Looking at their least favourite place again they didn’t like the roads and the tunnels, and now they are pointing out that would have less cars and better crossings - pretty much like the adults and some of the young had answered.

Summing up:- Most of them comes from their homes or from shopping, and are going home or out for a walk. This shows us that they stay in the area. - They like to walk - mostly in the green spaces.- Their least favourite places are the urban areas such as the parking lots, roads and tunnels – there could be a safety issue here. - If they could change anything, they would like some more nature and better crossings over the roads.

Interviews - Senior

96

67 %

33 %Male

Female

What is your favourite place?

What is your least favourite place?

Where have you been?

Where are you going?

Use of outdoor areas? What to change?

3

4

2

1

0

6

4

2

0

6

4

2

0

6

8

4

2

0

2

1

0

12108

6

4

20

Shopping

Shopping ParkingRoads

Tunnels

Home

HomeWalk

Walk BenchFeed ducks

More greenMore

benches Better

crossings Less cars

Green areasBenchesOut with

grandchild Station

97

Which is your favourite place?The most common answers were; ”Football Field”, ”Playground” and ”Green Spaces”.

Which is your least favourite place?”Tunnels” and ”Roads” were the most common answers, so there is definitely something wrong here – could be a safety issue. Next comes; ”Parking lot”, ”Station”, ”Dog Walking Area” and last ”Scooter”.

Interviews - Results

Lake

Fitness spaceBenches

Football field

Club School area

Green spaces

Playground

1 %

8 %3 %

3 % 3 %

22 %

25 %

35 %

Roads

Parking lots

Tunnels

Station

Dog areaScooter

25 %

19 %

42 %

6 %

5 %3 %

98

What to change?Looking at the overall answers from the four age groups we can se that the most common answer to this question was ”More Light” – this could have a connection to the tunnels, lack of safety, segregated and isolated areas. Often people had trouble answering this question, which resulted in us helping and propably polluting or influencing the results. The most rea-listically honest or uninfluenced answers were probably; ”Cars”, ”More Benches”, ”Better Playground”, ”More Green”, ”Dogs Away From Foot-ball Field”, ”No Tunnels”, ”Skate Area”, ”More Safety”, ”Better Cros-sings” and last ”Better Football Field”.

More light

More greenBetter road crossing

Better foot-ball field

No dogs on football field

Tunnels

More safety

Car related

Skate area

More Benches

Better playground

No scooters

19 %

9 %

3 %

1 %

6 %

5 %

2 %

14 %

4 %

11 %

10 %

4 %

99

Seeing as the middle area of the site has several institutions for children, it was natural to gain more insight into how the children use, and think of, the outdoor areas.

As seen in the results for the interview sessions, it was not easy for us to contact the children directly - mostly due to us feeling it was inappropria-te to approach them without parental supervision when they were outside playing.

To avoid this, we arranged a small workshop with the local youth club. This way we could approach the local children under the supervision of the pedagogues and hopefully get the their own, almost uninfluenced, opinions.

WorkshopThe task was simple; draw or write what you like or dislike about the area on a post-it and stick it on the map. There was no limit to how many post-its could be placed.

There was a good interaction between us and the children, and we got a lot of usable feedback from both genders. Some would rather talk with us than draw and write, and we respected that. Many children had a good understanding of the layout of the site, but only on a very local scale - some had even trouble pointing out the club-house.

The workshop lasted three hours, and around 20 children participated on and off - some more than others. Below are the results from the workshop summed up.

POSITIV

E

SPORT FACILITIES

- Football field -

- Swimming pool -- Parkour course -

- Water -- Nature -

DISCONNECTION

- Areas outside the site -

- Fast and heavy traffic -- Parking lots -

- Tunnels -

NEG

ATIV

E

100

101

On a broad scale our hypothesis was more or less correct, but we encoun-tered some surprises:

Interviews:

- People often move in groups: for some reason we had expected that we could catch people one by one. Instead we often found families or friends walking together in smaller groups, and the interviews were therefore often done with more people answering the questions together and thus potentially ”polluting” the individual opinions.

- When a person couldn’t answer a question we might have polluted the interview by offering help and hints. Allowing enough time to think the questions through or leaving them blank might have been a better soluti-on.

- Most people lived in the area, only very few visited. Even though this was expected, we had assumed that there would be more visitors.

- Since the observations were done in the spring time, we might not have gotten the whole picture of how the area is used. The observations would definitely show more use during the summer months when the weather is usually less cold.

- We might have placed people in the wrong age group - especially amongst seniors/adults and children/young. Our definition for each group was loosely based on our own opinion of the person in question.

- We avoided contacting many of the small children who were playing on their own due to common sense. Parents probably wouldn’t be happy to see strangers talking to their kids. This issue was solved with the works-hop.

- Most of the children we met were with their parents, older siblings or grandparents, so it was hard to determine if their opinions were their own or polluted.

Resident participation - conclusion

??!

102

Observations:

- Like the interviews, the weather determined how many people we saw during the eight days we spent in the area.

- We did not count how many people we followed for the observations, as we loosely followed the walking flow in the area.

Workshop:

- Just like in the interviews, we might have ”polluted” some of the an-swers by offering advice.

- The children’s use of the outdoor areas was defined by a set of bounda-ries set by their parents. As an example, none of the children we spoke with were allowed to cross the bigger roads on their own, and therefore they considered the outer areas as dangerous or ”bad”.

- Their understanding of the site was, not surprisingly, limited to a very local scale.

Results and conclusion:

We are generally satisfied by the results from the interviews, stalking sessions and the workshop, even though some could have been executed in a better way.

The results will be used as inspiration for the development plan for the site in the proposition chapter.

103

”Less is more.”

- Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, 1960

VPropostion for development plan

VisionThere is a great potential in using the green public space as the joining force on the site. Small changes can enhance the area through stronger identity and bind the surroundings better together.

Concept

The main concept of the proposal is opening the public park area in the middle to increase the cohesion on the site. The concept will be based on The Suburban Think Tank’s recommendation on making use the already existing attractive qualities, and redeveloping them, instead of erasing what is already there, and starting from scratch.

Connections, multifunctionality and ecology as seen in the historical chapter will also play a role in the concept.

The proposal will be minimalistic in design, and it will mainly stay on a conceptual basis that has it’s roots in the theoretical and analytical part of the project.

Reclaiming the road

Gadehavegårdsvej will be thinned down from four lanes to two, which gives us the opportunity to make the public green space bigger.

The former road area will be turned into recreational areas that obtain their identity from the already existing adjacent areas. In total the reclai-med road will have four different, easily recognizable, themes;

”Children and play”, ”Activity and Sport”, ”Orchard park” and ”Urban park”.

On top of this we propose that the four existing tunnels along Gadehave-gårdsvej will be closed, the ramps filled with dirt and the pedestrian paths lead across the road. By closing the tunnels we bring people up to the cars - thereby adapting the former car road to a more multifunctional shared space.

South of Gadehavegårdsvej, the lowered areas that work as ramps down to the tunnels will be reinvented as swales or ”rain gardens” for sustai-nable collection of rainwater on the site.

Based on out interview analysis, a path that connects the site directly to Høje Taastrup station is needed. While the public spaces become bigger, many of the existing trees and shrubs will be thinned out and replaced by light pioneer species to open up the middle area.

106

100mN

107

Children and play area

Activity and sports area

Unbuilt area kept untouched as wild grass Connection to Hoje Taastrup

Station secured

Existing passage ways

Reclaimed road

108

Orchard park

Parking lots are moved

Urban park

allotment gardens are moved

109

A

Reclaiming the street: road replaced with activity areas

Shared space for cars and pedestrians.

a

Gadehavegårdsvej

Aa

Road concept

The road is today four-lane, and as we can see on the section to the right, it takes up 17 m in total. Considering that this is a road mainly used to reach the local parking lots, the size is considerably out of proportion.

Such a wide road gives the opportunity for racing and driving fast as we learned from our interviews and workshop.

The area marked on the map above has potential to be turned into a sha-red space area, reducing the road to two lanes from four. Making the road thinner gives the opportunity to increase the size of the adjacent areas to the north.

The remaining two lane road should of course have a reduced speed limit that is enforced by speed bumps, thus turning the strip into a multifuncti-onal, shared space for both pedestrians and cars.

110

Some of the paths are cur-rently lead through tunnels under the road.

We propose reclaiming the road, closing the tunnels and leading the path across the remaining road.

Path concept

There are four bigger paths through the middle area. Two of these are lead directly through tunnels. The orange lines on the map above show the existing paths, while the purple show the proposed changes and additions. The purple circles indicate three of the four tunnels that the proposal is focusing on.

As we learned from our interviews and observations, the tunnels weren’t very popular, so it made sense to close them and lead the paths across the road.

As we saw during our observation sessions, the path near the school that leads towards Høje Taastrup station is being used the most. Here was in our eyes a potential in continuing the path towards the station. Further emphasizing this path could make the journey better and safer for the locals.

111

Plant concept

The plantings in the area mainly consist of Acer, Prunus, Sorbus, Qu-ercus, Ulmus, Tilia and Betula. They are often planted in rows with smal-ler trees and shrubs that visually (and to some degree physically) turn these rows into inpenetrable barriers.

We propose to thin out some of the trees and shrubbery to open up the middle areas towards the reclaimed road strip. New plantings along the road should be light pioneer trees such as Betula or Populus. The ”Or-chard park”-area will be turned into an apple-orchard themed park with new Malus plantings.

To secure the site for future generations of planners and residents through means of ecological sustainable design the proposal recommends to use the lowered tunnel ramp areas south of Gadehavegårdsvej as swales or ”rain gardens”.

Most of the existing planting is thinned out and replaced by light pioneer species to open up the area.

The ”Orchard park” will have clusters of Malus trees.

The already existing holes of the tunnel ramps are turned into swales or ”rain gardens”.

Water from the road is lead into the swale where it sinks into the ground or evaporates instead of leaving the site through the sewer system.

The already existing holes af-ter the tunnel ramps south of the road are filled with gravel or other types of sand and soil with high water infiltrati-on capabilities.

Trees and plants around the swale must be capable of withstanding sudden heavy rain.

Conceptual section of the swales:

112

Activity concept

The area has many activities, but these are not integrated that well to-gether. The residents - especially the children during our workshop - had many ideas about enhancing the activities and adding new ones.

The reclaimed road strip could really make the area more coherent, as well as giving the adjacent areas their own individual identity by adding different activities along it.

Skating and parkour

Connection through activities

Sport and activity

Nature and produce

Urban life and passage

113

1

2

Activity and sports areaChildren and play area

Connection to Høje Ta-astrup Station emphasized by avenue planting.

Green unbuilt arealeft as a temporary grass field.

Proposal

114

3

4

Orchard park

Urban park

Activity and sports area

Activity patch

Allotment gardens

Swale or rain garden

Parking lot

115

Children and play area1The area south of the school has been turned into an urban playground.

The existing ramp down to the now closed tunnel has been transformed into a skating area. With few ressources and by utilizing the ramp slope, the dark and neglected tunnel has become an area for skaters as well as parkour. This concept with skating and parkour continues through the ”Children and play” area.

The choice of parkour and skating was heavily influenced by the works-hop with the local children, but also by noting what the site lacked and the potentials it offered.

Taking advantage of the tunnel ramp’s qualities, and redeveloping it into a playground is a prime example of the great potential in the suburbs. The same can be said about the swales south of Gadehavegårdsvej - suddenly the tunnel-littered suburban landscape is not only a negative thing, but rather something that has great development potential for future use.

As seen in the history chapter, Jane Jacobs points out that before people will use the public areas, there has to be safety, privacy, trust and to-getherness. One way of achieving this, is by giving the locals a relation to the area by giving it an identity - and this is exactly what the proposal is attempting to do.

The planting in the area has been thinned out towards the road, but some of the bigger trees are kept for playing purposes. New planting towards the road will as mentioned before mainly consist of already existing spe-cies such as Acer, Quercus, Ulmus and Tilia.

116

117

Activity and sports area2The activity and sports area is mainly located between the football field and Gadehavegårdsvej, but some ”sports patches” sneak into the Orchard park.

To give some more life to the area, we have added some new activities along the road and connected them with the existing ones to make them more attractive. Two petanque courses, a small multifunctional course (football, basketball etc.) and a variety of different fitness workout spots - although these activities are mostly considered conceptual, and they could therefore be replaced with other activites.

The different sport activites, and their very central location - as well as the close proximity to Gadehavegårdsvej - will add more life and offer intersections between people in the area.

The interaction between the ”Activity and sports” area and the ”Orchard park” will create a multifunctional use area that different types of people could find appealing at different times of day.

The plantings through the area will mainly consist of light pioneer spe-cies such as Betula, Salix and Fraxinus to keep the open, light look. The trees will be planted in small clusters of 2-3 trees to bring the area down on to a more comfortable human scale.

118

119

The park area is the binding piece of the whole site. Here people can walk their dogs, take care of an allotment garden, pluck some apples, enjoy their picnic or put up a grill.

The park has been made more cohesive through connections and multi-functional through different activities - based on some of Jane Jacobs’s ideas on how to assure the best physical conditions for urban life.

The orchard and the allotment gardens can offer the locals knowledge about ecology and bring them closer to nature. Ian Mcharg points out that planners should design with nature and even though this area is in the middle of the city, the plan is to give it a countryside feeling.

With the ”Activity and sports” area intertwined with the ”Orchard park” the middle park area offers plenty of activites for the whole site.

Most of the plantings to the south will be removed with the exeption of some of the bigger trees to maintain the feeling of a closed space. The theme of light pioneer trees continue along the road in the southern part of the park.

Apple trees will be planted through the park in clusters of three on rows, and the distance between the trees should at least be 8-10 metres to keep an open park feeling. Once the trees have grown big enough, they will be further cut down so only one tree per cluster stands in the end.

Against the western edge of the park, towards the football field, bushes and shrubs like Corylus and Ribes will be planted.

Orchard park3

120

121

The Urban park area is today used as a parking lot, but the area also has a kebab house.

From our interviews and workshop, we learned that this area actually is a place where people would meet and eat during the lunch breaks. Today the area in front of the kebab house does not seem very inviting, but it has a great potential for becoming just that - and with Jane Jacobs’s principals that things like eating and drinking is a sign of life, we wanted to make this area more inviting to stay in.

As we understood, the timeframe of social life in this area was limited to the opening times of the kebab house, so the area had to offer more than that - and it has to compete with what the ”Orchard park” has to offer.

The proposal is an urban area with trees dug into the concrete floor alongside benches, creating small spaces where people can hang out or enjoy their lunch. The ”Urban park” is still considered mainly a passage for pedestrians and cyclists - which lead to keeping the concrete floor rather than replacing it with grass.

But with some tree groups and places to eat, the urban park area gives the opportunity for staying. The parking lot is moved out to the street, so the cars do no longer dominate the area.

The plan is to keep this area a light expression - again with mainly pione-er species such as Betula, Salix and Fraxinus.

Urban park4

122

123

We started this project with the knowledge that many things in the su-burbs are not working as they were intended by the planners who desig-ned them. Many of these issues we have experienced ourselves on a daily basis, both as planners and as suburban residents; the neglected buildings, abandoned left-over areas, the segregation of functions and a general lack of cohersion as well as multifunctional areas.

At the same time, we approached the project with a positive attitude, and hopes in the opportunities and beauty of the suburbs. For as we can admit to the suburb’s lacks, we must also acknowledge their great potential.

The modernistic suburbs started as a good thing, offering light, space, air and health in a world and time where the opposite was a part of the daily life. As the technology advanced, the economy grew, and the normal Danish families could afford better housing than the social projects could offer. This lead to falling rent prices, the neglect of the physical elements and increasingly poor and criminal residents moved in.

Today we are aware of these issues and planners work on solving them through reinvention and redevelopment. The residents do no longer want the big abandoned parking lots and grass fields - they want interesting outdoor spaces, that offer an abundance of different activities that the residents themselves have helped to plan and design.

The planner’s role has moved a lot since the modernism, and the in-clusion of local residents in the planning process is - and should be - a common part of the process itself. We learned a lot about the site during our interviews, observations and workshop that we ourselves would otherwise have had no chance of knowing or learning about.

The solutions for the suburbs are fortunatly many, but we as planners must recognize that there is no universal recipe that can solve all the issues at once. Each site must be approached individually. This means that even though we found many solutions to the issues around Gadeha-vegaard, not all of them would necessarily be appliable to any of the other eight ghetto cases we visited.

Most of the suburban modernistic projects are already undergoing big renovations. These are unfortunatly based very locally in any given area, and they do often not take the adjacent sites into consideration when planning the outdoor areas. In general, adjacent areas should have better communication when it comes to shaping the outdoor landscape - for how else are we supposed to break the current segregation and isolation bet-ween different areas?

Our aim for improvements in the Danish ghettos was mainly based around ideas of connection, cohersion and multifunctional use of outdo-or areas. This changed slightly, as we included other concepts, that we learned through reading the theoretical ideas of primarily post modernistic planners, as well as the Suburbs Think Tank’s ten recommendations for improving the suburbs.

As a result, the proposal for Gadehavegaard is based around the concept of redevelopment of the suburbs - supported by sustainable planning, multifunctionality, cohersion and connections.

In the end, we believe that we achieved more than what we set out to do with this project.

Conclusion and perspectivation

124

Høje Taastrup, and the suburbs in general, are in a phase where densifica-tion is inevitable. The human population keeps growing, and so does the demand for housing. At some point, the suburbs will slowly become more city-like, and maybe lose some of the characteristics that currently define them.

The site around Gadehavegaard has some potential regarding building new housing - more specifically the oversized parking lots hold potential for redevlopment for other purposes - maybe even housing in the future.

In regard to the physical suburban issues, the official ghetto list is rather lacking, but it is positive that the list has sparked a debate and interest - not only about the ghetto areas – but also about the suburbs as a whole. This has for instance fueled the Suburbs Think Tank’s ten recommendati-ons for physical improvements.

The biggest problem of the ghetto list is of course that the focus lies too heavily on the current ghettos, and thus neglecting other suburban areas, that potentially might become ghettos over time. Maybe planners should work more preventive, rather than only patching up what is already broken, seeing as many of the same negative physical traits can be found throughout the suburbs – and even though the traits do not directly enfor-ce bad behavior, they do not help solving it either.

Many of the planners in the historical chapter base their theories on how to affect human behavior through changing the physical environment. Some even claim that bad behavior is directly linked to certain physical traits. So the final question must be; can you change human behavior th-rough the means of physical planning? The short answer is yes, but there must also be ethical considerations, for when do planners overstep their

boundaries in regards to social engineering? How about the local resi-dents, how much say should they have in the planning process, without taking the planners job?

The lines between the planner and the local residents have become more blurred since the days of modernistic planning, and we, the planners, have to adapt to these changes in the years to come to maintain the capability of providing the best design solutions for a given site.

125

Books and articles

Bidstrup, Knud Ebenezers disciple – Fra dansk byplanlægningspionertid, 1971

Danmarks Statistik Statisk Tabelværk, Første Hæfte, 1935

Gehl, Jan Life Between Buildings, Arkitektens Forlag – The Danish Architectural Press, 1987

Gehl, Jan & Svarre, Birgitte How to study public life, Island Press, 2013

Howard, Ebenezer Garden Cities of To-Morrow, London: S. Sonnenschein & Co., 1902

Jabareen, Yosef Rafeq Sustainable Urban Forms, SAGE publications, 2006

Jacobs, Jane The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Pelican Books, 1961

Københavns Kommune Statistisk årbog for København og Frederiksberg, 1919

Københavns Kommune Statistisk årbog for København, Frederiksberg og Gentofte Kommune, 1933

Københavns Kommune Statistisk årbog for København, Frederiksberg og Gentofte samt omegnskommunerne, 1961

Le Corbusier The City of To-Morrow and Its Planning, London: John Rodker, 1929

Mcharg, Ian An Ecological Method for Landscape Architecture, Landscape Architecture Vol. 57, pp. 105-108, 1967

Mcharg, Ian Design With Nature, Landscape Architecture Vol. 57, pp. 105-108, 1967

Mumford, Lewis Introduction to The Garden Cities of To-Morrow, London: Faber and Faber, 1946

Newman, Oscar Defensible Space, London: MacMillan, 1972

Newman, Oscar Creating Defensible Space, Institute for Community Design Analysis, 1996

Nellemann, Vibeke & Stahlschmidt, Per Metoder til Landskabsanalyse, Grønt Miljø, 2009

Pope, Albert Ladders, Series: Architecture at Rice, 34, 1996

Realdania Fremtidens Forstæder, Bogværket og Realdania, 2013

Litterature

126

Movies and documentaries

Friedrichs, Chad The Pruitt-Igoe Myth: An Urban History, 2011

Danmarks Radio (dr) 100 års indvandring, 2003

Map sources

www.historiskatlas.dk

http://map.krak.dk/

https://www.google.dk/maps/search/gadehavegaard/@55.6526974,12.275172,16z/data=!3m1!4b1

Web

Web 1 (December 2014) http://politiken.dk/indland/politik/ECE1992698/regeringen-indfoe¬rer-nye-kriterier-for-danske-ghettoer

Web 2 (March 2015) http://www.htk.dk/Erhverv/Erhvervsomraader/By-udviklingsprojekter/Hoeje_Taastrup/Hoje-taastrup-c.aspx

127

Jaffer Janjooa - kqn207 Rami Al-Khumisi - lmc217

Supervisor: Gertrud Jørgensen

Ghetto Vestegn- a study on the issues and potentials in the Danish suburbs and an development pro-

posal for the area surrounding Gadehavegaard

31. July 2015

45 ECTS masters projectLandscape Architecture

University of Copenhagen