I live in Ørestad and I like it: 1) flats are modern (big balconies, big bathrooms, however really badly designed, the one in my flat has 5m2 and most space is lost, I think people in Copenhagen don't know how to use space in bigger bathrooms ;)) 2) flats are cheap and easy to rent 3) metro goes 24/7 and it takes 10 mins to be in Kongens Nytorv 4) nature is a big, big plus, lack of trees in Copenhagen is really depressing, I was growing up near big forest and I missing it 5) I can sleep with open windows, because the lack of the noise The biggest problem is lack of good restaurants. They are promising some space for them in Bella Kvarter. And I think that actually space under metro tracks, can be also used to build some pavilion there. But I'm from Warsaw, city of no urban planning. Where new neighborhoods are build without public transport, schools and sometimes even without asphalt roads ;).
1) seems to be true for most of KBH's newer apartments. 30% of the usable space is lost because of poor Layout or built-in furniture choices. E.g. our bathroom has a giant useless mirror which takes up half of the wallspace but the only storage space is a small drawer under the sink...
One of the negative things about Ørestad is that because everyone drives it creates a lot more political pressure for parking and wider roads in the rest of the city. These car centric urban extensions can negatively affect the rest of the city as well.
But that's not true. Out of the 68 "kvarter" (districts) in Copenhagen Ørestad City is the one with the least cars per inhabitants at only 120 per 1.000 people. Ørestad Syd has 145 per 1.000. The worst one is Østerbro Nord with over 320 per person (all data is directly from Copenhagen municipality at Københavns Statistikbank). 120 is an astonishingly low number. Maybe there are districts in Europe with a lower rate of car ownership but I've never seen a Western city come even close to these numbers. You can not really get further away than 800m from a Metro station in Ørestad. I suppose people either use that or bike or a bit of both.
This place reminds me of what the London Docklands was like about 20 years ago. The built the Canary Wharf tower in the middle and the Docklands Light Railway and the rest of it was a wasteland. Over time they started building lots of blocks like this, but it was still dead. It's only in the last 5-10 years that life has really started appearing everywhere. I think the newer builders are better designed, but also, the place has become more dense and organic over time. It's a bit depressing to think that Orestad has been there 20 years already, but maybe in another 20 years it will be a nice place to be
Yes i was thinking the same. Interesting to compare with the Stratford ex-Olympic park where they are starting to add arts and education destinations next to the ubiquitous shopping mall. It already feels livelier than docklands did say 15y ago.
@@SrenVestermark we’re waiting for your video. I’m glad I don’t live in Ørestad, and I know canary wharf, I know docklands, they are better, Ørestad is worse than isle of dogs 🐶.
Modern apartment construction with little to offer the streetscape other than a real estate company office in the retail space to sell you apartments above, sadly universal
It’s pretty fascinating. It’s such a 90s thing to build, and it’s got a lot of downsides. But it also has a lot of upsides and it seems like most if not all the problems can be fixed and it can be great. Make it more dense, get rid of the cars or least move to car sharing rather than ownership, and it won’t be too bad. And even now, it’s better than a lot of places to live.
The only reason Orestad sucks has been summed up by Anne Katrine in the first sentence - they have built the mall as a center piece. There is not really much more arguments.
@@LucaBersano Why no culture? I would strongly disagree. I found the community is very active and self organized. There is the street-hall with many regular activities for both adults and kids (yoga, zumba, climbing, football, rollerskating etc.). Ice skating arena is another place where many find activities, and there is new playground in the Bellakvarter. There are excellent spots for bird-spotting, camping, trekking, jogging, horse-riding in the Amager Fælled and Kalvebod Fælled for the nature lovers. There is the royal arena, which not only hosts world class concerts but various other events. The library organizes various activities, including for foreigners. And there is also a cinema. So plenty of culture in my opinion. :) I lived there about 4 years and I loved it, and you will find most people living there love it. I just wish there would be more life on the Orestad boulevard and other streets, however the mall makes it impossible for small business to operate there. And as of history, that is not something fair to expect from a newly built district, that is something urban planners can't just built-in.
There’s a few things missing here in terms of nuance. I too used to dislike Ørestad, but I think urban planners have learnt from their mistakes and things are also already improving. A good example of this is the fact that one of the biggest issues, lack of urban density and excessively wide lanes is improving, because more flats are being built. It’s kinda hidden (and not shown here), but with the extra flats come the local supermarkets, local cafes and restaurants etc. This aspect was sorely missing from the video. Plus, there is a lot of green-space which residents will appreciate. Also, as the woman mentioned, building transport (metro) first was a good choice. Indeed, it slowly but surely spurs urban development. He says he can’t see the additional density (new flats), well I’m sorry to say he just wasn’t looking. There’s tons of new flats completed in the last few years and more currently under construction. Lastly, in terms of lessons learnt, both Nordhavn and Sydhavn developments are mostly being built according to the right standards: higher urban density, walkability, human scale, narrow roads for primarily walking and cycling (apart from access roads) etc. And he’s dismissing Sydhavn/Nordhavn too, I mean come on, they’re still in development! Come back in 5-10 years and then tell me they’re failing neighbourhoods! The woman even kinda calls him out on it lol Yes, there’s room for criticism, in fact Copenhagen has way too many wide roads, way too few trees and way to few attempts to reduce car-traffic in the city center, but this is all a general problem and there’s a case to be made that the new developments (especially Nordhavn and Sydhavn) will offer a higher quality of life than some more centrally located flats stuck along busy boulevards, at least if nothing is done.
We have the same problems in Leuven. Even though there's a lot of demand for extra housing most central redevelopments have very modest heights and densities with a big focus on luxury apartments. And on the outskirts of the city, they keep building the same old boring semi-detached neighbourhoods. If only the new plans were based on the dense and vibrant streets that make our city so sought after in the first place.
This really reminds me of Vancouver where there is very high density development filled with boring looking modern high rises along a skytrain (metro) line that is surrounded by nothing or swaths of single family homes.
The Ørstad! Copenhagens very own piece of watered-down Amagericana! All made possible by The Copenhagen Metro System and The Øresundsbron! Yes the original/uncorrupted idea/vision for the Ørestad sounded awesome back in the day (late 90s/early 2000s). So did a lot of other urban development projects in the Øresund region. But now some 20-ish years later it has become commonplace and "just there" even if there are some of the buildings out there that sticks out of the ground craving your attention. It's kinda like the same feeling I get with Västre Hamn area (home of the Turning Torso skyscraper) of Malmö. Back in 2001 it was an exhibition area for the Bo01exhibition that showcased what was new and cutting edge for building materials and building designs in Sweden. Since then a lot of new and somewhat generic buildings (Crtl+C and Ctrl+V buildings) has filled up the the rest of Västra Hamn district much like the remaining empty plots of land in The Ørestad today. So today Västra Hamn, despite the harbour front being a popular destination during warm summer days, is 'just' another part of Malmö like the Ørestad has 'just' become another part of Copenhagen. I would love for you to check out Malmö especially some of the newer areas some time in the future on your channel.
I feel like there were a lot of loaded questions in this interview. It’s clear she doesn’t share the same level of disdain that you have for the area. When I visited Ørestad in 2015 and again in 2018, I thought it was an interesting part of Copenhagen. Yeah, it’s like a cross between a shopping mall in the states and a trendy hipster neighborhood, but it was kind of cool for what it was. Does it stick out like a sore thumb compared to Copenhagen city proper? Sure. But is that necessarily a bad thing? I honestly don’t think so.
I cycled through Ørestad last year in April, two months after moving to Copenhagen, while I was cycling around to get to know the city. I did not know about it I just thought it was a random new neighborhood (I’ve actually just learned that it’s a “special” neighborhood). I really thought at the time that it was hell on earth and that for nothing in the world would I move there, it was just so depressing.
I watched this video a year ago, and it almost made me NOT move into Amagervest. However, I did and it was amazing. This video is wrong in many ways. There is A LOT of stuff that this video doesn't showcase and instead it concentrates on transit streets where there are no houses and nobody lives. Metro is amazing and it takes me approx 12min to Nørreport. I cycle to work every day, ~30min, and there is A WHOLE BICYCLE ONLY path to the city that Mikael forgets to mention here. The single big-ass problem we have is that By&Havn still owns the land, and we don't have equal rights (or services) like other parts of Copenhagen. It is a little B&H paradise where they are allowed to change the urbanism or public services as they wish. This is the real topic and the real reason why nobody owns apartments or starts business here - we are not allowed to.
what a soulless place. We've been offered a new apartment for rent there, but when we saw an apartemnt looks like airport where we can get lost, we said no, thanks:)
20:06 I think for one, colours could be a nice addition to areas where there's not enough sunlight. If you live in the very city centre, you won't get a whole lot of sunlight, but there are so many other qualities that who the hell cares about light. In any case, you can always find a square to get light. You don't HAVE to get sunlight in the afternoon when you get home from work from your apartment or balcony. It's just not realistic. The point about density is a great one. For some reason, it's considered a human right in newer urban developments to own a car. A question never posed to people in Vesterbro because it's not relevant. Cars will fit, and otherwise you will just get buyers who don't care about cars. It's a non-issue so don't bother giving it any notice. I like Nordhavn's solution of basically just having a parking house so the cars are hidden away or Carlsberg Byen with the car basements. Yet, I still think the target should be reducing the amount of cars in the city, not encouraging car ownership. We're not a car producing nation, so we don't have to care about any industry at all, like the Swedes or the Germans do.
In terms of the Nordhavn-Østerbro comparison: Where are you getting your numbers from? From what I can gather, Inner Østerbro is around 7km2 while Nordhavn will be around 4km2 when completed. So it's actually not 6 times bigger, but in fact a bit smaller. Or am I missing something?
Ørestad like Västra hamn in Malmö like so many of this type of places needs more fully mature trees and a ton of street level cafes / restaurants. The idea of building cafe or something under the metro is fantastic - there are excellent examples of this in Berlin at Friedrichstrasse station in Berlin (go east after visiting Tränenpalast) and Charlottenburg (12 Apostel is an awesome pizza).
It looks like Suburban San Francisco Bay Area (Pleasanton) or SoCal Orange County industrial sprawl. Isolated, not walkable, smalls of rotting wildlife in the summer.
@@RedSntDK I meant the city centre. Other than the intersection and roads, it seems people go to funny-O-restad because it is quiet (lack of noisy neighbour parties, etc). Lack of trees in Copenhagen city centre might also be a factor.
It's actually the district in Copenhagen with the least cars per person which surprised me. Also the density can be somewhat confusing to gauge because it's not finished (even less so when the video was shot). It might not quite be Amagerbro Vest (on paper the "kvarter" with the highest density in Copenhagen) but it's also definitely not Gentofte-Hellerup. Right now Ørestad City kvarter has a density a little over 15k per km² which considering it's mixed use and partially unfinished is not that bad. Amagerbro Vest has 34k but is more or less exclusively residential. Ørestad City has 15k with maybe almost a third of the area being the Bella Center (I'm not kidding, that thing is humongous). They built some kinda pedestrianized streets there in an attempt to replicate other parts of Copenhagen or Barcelona or whatever. In My opinion it's still not very nice but on the numbers it's not that bad. I have mad respect for less cars than the people in the Brokvarter. They should get real and sell their cars right now. There's only 120 cars per 1.000 people. For Europe that's a ridiculously good number. Østerbro Nord has around 3 times as many cars per person. The fuck do they need that for? And I double checked, a higher percentage of Østerbro Nord are below 20 than in Ørestad City (and they almost obviously don't own a car) which makes it look even worse for Østerbro.
Oblong areas, as opposed to square, make the average distance to cafes, shops, restaurants, ... father away. People are quite distance sensitive when going out to cafes, bars and so on. This may be part of the reason Ørestad feels so dead. The area to the east of Ørestad should be rezoned to allow taller apartments instead of the current mixture of single family homes, 2 story buildings and allotments (kolonihaver). This would allow for a lot more residents and thus a better foundation for cafes, shops, bars and so on. These new residents would still be near the metro stations, as they are placed on the east side of Ørestad.
Hello Mikael I really like your work. I understand your point of view for most of these projects and I agree. Can you please upload your ideas about what projects are actually a good idea or your ideas about projects that can benefit the beautiful city? Thank you
I agree that the planning is ørestad is just a distaster, but I've visited Nordhavn, and it's actually not too bad. Quite good density, and narrow streets meant for walking lined with trees. a far cry from Øresta. it also takes time for a new neighborhood to find its identity and life, it is never gonna be lively from day one, no matter how well it's built. It is true however that some of the architecture there is quite cheap/uninspired though, which is a shame. I think it's important to remember that Copenhagen does need more housing, and it needs to be built somewhere. Copenhagen should never become stagnant
Convenience - the enemy of life. I was there for two nights with my son, at the weekend. He liked the layout. Maybe it's better for the young??! Pul's bar was very nice!
There is a lack of analysis here - saying something sucks isnt enough. Yes it may not have the allure of a centuries old historic core but it works well as an affordable dormitory suburb of the city . What it lacks is destinations - the university part is fantastic but happens to be closest to the centre. The rest is a long sequence of residential projects of varying quality but still far better than what youd see in many / most cities. I agree that the boring long rectangular shape reinforced by the metro and roadway infrastructure is a key part of the problem though - would have been nice to see some of that in the video instead of the abuse of poor innocent passers-by!
Exactly. Sure, this isn't the best example of modern urban planning but considering this is basically a suburb, it's far better than most suburban developments even in neighbouring Scandinavian countries. I live in Tallinn and most of the new suburban "dense" developments are way-way worse than Orestad.
Most people who moved out there do it for profit. The basics and fundamentals for the Urbanism that these two are talking about and the projects out in Ørestad are very different from each other. In Urbanism ALl the fundamental pillars for a society has already been set and developed to a maturely level. It's fundamentals of things like "Nature vs Culture" , demographics and migration. SO after these conditions are have been set you architect conditions for urbanism in order to imrpove on the living conditions, which will evt. and hopefully lead to wonderful cultureism's. A good example for what Ørestad actually is, is the american mega-mall-model. Here you really don't want to create culture or urbanism as a 1st priority. So you skip a lot of these fundamental pillars and force something into an area in order to hasten/create the process for development. So what the american mega-mall-model is, is a large investment in a huge attraction into an area which the investors hope to make a huge profit out of. This happens either by calculating the demographic in an area and give the illusion of grandeur that people need this building, or building this grand structure in order to attract people to migrate there. So what is the difference?? Well, in Urbanism you use architecture to help the culture and demographic and in the examples of Ørestad etc. you use the Demographics in order to make profit. The architect and culture in the area are secondary in all of this. It doesn't mean that it can't work out somehow. Humans often finds their ways of doing things. It just takes some fundamental changes be4 it will be too late. Honestly when one thinks about it there is not much of a difference between Ørestad and Bakken. Outside the attractions there isn't much worth mentioning. I would even dare say that there is more nature around Bakken to behold and less inconveniences for one to move around. So either implement fundamental pillars for living conditions there and or else keep feeding capital into it and hope for more demographics to migrate there. If nothing works it will evt. go down to the state of terrain vague in it and it's surroundings. Just look what happens to all the Mall culture around not only the US, but the whole world. Either hope it becomes a more living-friendly environment, else let's hope we keep develop in the field of transportation science. When every1 can either teleport to their destination, levitate and don't have to use ones legs for transport, else we all become so rich we can hire 8 men and a carriage each to move us around. Just imagine that horrible potential future where everything natural to the human body would just become obsoleteXD. Omg am getting to far out now. Should stop rewatch science fiction movies so much.
I think, with enough housing, in time the southern portion will turn into its own community area, perhaps integrated with tarnby or dragør . The locals will create thier own service ecosystem and otherwise "commute" into Copenhagen
Oddly enough, when I visited Ørestad, I had a glass of wine at the restaurant bar at Bjarke Ingel's '8' Building. I totally agree about the sense of scale and car dominance. I think it could be much more improved had the public realm been designed for the microclimate. Long straight corridors don't work in CPH, especially in such a windy open exposed part of the city. It really reminds me of Limbo in the film Inception. 😂
That shot by the mall reminds me of the Vegas Strip from behind. Like the other side of the picture perfect. Sad. And There needs to be a better model than Manhattan.
Orestad mega sucks as someone who lived there for 2 years in 2 different places They are expensive, and very far away. Most people living there don't live by choice (but a lack of housing in general). Only 1 metro line (if it breaks good luck), very windy and far by bike from the center. Also, to go to e.g. Teglhomen takes forever without a car. With a car it takes minutes. That is NOT OK. It's so car-focused it's crazy. Also also, at 8:53 you make a point that it doesn't look nice from the air, but that is a fallacy. Most people don't get to see it from the air anyway, just because it looks "not nice" from the air doesn't mean it is bad living there. But in this case, it sucks on both living and how it looks from the air...
Wow ! The place has got two of BIG architects iconic buildings ! well that makes it really hard to say that the area sucks. The interview too hasn't really convinced me that it sucks, she seemed to like it. I haven't been there and seen the neighborhood, so I really cant draw conclusions. Could you please make a solo video explaining why you think it's bad and what were the mistakes made ? Would love to hear your take. Love your content, Im an urban scientist/planner to be from Singapore. Very fascinating to see the European planning / culture.
As someone who lives in Copenhagen, and who has a few friends who are renting flats out in Ørestad - it's the lack of personality, combined with the stark contrast between it and the rest of the city. The fast streets are also a big issue, when cars are driving 60 kmph it makes pedestrians feel as though they are walking next to a intercity highway. It's uncomfortable and noisy, and prevents any sort of life in the street from forming organically. I think humans, by default, like public spaces and want to affect them and partake in them, but with a fast street like this, they are preventing people from doing what people are best at - living. Another problem is the apartment-complexes that are developed by investment funds and the like. Much of Copenhagen (40%) is comprised of cooperative housing, which means that the people who live there have a stake in how it looks and how it is maintained. When big investment funds do the urban planning they only care about keeping maintainance costs down. This means no fun little birdhouses, no plants put in the yards by the inhabitants, no lush green foliage that requires gardening etc.. So it's all very grey and drab, I've never seen anyone "hang out" in the yards out there, whereas in the rest of Copenhagen a lot of people (myself included) basically live in their yards more than they do their apartments. That's where you run into neighbors, party, sit and have coffee and so on, but not so in Ørestaden. The list could go on, but really Fields, the mall, is the biggest problem. It's not super cool inside, and it prevents any sort of small businesses from cropping up outside. I dont know what they were thinking. It's also inaccessible, or at least less accessible by bike than anyplace else in Copenhagen, which means very few Copenhageners actually go there. It's mostly people from outside of town who drive in by the ringway and hop off at Fields.
It's very unappealing to pedestrians and cycling - the landscape and design forces people to drive to get here. It's devoid of life and humanity. It's designed for cars, not humans. The downsides seem pretty clear to me!
The answer is that Ørestad is more than 5 km long. You will find places like the ones they show which are depressing (but the area around the mall is also far from finished) but you will also find great examples of city life combined with proximity with nature. Especially the southern part works a lot better. But as demonstrated in this video it really easy to have a preconceived opinion and then make a video that matches it. It’s lazy storytelling at best and outright incompetence at worst.
The motorway sound is awful in the background. I got an advert at exactly the same time as the baby stirred! WOW! I'm from northern England and I stayed at the hotel next to Fields, not the best design with stuffy rooms. Field's is not great either. On one side there's an awful stepped entrance. I did like walking to the airport and the beach. The Metro and trains got you away quickly, though. Going to a pub to drink is not great because of the cost of the alcohol anyway.
Ørestad is to windy and as you mention there is no life outside the mall, but nobody mention the elephant in the room the ugly cold modernist buildings , witch is even more ugly seen from above when you are in a tall building, I'm sure there are a lot of nice apartments seen from the inside the buildings and many have a balcony or even a small garden I think that is what the people living there like, and they can get to the highway fast, but it lack soul it's not a place you go for a nice walk or a place you visit to enjoy the architecture as it's so ugly, most buildings are also grey or black, the few with color is looking like something from 1960 the ugliest colors one can imagine in ugly materials, architects and planners live in their own bubble and haven't noticed 75-85% hate modernism, and by the way post modernism as it is just modernism in a weird shape, people like slanted roofs classical buildings aor buildings that are a mix of modern and classical or if more modern/post modern at least use nice good materials like stone and wood ect. and nice soft colors in between, a lot of other countries have gone back to classical buildings and some schools have started teaching it again a long time ago, modernism is out dated if it was ever a trend for other than architects it's not like a lot of private houses was ever build in that style and most people chose a slanted roof on their private new build it also last longer in a country with all that rain and when it snows it's even worse, classical buildings are timeless, long lasting and people love them
Det bliver til et fedt dislike herfra. Du mangler at tage rundt i hele bydelen, så du fortsætter bare den negative fortælling om bydelen du har læst/hørt andre kritikere komme med. Jeg havde forventet mere af dig.
I live in Ørestad and I like it:
1) flats are modern (big balconies, big bathrooms, however really badly designed, the one in my flat has 5m2 and most space is lost, I think people in Copenhagen don't know how to use space in bigger bathrooms ;))
2) flats are cheap and easy to rent
3) metro goes 24/7 and it takes 10 mins to be in Kongens Nytorv
4) nature is a big, big plus, lack of trees in Copenhagen is really depressing, I was growing up near big forest and I missing it
5) I can sleep with open windows, because the lack of the noise
The biggest problem is lack of good restaurants. They are promising some space for them in Bella Kvarter. And I think that actually space under metro tracks, can be also used to build some pavilion there.
But I'm from Warsaw, city of no urban planning. Where new neighborhoods are build without public transport, schools and sometimes even without asphalt roads ;).
1) seems to be true for most of KBH's newer apartments. 30% of the usable space is lost because of poor Layout or built-in furniture choices. E.g. our bathroom has a giant useless mirror which takes up half of the wallspace but the only storage space is a small drawer under the sink...
Jeg bor der også
Du har basically bare opdaget hvordan det generelt er i danmark, uden for kbh
One of the negative things about Ørestad is that because everyone drives it creates a lot more political pressure for parking and wider roads in the rest of the city. These car centric urban extensions can negatively affect the rest of the city as well.
But that's not true. Out of the 68 "kvarter" (districts) in Copenhagen Ørestad City is the one with the least cars per inhabitants at only 120 per 1.000 people. Ørestad Syd has 145 per 1.000. The worst one is Østerbro Nord with over 320 per person (all data is directly from Copenhagen municipality at Københavns Statistikbank). 120 is an astonishingly low number. Maybe there are districts in Europe with a lower rate of car ownership but I've never seen a Western city come even close to these numbers. You can not really get further away than 800m from a Metro station in Ørestad. I suppose people either use that or bike or a bit of both.
@@tobi2731 Certainly anyone who would start their car from Ørestad and drive into city would be a complete moron (parking fees) or unimaginably lazy.
@@mufflejoy I mean tell that to the people in Østerbro Nord who own around 2-3 times as many cars.
@@tobi2731 Exactly - apaprently a 2500 kg SUV is absolutely necessary to bring a 25 kg child to school.
This place reminds me of what the London Docklands was like about 20 years ago. The built the Canary Wharf tower in the middle and the Docklands Light Railway and the rest of it was a wasteland. Over time they started building lots of blocks like this, but it was still dead. It's only in the last 5-10 years that life has really started appearing everywhere. I think the newer builders are better designed, but also, the place has become more dense and organic over time. It's a bit depressing to think that Orestad has been there 20 years already, but maybe in another 20 years it will be a nice place to be
Yes i was thinking the same. Interesting to compare with the Stratford ex-Olympic park where they are starting to add arts and education destinations next to the ubiquitous shopping mall. It already feels livelier than docklands did say 15y ago.
Don’t believe what you see in this video. The deliberately chose shots that does not represent the area.
@@SrenVestermark we’re waiting for your video. I’m glad I don’t live in Ørestad, and I know canary wharf, I know docklands, they are better, Ørestad is worse than isle of dogs 🐶.
Time does heal all wounds. How much time is the question.
Great comment, Mark!
Modern apartment construction with little to offer the streetscape other than a real estate company office in the retail space to sell you apartments above, sadly universal
It’s pretty fascinating. It’s such a 90s thing to build, and it’s got a lot of downsides. But it also has a lot of upsides and it seems like most if not all the problems can be fixed and it can be great. Make it more dense, get rid of the cars or least move to car sharing rather than ownership, and it won’t be too bad. And even now, it’s better than a lot of places to live.
The only reason Orestad sucks has been summed up by Anne Katrine in the first sentence - they have built the mall as a center piece. There is not really much more arguments.
No culture? No history ?
@@LucaBersano Why no culture? I would strongly disagree. I found the community is very active and self organized. There is the street-hall with many regular activities for both adults and kids (yoga, zumba, climbing, football, rollerskating etc.). Ice skating arena is another place where many find activities, and there is new playground in the Bellakvarter. There are excellent spots for bird-spotting, camping, trekking, jogging, horse-riding in the Amager Fælled and Kalvebod Fælled for the nature lovers. There is the royal arena, which not only hosts world class concerts but various other events. The library organizes various activities, including for foreigners. And there is also a cinema. So plenty of culture in my opinion. :) I lived there about 4 years and I loved it, and you will find most people living there love it. I just wish there would be more life on the Orestad boulevard and other streets, however the mall makes it impossible for small business to operate there. And as of history, that is not something fair to expect from a newly built district, that is something urban planners can't just built-in.
@@tema_cph fine, stay there, don't move.
There’s a few things missing here in terms of nuance. I too used to dislike Ørestad, but I think urban planners have learnt from their mistakes and things are also already improving. A good example of this is the fact that one of the biggest issues, lack of urban density and excessively wide lanes is improving, because more flats are being built. It’s kinda hidden (and not shown here), but with the extra flats come the local supermarkets, local cafes and restaurants etc. This aspect was sorely missing from the video. Plus, there is a lot of green-space which residents will appreciate. Also, as the woman mentioned, building transport (metro) first was a good choice. Indeed, it slowly but surely spurs urban development. He says he can’t see the additional density (new flats), well I’m sorry to say he just wasn’t looking. There’s tons of new flats completed in the last few years and more currently under construction. Lastly, in terms of lessons learnt, both Nordhavn and Sydhavn developments are mostly being built according to the right standards: higher urban density, walkability, human scale, narrow roads for primarily walking and cycling (apart from access roads) etc. And he’s dismissing Sydhavn/Nordhavn too, I mean come on, they’re still in development! Come back in 5-10 years and then tell me they’re failing neighbourhoods! The woman even kinda calls him out on it lol Yes, there’s room for criticism, in fact Copenhagen has way too many wide roads, way too few trees and way to few attempts to reduce car-traffic in the city center, but this is all a general problem and there’s a case to be made that the new developments (especially Nordhavn and Sydhavn) will offer a higher quality of life than some more centrally located flats stuck along busy boulevards, at least if nothing is done.
We have the same problems in Leuven. Even though there's a lot of demand for extra housing most central redevelopments have very modest heights and densities with a big focus on luxury apartments. And on the outskirts of the city, they keep building the same old boring semi-detached neighbourhoods. If only the new plans were based on the dense and vibrant streets that make our city so sought after in the first place.
This really reminds me of Vancouver where there is very high density development filled with boring looking modern high rises along a skytrain (metro) line that is surrounded by nothing or swaths of single family homes.
Reminds me so much of Richmond with the Canada Line going through it
The Ørstad! Copenhagens very own piece of watered-down Amagericana! All made possible by The Copenhagen Metro System and The Øresundsbron!
Yes the original/uncorrupted idea/vision for the Ørestad sounded awesome back in the day (late 90s/early 2000s). So did a lot of other urban development projects in the Øresund region.
But now some 20-ish years later it has become commonplace and "just there" even if there are some of the buildings out there that sticks out of the ground craving your attention.
It's kinda like the same feeling I get with Västre Hamn area (home of the Turning Torso skyscraper) of Malmö.
Back in 2001 it was an exhibition area for the Bo01exhibition that showcased what was new and cutting edge for building materials and building designs in Sweden. Since then a lot of new and somewhat generic buildings (Crtl+C and Ctrl+V buildings) has filled up the the rest of Västra Hamn district much like the remaining empty plots of land in The Ørestad today. So today Västra Hamn, despite the harbour front being a popular destination during warm summer days, is 'just' another part of Malmö like the Ørestad has 'just' become another part of Copenhagen.
I would love for you to check out Malmö especially some of the newer areas some time in the future on your channel.
I feel like there were a lot of loaded questions in this interview. It’s clear she doesn’t share the same level of disdain that you have for the area. When I visited Ørestad in 2015 and again in 2018, I thought it was an interesting part of Copenhagen. Yeah, it’s like a cross between a shopping mall in the states and a trendy hipster neighborhood, but it was kind of cool for what it was. Does it stick out like a sore thumb compared to Copenhagen city proper? Sure. But is that necessarily a bad thing? I honestly don’t think so.
protolexis What I liked is that they acknowledged that some people like it at the end. But obviously Mikael is not a fan 😆
I cycled through Ørestad last year in April, two months after moving to Copenhagen, while I was cycling around to get to know the city. I did not know about it I just thought it was a random new neighborhood (I’ve actually just learned that it’s a “special” neighborhood). I really thought at the time that it was hell on earth and that for nothing in the world would I move there, it was just so depressing.
I watched this video a year ago, and it almost made me NOT move into Amagervest. However, I did and it was amazing. This video is wrong in many ways. There is A LOT of stuff that this video doesn't showcase and instead it concentrates on transit streets where there are no houses and nobody lives. Metro is amazing and it takes me approx 12min to Nørreport. I cycle to work every day, ~30min, and there is A WHOLE BICYCLE ONLY path to the city that Mikael forgets to mention here. The single big-ass problem we have is that By&Havn still owns the land, and we don't have equal rights (or services) like other parts of Copenhagen. It is a little B&H paradise where they are allowed to change the urbanism or public services as they wish. This is the real topic and the real reason why nobody owns apartments or starts business here - we are not allowed to.
what a soulless place. We've been offered a new apartment for rent there, but when we saw an apartemnt looks like airport where we can get lost, we said no, thanks:)
20:06 I think for one, colours could be a nice addition to areas where there's not enough sunlight. If you live in the very city centre, you won't get a whole lot of sunlight, but there are so many other qualities that who the hell cares about light. In any case, you can always find a square to get light. You don't HAVE to get sunlight in the afternoon when you get home from work from your apartment or balcony. It's just not realistic.
The point about density is a great one. For some reason, it's considered a human right in newer urban developments to own a car. A question never posed to people in Vesterbro because it's not relevant. Cars will fit, and otherwise you will just get buyers who don't care about cars. It's a non-issue so don't bother giving it any notice. I like Nordhavn's solution of basically just having a parking house so the cars are hidden away or Carlsberg Byen with the car basements. Yet, I still think the target should be reducing the amount of cars in the city, not encouraging car ownership. We're not a car producing nation, so we don't have to care about any industry at all, like the Swedes or the Germans do.
Could we get an updated version of this - I really like living here
Next video will be about what not sucks? :)
I mean a good example opposite to this
Homesteads for actual living engaging people
Property developers talk big money. Cowardly politicians live in their pockets.
In terms of the Nordhavn-Østerbro comparison: Where are you getting your numbers from? From what I can gather, Inner Østerbro is around 7km2 while Nordhavn will be around 4km2 when completed. So it's actually not 6 times bigger, but in fact a bit smaller. Or am I missing something?
Ørestad like Västra hamn in Malmö like so many of this type of places needs more fully mature trees and a ton of street level cafes / restaurants. The idea of building cafe or something under the metro is fantastic - there are excellent examples of this in Berlin at Friedrichstrasse station in Berlin (go east after visiting Tränenpalast) and Charlottenburg (12 Apostel is an awesome pizza).
It looks like a really sad La Défense.
It looks like Suburban San Francisco Bay Area (Pleasanton) or SoCal Orange County industrial sprawl.
Isolated, not walkable, smalls of rotting wildlife in the summer.
Not to get all German on you, but it sounds like Copenhagen has a noise pollution problem.
They did call it "Scandinavia's intersection", but yeah, it is very noisy where they did most of the video.
@@RedSntDK I meant the city centre. Other than the intersection and roads, it seems people go to funny-O-restad because it is quiet (lack of noisy neighbour parties, etc). Lack of trees in Copenhagen city centre might also be a factor.
What mount do you use to put your camera on your bicycle? I love your videos! Thanks for always bring us great critical information
It's actually the district in Copenhagen with the least cars per person which surprised me. Also the density can be somewhat confusing to gauge because it's not finished (even less so when the video was shot). It might not quite be Amagerbro Vest (on paper the "kvarter" with the highest density in Copenhagen) but it's also definitely not Gentofte-Hellerup. Right now Ørestad City kvarter has a density a little over 15k per km² which considering it's mixed use and partially unfinished is not that bad. Amagerbro Vest has 34k but is more or less exclusively residential. Ørestad City has 15k with maybe almost a third of the area being the Bella Center (I'm not kidding, that thing is humongous).
They built some kinda pedestrianized streets there in an attempt to replicate other parts of Copenhagen or Barcelona or whatever. In My opinion it's still not very nice but on the numbers it's not that bad. I have mad respect for less cars than the people in the Brokvarter. They should get real and sell their cars right now. There's only 120 cars per 1.000 people. For Europe that's a ridiculously good number. Østerbro Nord has around 3 times as many cars per person. The fuck do they need that for? And I double checked, a higher percentage of Østerbro Nord are below 20 than in Ørestad City (and they almost obviously don't own a car) which makes it look even worse for Østerbro.
Oblong areas, as opposed to square, make the average distance to cafes, shops, restaurants, ... father away. People are quite distance sensitive when going out to cafes, bars and so on. This may be part of the reason Ørestad feels so dead.
The area to the east of Ørestad should be rezoned to allow taller apartments instead of the current mixture of single family homes, 2 story buildings and allotments (kolonihaver). This would allow for a lot more residents and thus a better foundation for cafes, shops, bars and so on. These new residents would still be near the metro stations, as they are placed on the east side of Ørestad.
Hello Mikael I really like your work. I understand your point of view for most of these projects and I agree. Can you please upload your ideas about what projects are actually a good idea or your ideas about projects that can benefit the beautiful city? Thank you
I have just cycled through orestad on a trip to Copenhagen absolutely weird feeling / dystopian area
I agree that the planning is ørestad is just a distaster, but I've visited Nordhavn, and it's actually not too bad. Quite good density, and narrow streets meant for walking lined with trees. a far cry from Øresta. it also takes time for a new neighborhood to find its identity and life, it is never gonna be lively from day one, no matter how well it's built. It is true however that some of the architecture there is quite cheap/uninspired though, which is a shame. I think it's important to remember that Copenhagen does need more housing, and it needs to be built somewhere. Copenhagen should never become stagnant
Only a fraction of Nordhavn is developed. Wait for what's coming
Convenience - the enemy of life.
I was there for two nights with my son, at the weekend.
He liked the layout. Maybe it's better for the young??!
Pul's bar was very nice!
There is a lack of analysis here - saying something sucks isnt enough. Yes it may not have the allure of a centuries old historic core but it works well as an affordable dormitory suburb of the city . What it lacks is destinations - the university part is fantastic but happens to be closest to the centre. The rest is a long sequence of residential projects of varying quality but still far better than what youd see in many / most cities. I agree that the boring long rectangular shape reinforced by the metro and roadway infrastructure is a key part of the problem though - would have been nice to see some of that in the video instead of the abuse of poor innocent passers-by!
Exactly. Sure, this isn't the best example of modern urban planning but considering this is basically a suburb, it's far better than most suburban developments even in neighbouring Scandinavian countries. I live in Tallinn and most of the new suburban "dense" developments are way-way worse than Orestad.
Most people who moved out there do it for profit. The basics and fundamentals for the Urbanism that these two are talking about and the projects out in Ørestad are very different from each other. In Urbanism ALl the fundamental pillars for a society has already been set and developed to a maturely level. It's fundamentals of things like "Nature vs Culture" , demographics and migration. SO after these conditions are have been set you architect conditions for urbanism in order to imrpove on the living conditions, which will evt. and hopefully lead to wonderful cultureism's. A good example for what Ørestad actually is, is the american mega-mall-model. Here you really don't want to create culture or urbanism as a 1st priority. So you skip a lot of these fundamental pillars and force something into an area in order to hasten/create the process for development. So what the american mega-mall-model is, is a large investment in a huge attraction into an area which the investors hope to make a huge profit out of. This happens either by calculating the demographic in an area and give the illusion of grandeur that people need this building, or building this grand structure in order to attract people to migrate there. So what is the difference?? Well, in Urbanism you use architecture to help the culture and demographic and in the examples of Ørestad etc. you use the Demographics in order to make profit. The architect and culture in the area are secondary in all of this. It doesn't mean that it can't work out somehow. Humans often finds their ways of doing things. It just takes some fundamental changes be4 it will be too late. Honestly when one thinks about it there is not much of a difference between Ørestad and Bakken. Outside the attractions there isn't much worth mentioning. I would even dare say that there is more nature around Bakken to behold and less inconveniences for one to move around. So either implement fundamental pillars for living conditions there and or else keep feeding capital into it and hope for more demographics to migrate there. If nothing works it will evt. go down to the state of terrain vague in it and it's surroundings. Just look what happens to all the Mall culture around not only the US, but the whole world. Either hope it becomes a more living-friendly environment, else let's hope we keep develop in the field of transportation science. When every1 can either teleport to their destination, levitate and don't have to use ones legs for transport, else we all become so rich we can hire 8 men and a carriage each to move us around. Just imagine that horrible potential future where everything natural to the human body would just become obsoleteXD. Omg am getting to far out now. Should stop rewatch science fiction movies so much.
Du burde ansøge om, at blive en creator på nebula, det er en faktastisk platform, og passer godt til din kanal
I think, with enough housing, in time the southern portion will turn into its own community area, perhaps integrated with tarnby or dragør . The locals will create thier own service ecosystem and otherwise "commute" into Copenhagen
Oddly enough, when I visited Ørestad, I had a glass of wine at the restaurant bar at Bjarke Ingel's '8' Building. I totally agree about the sense of scale and car dominance. I think it could be much more improved had the public realm been designed for the microclimate. Long straight corridors don't work in CPH, especially in such a windy open exposed part of the city.
It really reminds me of Limbo in the film Inception. 😂
That shot by the mall reminds me of the Vegas Strip from behind. Like the other side of the picture perfect. Sad. And There needs to be a better model than Manhattan.
Orestad mega sucks as someone who lived there for 2 years in 2 different places
They are expensive, and very far away. Most people living there don't live by choice (but a lack of housing in general). Only 1 metro line (if it breaks good luck), very windy and far by bike from the center.
Also, to go to e.g. Teglhomen takes forever without a car. With a car it takes minutes. That is NOT OK. It's so car-focused it's crazy.
Also also, at 8:53 you make a point that it doesn't look nice from the air, but that is a fallacy. Most people don't get to see it from the air anyway, just because it looks "not nice" from the air doesn't mean it is bad living there. But in this case, it sucks on both living and how it looks from the air...
Er. If you asked me to give the name of a ‘real-estate shop’, I’d probably struggle for a second then land on ‘estate agent’s’
Hvad helvede er det for en fyldebøtte, der har tegnet det juks?
Wow ! The place has got two of BIG architects iconic buildings ! well that makes it really hard to say that the area sucks. The interview too hasn't really convinced me that it sucks, she seemed to like it. I haven't been there and seen the neighborhood, so I really cant draw conclusions.
Could you please make a solo video explaining why you think it's bad and what were the mistakes made ? Would love to hear your take.
Love your content, Im an urban scientist/planner to be from Singapore. Very fascinating to see the European planning / culture.
As someone who lives in Copenhagen, and who has a few friends who are renting flats out in Ørestad - it's the lack of personality, combined with the stark contrast between it and the rest of the city.
The fast streets are also a big issue, when cars are driving 60 kmph it makes pedestrians feel as though they are walking next to a intercity highway. It's uncomfortable and noisy, and prevents any sort of life in the street from forming organically. I think humans, by default, like public spaces and want to affect them and partake in them, but with a fast street like this, they are preventing people from doing what people are best at - living.
Another problem is the apartment-complexes that are developed by investment funds and the like. Much of Copenhagen (40%) is comprised of cooperative housing, which means that the people who live there have a stake in how it looks and how it is maintained. When big investment funds do the urban planning they only care about keeping maintainance costs down. This means no fun little birdhouses, no plants put in the yards by the inhabitants, no lush green foliage that requires gardening etc.. So it's all very grey and drab, I've never seen anyone "hang out" in the yards out there, whereas in the rest of Copenhagen a lot of people (myself included) basically live in their yards more than they do their apartments. That's where you run into neighbors, party, sit and have coffee and so on, but not so in Ørestaden.
The list could go on, but really Fields, the mall, is the biggest problem. It's not super cool inside, and it prevents any sort of small businesses from cropping up outside. I dont know what they were thinking. It's also inaccessible, or at least less accessible by bike than anyplace else in Copenhagen, which means very few Copenhageners actually go there. It's mostly people from outside of town who drive in by the ringway and hop off at Fields.
It's very unappealing to pedestrians and cycling - the landscape and design forces people to drive to get here. It's devoid of life and humanity. It's designed for cars, not humans. The downsides seem pretty clear to me!
The answer is that Ørestad is more than 5 km long. You will find places like the ones they show which are depressing (but the area around the mall is also far from finished) but you will also find great examples of city life combined with proximity with nature. Especially the southern part works a lot better. But as demonstrated in this video it really easy to have a preconceived opinion and then make a video that matches it. It’s lazy storytelling at best and outright incompetence at worst.
U should make a video on a new sustainable community in my city called Blatchford, in edmonton Alberta, Canada
There isn't anything wrong with Ørestad, just add better bicycle lanes.
Did you just call Øresund an ocean? 🤣🤣🤯 Definitely DEFINITELY need to get out of the city!
Im wondering how would you like Zagreb, Croatia. Atleast you would never be more then a stone throw from a coffe shop.
Oo i see my home from here! Yeah. Bike depression is real out in Ørestad.
Couldn't agree more!
Down with the shopping malls!
Please please please make some video on India 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
The motorway sound is awful in the background. I got an advert at exactly the same time as the baby stirred! WOW! I'm from northern England and I stayed at the hotel next to Fields, not the best design with stuffy rooms. Field's is not great either. On one side there's an awful stepped entrance. I did like walking to the airport and the beach. The Metro and trains got you away quickly, though. Going to a pub to drink is not great because of the cost of the alcohol anyway.
Ørestad is to windy and as you mention there is no life outside the mall, but nobody mention the elephant in the room the ugly cold modernist buildings , witch is even more ugly seen from above when you are in a tall building, I'm sure there are a lot of nice apartments seen from the inside the buildings and many have a balcony or even a small garden I think that is what the people living there like, and they can get to the highway fast, but it lack soul it's not a place you go for a nice walk or a place you visit to enjoy the architecture as it's so ugly, most buildings are also grey or black, the few with color is looking like something from 1960 the ugliest colors one can imagine in ugly materials, architects and planners live in their own bubble and haven't noticed 75-85% hate modernism, and by the way post modernism as it is just modernism in a weird shape, people like slanted roofs classical buildings aor buildings that are a mix of modern and classical or if more modern/post modern at least use nice good materials like stone and wood ect. and nice soft colors in between, a lot of other countries have gone back to classical buildings and some schools have started teaching it again a long time ago, modernism is out dated if it was ever a trend for other than architects it's not like a lot of private houses was ever build in that style and most people chose a slanted roof on their private new build it also last longer in a country with all that rain and when it snows it's even worse, classical buildings are timeless, long lasting and people love them
The Ørestad has a lot of ugly buildings, and they don't really fit together. The entire area still looks like a work in progress.
sad and messy development all over ørestad. no new urban development studies used, just lets put up some buildings and not give a sh*t
12:01 Loool
Det bliver til et fedt dislike herfra. Du mangler at tage rundt i hele bydelen, så du fortsætter bare den negative fortælling om bydelen du har læst/hørt andre kritikere komme med. Jeg havde forventet mere af dig.
trying to be dubai
First world problems.