We are now going to look at participation and urban development in one particular urban context, Amager, an island which is part of the Copenhagen region. First I will describe the general context, Amager, thematically contextualising the urban context which I will then go into a deeper analysis of, by working with two particular cases of urban development on Amager. The two cases are very different from each other; in scopes as well as perspectives. They show the wide range of activities covered by the term "urban development", but perhaps more significantly for my perspective, they represent different participation strategies as well as different approaches to ICT.
Before I start contextualising, a few words on my approach and form of presentation might be appropriate. Amager is not only chosen because it represents an interesting research case in "objective" terms, that is, because of the urban development projects going on there, and the particular participation experiences from these (good and bad). It is first and foremost chosen simply because I myself come from Amager. I am doing research in my own community, so to speak. In a later chapter, I will reflect more on the methodological approach I have been using. As for this chapter, I will take the perspective of the "critical reader" of the situation and contexts, with one particular interest, namely the cultural analysis of participation and urban development. The first step in such an analysis must be to explain the cultural context itself, trying to "trace" the cultural, local identity of the place. That will be useful in understanding how citizens participate, and how social life in the community is formed. Next step in the analysis will be to go into concrete cases, to look at the practice of participation, or non-participation, in significant urban development projects and activities shaping the future of the community.
The two cases I use are:
Each project gives me an opportunity to reflect on participation and urban development in different situations and contexts. Perhaps most obvious is the latter case, where I look at the citizens' own organisation and networks; thus by definition a participatory project and a potential source of participatory democracy in the community. In the former case, the Ørestad development project, the issue of participation is most often in local debates brought up as a question of lack hereof, and as an example of the "democratic deficit" in society (Gaardmand, 1996). In the public debate and among most Danish scholars of urban planning, the lack of public participation in the project has been held as a main critisism of the project. Exactly that critisism has followed the project ever since it first set out in 1990, and is today perhaps stronger than ever. And only second to some "radical professionals" (or professional radicals?), the local citizens have been among the most sceptical and openly conflict-oriented. The whole situation of and around the Ørestad project can best be described in terms of immanent conflicts between the local citizens and the "system". Actually, the situation is clear-cut, if we take the representatives from community groups and grass-roots leaders, they are all strictly against the whole idea of building the Ørestad, and they all agree that the minimetro is placed at the wrong place (and they even all more or less agree on an alternative route, under Amagerbrogade). The Ørestad is seen by citizens and their local representatives as something being forced upon Amager, not as something Amager wants, the community groups and leaders agree. "How typical - no-one asks us!" (Islands Brygge community activist/local historian, Sussie Paddison).
With the Ørestad being not the first, but the second, giant multi-billion-kroners Danish development project being placed on Amager in recent years/today - the first one being the Øresund Link to Sweden - the whole situation in Amager has been put into focus at national, even international, level. The projects are "of national interest", and both based on purpose-made laws (acts). While the Link has some obvious purely national features, e.g., the bilateral relationship with Sweden, there is in principle nothing that makes the Ørestad project "national" per se. The Link is inter-regional, crossing the national border, but Ørestad is intra-regional, where region means the capital region, in particular Copenhagen Municipality and County (and Frederiksberg Municipality concerning the minimetro). The Link was received on Amager in the same opposiitional manner; in fact, most people still regard the two projects as one and the same thing, concretely by mixing them up, not seeing the distinction between Ørestad and Øresund, but also in an interpretative sense: namely literally as "some shit" ["noget værre lort"].
"Shit" is actually an important local cultural metaphor, because Amager has for centuries had the nick-name "Shit Island". Copenhagen's latrine pit and soil tub moved from the centre of the city to Amager in 1777, in the beginning located in what is today the central urban areas, during the mid-19th century relocated to the north-eastern areas. Copenhagen did not get a proper sewage system until during the industrialisation, and not before then did a sewage pumping station and later Copenhagen's scavenging/sanitation plant replace the latrine system, but stayed at almost the same site, where it today still resides. Also, big areas on Amager have been used as refuse dumps, in fact, major parts of the reclaimed land on Amager, including parts of Ørestad, have waste the basic "ingredient".
Streetnames such as Acid Factory Road, Artillery Lane, Dumpyard Way, Refinery Way, etc. speak their own language, but in most cases, the names refer to the past. Other names, such as Oxford Boulevard, Uganda Road, Milan Road, etc., probably never had any real reference, however. In a recent e-debate (CD4URBAN-listserv), the term "brownfield" was discussed. That concept somehow fits very well to large parts of Amager.
"Brownfields" are abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion, redevelopment, or reuse is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination. (Kuhns (US EPA), on CD4URBAN 31.7.96)
Many so-called greenfields on Amager are in fact brownfields, if brownfields are understood broadly as "polluted" sites. For example, many former "wasteyards", "dumpyards") today "serve" as greenfields, in fact as some of the only "greenfields" near the city centre, and often used as public parks (they are sometimes so polluted that not even that can be allowed), play grounds, or other public facilities. The "green lung" on Amager, a large greenfield (some 35 squarekilometers) is reclaimed land, in part filled up with waste, then left to "natural development" for years, while being used for military purposes (leaving a lot of bomb shells and grenades), and only recently opened to the public. It has not been cleaned up, so people are not allowed to leave the designated paths.
In Denmark we have, thanks to the Association for Tourism (Turismens Fællesråd), a concept called 'Marguerite-routes', which is a grid of so-called pleasure values ('herlighedsværdier'), i.e. sites of 'culture, tourism and environment'. The routes are marked with road signs, so that the car driver (e.g. tourist) can easily follow a pre-planned sight seeing tour. Amager (actually, the whole Copenhagen region) was not found worthy of one single route! This provoked RAMA (a local magazine) to suggest an alternative route ('mælkebøtteruten': 'The Dandelion Route'). This route presents not only an alternative, but sadly true, image of Amager.
(pictures on-line at http://www.gotzespace.dk/wiredamager)
1. Prøvestenen. Fuel Island
2. Vølund-grunden. Industrial decay
3. 'Urbanplanen'.
4. Theodor Philipsensvej, Tårnby. (now motorway)
5. Kastrup - Copenhagen Airport.
6. Amager Fælled - Amager Common.
So, do these sites, extraordinary if not pleasant as they are, give a good impression of the anatomy of Amager? Yes, because they are good, or illustrative, examples. And no, because the anatomy is much richer. A brainstorm on other parts of the anatomy gave the following result:
7. Sojakagen. Industrial monument.
8. Oslash;resundskollegiet. Social ghetto.
9. Christiania. "Free City", alternative community
10. Dragør. Traditional village.
11. Kongelunden. "King's Forest".
12. Fælleden/Kalvebodkilen/Koklapperne. Nature parks.
13. Amager Beach.
14. Serum Institute - medical research centre
15. Bella Centre - exhibition centre
16. "Rocker Castles" - Hells Angels Headquarters
There are many other 'marguerites', and 'mølkebøtter'. 'Amager is a mosaic with extremely many pieces', as Karsten Lægdsmand from Amager Culture Shop says.
Amager is an island with an area of 65 km2. 150.000 people live there, and that is as many as in Odense or Ålborg (3rd and 4th largest cities in Denmark). But Amager should not be seen as an isolated island community; it is part of Copenhagen and should be seen as such. This urban mosaic is not only rich in the 'marguerite' sense: Amager is indeed rich on culture: It represents true cultural diversity - there are many 'sub-cultures' and 'life forms', and hundreds of organisations, somehow managing to co-exist. Compared to other parts of Copenhagen, the level of local activities is very high. 'Scratch the surface, and you'll see activity teeming underneath' (Lægdsmand). With regard to cultural activities there is a tendency to think in terms of an Amager culture, something not unlike an 'island culture'. When you, as I do, come from Amager, you are an Amagercan ('Amagerkaner'). As the chairman of Amager Culture Council says: 'I am Copenhagener, but first and foremost I am an Amagercan'. I think this attitude is very common on Amager - it certainly 'hits' me. I then wonder, is there such thing as a specific Amagercan cultural identity?? Answering this question is difficult, perhaps especially in my case (as I am Amagercan). There does not exist, in recorded form, any kind of amagerjin-ron (japadanish!!) - If nihonjin-ron is 'theory about Japanese cultural identity', amagerjin-ron must be: theory about Amagercan cultural identity. Understanding cultural identity is impossible if one does not know about the social conditions under which such identity has been shaped. The social history of Amager has, naturally, been influenced by the historical development of the whole Copenhagen region. In this development, Amager has been used by Copenhagen - many Amagercans would say abused. The 'Dandelion route' is illustrative: The island has certainly had its part of Copenhagen's dangerous, dirty and filthy 'businesses' (e.g., waste yard, execution area, chemical plants, airport, and now the Øresund Link). So why is it people are proud of being Amagercans? "Once Amagercan, Always Amagercan", the locals say; it might be refering to the "last stop" Amager has been, and still is, for many - the poor and homeless, for example. But it is also said with a sense of pride by many, and this cultural identity is in fact very strong. "Real Amagercans" have Ama'r-stickers on their cars (often instead of the DK-sticker), and many other ways of exposure of the identity are commonly used. We have to get deeper into and closer to this Klondyke called Amager to find the/an answer. The famous Danish writer H.C. Andersen might help us:
"...og endelig laae da Phantasiens store, herlige Tumleplads, det flade Amager, foran mig. En Beskrivelse over det Hele, kunde være en god Begyndelse til en Novelle. Ja hvem veed, om ikke endnu i Weisflogs og Tromlitzs Dage, vi læse i en Taschenbuch:
»Paa Sjællands østlige Side ligger den lille venlige Øe Amager,« o.s.v.
I Sandhed, her var da Plads for Tanken til ret at sværme om. Snart forekom det mig, at jeg promenerede paa den finske Bugt eller var paa det arcadiske Novaia Sembla; snart, at jeg vandrede gjennem Ørkenen Kobi, for at aflægge Dalai Lama en Theevisit, eller gjennem Sahara, for at finde Nigerflodens Kilder. - Nu fulgte jeg den hellige Caravane til Mekka, og nu stod jeg imellem Eskimoerne ved Hudsons Bugten."
Hans Christian Andersen: Fodreise fra Holmens Canal til Østpynten af Amager i Aarene 1828 og 1829.
The flat Amager, he says, is the great and magnificent playground for fantasy. He lets his imagination loose, and imagines first walking in the Finnish Bay or in arcadian Novaia Sembla, then through the desert Kobi, visiting the Dalai Lama for tea, or through Sahara to find the Niger Rivers springs, - "now I followed the holy caravan to Mecca, and now I was among the Eskimos in Hudson Bay". Even though Andersen had great imaginative powers, as his later career in fairy-tale-telling showed, his image of Amager is perhaps not a distortion of the "truth", neither at the time he wrote, nor for the image of Amager today. The self-image amagercans have is definitely related to such thinking; Amager is "wild", and indeed a playground for the free play of the forces of imagination. "We're the only ones crazy enough to do this ...", is the attitude held by many local activists and cultural entrepreneurs. Recklessness is not an uncommon characteristic of these "devil-may-care" people, nor is a sense of self-sufficiency.
I would like to emphasise that Amager in a sense first and foremost is a cultural (and geographical) entity. In governmental, regulatory and structural terms, "Amager" does not exist. Here, the northern parts of Amager are divided into three "bydele" (administrative wards/districts) within the Municipality of Copenhagen, while the southern parts are municipalities under the County of Copenhagen. My main concern is the northern parts, where one finds the inner-city urban neighbourhoods ("so-called "bridge-quarters"). "Inner-city Amager" is mainly the administrative unit "Sundby North", and the adjoining "Sundby South" is more suburban. The boundary between the two is, however, purely of an administrative character, since there is a high degree of integration between, on the one hand, central and southern Sundby North and on the other hand the northern parts of Sundby South. Sundby is one large community, which of course has its sub-communities, in fact, a true space for the politics of difference, since it represents very different communities, from the multiethnic, poor social housing districts in the north-east (Holmbladsgade) to the petit-bourgeois "Eberts Villaby (Villa Town)" in the south-west.
Hundreds of years ago, before the urbanisation on Amager, Sundby was a small village, which for reasons we don't know today became divided in two (anecdotes talk about a family feud in the 17th century). But these two villages were not north-south oriented; they became Sundby West and Sundby East! In fact, there is even today more reasoning in dividing Sundby in east and west. A distinct urban legend is today Amagerbrogade, the main shopping street on Amager, going all the way (north-south) through Sundby North and South. Amagerbrogade is called the "life nerve" of Amager. The inner-city character of major parts of the area around Amagerbrogade has a comparatively short history, compared to many other inner-city districts (e.g., the centre of Copenhagen); the area was urbanised after the industrialisation, in fact, much as a result hereof. During the late 19th century, Copenhagen expanded fast in size and population, and the urbanisation of Amager began. Most houses in Sundby were built during the first two decades of the 20th century, mostly as 5-floor blocks.
Sundby is a very large "urban district"; it has around 85.000 inhabitants. In total Amager has around 150.000 inhabitants. Besides "Islands Brygge" in the north-west, nearest to the city centre of Copenhagen, which is a rather "closed" urban community, isolated from from Copenhagen's centre by the harbour, and from Sundby by large green fields and public institution "campuses", and soon, perhaps, even by a motorway, the other parts of Amager are suburban Tårnby Municipality and almost-rural Dragør Municipality. These places are the oldest settlements on Amager; certain buildings there are over 800 years old. Large parts of south Amager have changed much during this century; most dramatically when Copenhagen Airport was built there, starting in the 1950s, expanding gradually ever since. Villages disappeared, and those that remained got a noisy neighbour. The village/town of Dragør was basically the only place that preserved, and preserves, the traditional village character. In these years, another big "piece of infrastructure" hits Amager: the Danish access ways to Øresund link (car/train-bridge) crosses over Amager, right through the centre of Tårnby town.
Some communities on Amager (especially the area around Holmbladsgade in Sundby North) are getting poorer and poorer. The Danish government has recently suggested that the poorest areas (the Holmbladsgade area) be accepted by the EU as an 'urban poverty area' (like areas in Greece, Ireland, Southern Italy, etc.), but without success. At the national level, however, the Holmbladsgade area has been selected as a central activity area by the "City Committee" (Byudvalget), a governmental, cross-ministerial body which in its report 'Første rapport fra Byudvalget' (October 1993) approaches "the urban problems", mainly those seen in relation to social ghettos, in particular relating to immigrants. (Diken, 1997) ,
The Municipality of Copenhagen is an object of obloquy in terms of local democracy. The municipality is a state within the state, with formal status as both a region (that is, a county) and a municipality. It is a monolith in comparison with the rest of Denmark's counties and municipalities; a giant among dwarfs. In the Danish context, that is. If compared to Tokyo, the whole capital region, even the whole country, would hardly count as one ward in the Tokyo Metropolitan area ...
The Municipality of Copenhagen is social-democratic territory, and has been so for many years. The social-democratic orientation not only labels the elected politicians in the city council (formally named "The Citizens' Representation"), the whole municipal system is seen as "social-democratic" (almost a swear-word among both the left and the right opposition; media; citizens; etc.). As in all (?) other governmental systems, the system is more than the (elected) politicians. In the case of the municipality of Copenhagen, the system is made up by tens of thousands of civil servants, working in a sectorial bureaucracy, where each level and sector has its own "politicians", i.e., decision makers and strategical planners. Some of these employees (managers) have built their own states in the state in the state. Depending on which sector's institutions and "offices" you look at, you will find "state forms" of all kinds.
The municipal system here refers to the whole system of institutions and departments of the Municipality of Copenhagen, including "public institutions" in the municipality, e.g. Capital of Culture 96, Copenhagen Electricity Board, Copenhagen Youth Centres (KUC), the unemployment offices, the high schools, the libraries, the urban renewal corporations, the traffic corporations, etc. The municipal system is a complex system, with relations to other (also complex) systems, e.g. the state, other municipalities and counties, other city regions, as well as to the commercial sector, and the local networks, citizens' groups, and grass roots organisations.
The design and social life of Copenhagen as a city is greatly influenced, and in many areas totally dominated by, the municipal system. It is my theory that social innovation within this system is virtually impossible. If social innovation is to take place in Copenhagen, it needs non-municipal intervention. The question is from where? And how?
From a democratic perspective, the first source is local democracy - the local net-works, the citizens' groups, and the community grass roots organisations. Without them, no real social innovation in the city can take place. In a democratic system, the municipal system would support the local democracy, not fight it. Unfortunately, the municipal system is not very supportive of local democratic development, although the present "urban district experiments", which were forced upon the municipal system by the state, have started a process of institutionalising local democracy, outside the town hall, in the local communities. So far, it is too early to say whether any real changes will happen. Since Amager was rejected as a participant in the experiments, I will not go into further detail with these experiments, even if they would be interesting cases.
Another source of non-municipal intervention is the state. The state is, by nature, "above" the municipal system, and it can and does use this to influence the municipal system. Although it is the exception rather than the rule to see the state use its power to support local democracy, it is important to be aware of the powers lying here.
The establishment of Amager Kulturråd (Culture Council) and Amager Kulturpunkt (Culture Centre) was a result of local events and activities that took place around an disused cinema in the Øresundsvej-Amagerbrogade neighbourhood on central Amager.
Amager Kulturråd (Amager Culture Council) is a community-based network-organisation which, independently of party politics and spanning the breadth of culture, business and local authorities, attempts to organise and start up activities on Amager. Local associations; societies and institutions; theatre and music groups; all types of recreational organisations; hobby groups or tenants associations; business associations; libraries etc.; as well as unaffiliated individuals may join and, through their membership, help strengthen and develop the activities of Amager Culture Council.
Amager Culture Council is also the local steering group for the various parts that together make up Amager Kulturpunkt: "a concert hall seating 1000, a number of smaller venues for music and theatre, a restaurant, a cafe, a gallery, conference rooms, teaching facilities, project development and coordination, and a shop" (Kulturpunkts homepage). Amager Kulturpunkt (1). consists of five elements: the House, a "citizens hall" or "community centre"; the Stage, a concert hall with several stages, cafes, etc., due open in early1997; the Shop, a neighbourhood secretariat and the home of Amager Culture Council; the Theatre, a regional theatre; and the Loft, a centre for the elderly. Each of these elements have their own background and history, and were until recently independent entities. Then in 1995, they were all integrated, and gathered in one place, as the Shop moved to the place, where the four others were located. The whole area where they are located were gathered structurally and organisationally into the Kulturpunkt, which has become probably the largest community activity centre in Copenhagen.
The culture council and its culture shop aims at cultural and social mobilisation of local ressources. The council has recently taken over the formal responsibility of the culture shop; until then, the shop was under municipal administration (as were the rest of the centre units, apart from the theatre, which is independent).
In 1989 Dansk Supermarked A/S took over the then disused cinema Amager Bio with a view to opening yet another discount supermarket. Amager Bio had a space in the minds and hearts of local people (adults). A protest movement was mounted, resulting in the founding of the association Amager Bio's Culture Council, the goal of which was to ensure that Amager Bio was resurrected as a local cultural centre.
Dansk Supermarked A/S handed over the right to the use of the building to Copenhagen Municipality in exchange for permission to build a new shop on the corner of the cinema lot. The Netto Shop was built within months after the deal; the cinema has only just reopened (Feb 1997).
In January 1992, in connection with the work required to turn the cinema into a cultural centre, Copenhagen Municipality established Amager Kulturbutik as a local job training scheme. Amager Kulturbutik was to participate in the planning of the cultural centre and later assume responsibility for the management and the development of activities in the centre.
It was crucial for Amager Kulturåd that the activities in the cultural centre were developed in close interaction with the people living on Amager. As a consequence Amager Kulturbutik decided to open its doors to people trying to get an idea off the ground, offering assistance in the development and realisation of local projects and initiatives. The motto was: You have the idea, we help you realise it. It was at this time that the association's name was changed to Amager Culture Council; at the same time its objects clause was extended. (The goal of Amager Culture Council is to strengthen, develop and inspire all kinds of local cultural activities with a view to aiding and drawing attention to the cultural life on Amager.)
During the following years the scale of activities in Amager Kulturbutik accelerated. A large number af institutions and associations, as well as various local groups and project originators started collaborating with Amager Kulturbutik. As a result Amager Kulturbutik soon gained a reputation as the pivotal point of new activities in the area.
Amager Kulturbutik was supposed to cease its job training function once Amager Bio's transformation was complete. Amager Culture Council, however, wanted to maintain Amager Kulturbutik, but in a different organisational context, when this moment arrived. That was why Amager Culture Council became a tenant in Amager Kulturbutik from the very beginning, and in the summer of 1995 Amager Culture Council took over Amager Kulturbutik. As a consequence, all activities pertaining to the development and management of Amager Bio have been separated from Amager Kulturbutik, which now concentrates on its role as distributor of local information, and coordination centre for the development of new projects and initiatives as well as being the physical base of Amager Culture Council in its capacity of umbrella organisation and originator of cultural activities in the area.
Amager Kulturbutik has been a catalyst for the development of new projects of all kinds. "Anybody can get assistance". The people who work in Amager Kulturbutik, employees as well as volunteers, contribute advice and assistance for fledgling projects and guide them through those first tottering steps until they are ready to enter the world as new local activities. To date almost 100 projects have seen the light of day with the assistance of Amager Kulturbutik. These range from small, one-off projects originating from individuals to large, permanent activities which have come about in interaction between societies, associations and institutions. These activities have a wide-ranging content; traditional conveying of art and culture, festivals, book publications, inter-school collaborations, multicultural activities etc. Over the years, Amager Kulturbutik has been at the disposal of various local groups, projects and associations, offering administrative assistance. By paying the actual costs incurred, they get a service comprising proofreading and typing, photocopying, lay-out, mailing and book-keeping.
A part of the shop area has been established as an "info-centre", where anybody, either by phone or in person, can get information about local activities and events. A wide range of brochures and other printed material is available as well as a ticket service.
Amager Kulturbutik aims at involving the widest possible circle of people in the development of new community activities. Individuals as well as more or less formally structured groups, associations, institutions and businesses. Amager Kulturbutik's work is first and foremost directed at people who are already active in organisations, but an effort is being made to involve those who are not used to working in organisations as well. It is the objective that the activities live their lives independently of Amager Kulturbutik once they are established. The key word being auto-activity [da: selvaktivitet]. It is not up to Amager Kulturbutik to create the activities, merely to facilitate and assist. This to some extent goes for Amager Culture Council as well, its function being that of umbrella organisation and inspirational agent.
The social network of the council is very wide indeed, and embraces most community organisations on Amager:
Central actors in the council's "inner circle":
Public authorities:
Council members:
Adult education
Art
Christian
Citizens councils
Companies
Grassroot movements
Housing associations
Libraries
Media
Music
Political parties
Public authorities
Youth/Clubs/Schools
Private citizens
The main function of the council is that it exists and is active: The council makes strategic plans and tactical maneuvres in the interest of Amager Culture Centre and the general local, cultural development on Amager. The key here lies in one word: networks. Through its existence, the council has become an important local network, or, a network of networks, because it brings together local activists and professionals from all over Amager. The council started as a single-interest pressure group around the old cinema, Amager Bio, and has been deeply involved in the development hereof; without the council, the "Bio" would probably have been yet another municipal "abortion".
One of the major projects in shaping the "wider perspective and outreach" orientation of the council and the shop was called Amager Towards 2000, which lasted two years. The purpose was to develop a culture plan for Amager, and the dream was that the plan would be shaped by the citizens in an open and participatory process. This plan shold be an open culture plan, open because it:
- "sets up many possibilities which are realised in accordance with local wishes and circumstances
- emerges from the diversity of local differences
- is transparent
- requires the involvement of many different people from the beginning to the end of a planning process
- ends, or becomes new plans, only when it is realised." (Lægdsmand 1992 p. 16)
The project never achieved adequate funding and it never got realised as planned. But the project was important in the process of shaping an identity for the shop. One of the central actitivities in Amager Towards 2000 was in the field of urban renewal and local community work. "Together we can do more" was the catch phrase used here, and the name of a sub-project aiming at supporting bottom-up urban renewal processes. A guide for local housing associations was made, but, again, lack of funding obstructed a serious project. A few case projects were made by professional architects, who started or supprted local processes with concrete urban design projects, e.g. the renewal of a square, building renovations, etc. The projects had no real resource foundation, and apart from one case, there was no concrete outcome of the projects. One case, however, concerning the renewal of "Sundbyvester Plads (Square)", was apparently instrumental in the local citizens mobilisation, where a "forening" (association) was founded, which today is actively involved in the municipal design process.
The square renewal project is one of the few of more than 100 projects which to date have "passed through" the shop, that has a direct relation to urban planning. Nevertheless, most of these 100 projects have, one way or another, been related to "urban development". For example, several projects have dealt with local identity, local history, community festivals, cultural events, etc. It is cultural production in the community, and it is the social innovation in that it aims at, and succeed in, "utilising" a broad concept of culture, both the living, the recorded and the selective, to use Raymond Williams' terms.
The culture shop is therefore producing social capital which according to Putnam, is the most important "ingredient" in social networks. The making of a locally controlled and resource strong institution which takes in the tasks for a community support center as well as the (administrative) tasks for community networks, is not an easy construction, and to combine the two in one institution is a real challenge. Somehow, so far, it has worked, the shop still exists, although the ice floe it sits on is thin.
The project "Wired Amager" started out as an activity aiming at establishing a World Wide Web-presence (internet homepage) for Amager Kulturpunkt and Amager Culture Council. The project was initiated and facilitated by me, and it is still bound very much to my person - in fact, I am the project manager. It was also I who came up with the name Wired Amager. The WWW homepage design project is today part of a wider project, which has become a key activity in the Kulturpunkt, so far involving some 20 local employees and activists. With the project, the Kulturpunkt and Culture Council opened its doors to me, and I quickly entered the "inner circles", where I am today a central actor, namely the treasurer of the council.. Here, I will focus on the project itself.
The project was in fact facilitated by the email quoted below:
Date: 15 Nov 1995 02:27:12 +0000
From: John Gotze <ITSJG@INET.UNI-C.DK>
To: Butikken <k-punkt@pip.dknet.dk>
Subject: Kulturpunktet på Internettet
Hej,
Hvormeget bruger I egentlig Internettet? Læser I denne post? --jeg er klar over, at I har haft uinviterede gæster :-(
Kan man for tiden skrive elektronisk til nogen hos jer? Har Kulturrådet en adresse? Erhvervsrådet?
Hvad med WorldWideWeb? - jeg har ikke set noget til jer. Nogen planer?
Interesseret i at få en homepage? Jeg kan evt. hjælpe. Kontakt mig.
Hilsen
John Gøtze
itsjg@inet.uni-c.dk
Mjøsensgade 4, 1.th., 2300 S
In this, I ask whether Kulturpunkt uses its email account (which by then had been on their letterheads and leaflets for several months), and whether they have plans for WWW. I tell them that I can help them with WWW. I simply suggest we make a homepage for Amager Kulturpunkt. I had in fact been suggesting that for some time to Karsten, the Shop manager, but had not been able to "get the message through" to him. I had much to catch up on in the autumn 1995, because I had been away (in Japan) and out of touch for quite some time.
My email turned out to be the trigger. On 23rd January, I got a reply. It was written by Ulrik, a part-timer/volunteer. He wrote:
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 19:40:02 +0100
To: itsjg@inet.uni-c.dk (John Gotze)
From: k-punkt@pip.dknet.dk (Amager Kulturpunkt)
Subject: Re: Kulturpunktet på Internettet
Davs. Mit navn er Ulrik Larsen.
Jeg er den ene lykkelige person der lige har fået løst Amager Kulturpunkt's
problem ang. InterNet. De har slet ikke kunne bruge det i flere måneder
pga., i mine øjne, tanketomme protokoller & konfigurationer fra DK-Net's
side!
Men nu virker det! - Jeg gemmer dit brev til dem der måtte være interesseret.
Hvem er de uinviterede gæster ;-) ??
Med venlig hilsen, Ulrik.
He writes that the problems they had had should be solved, and that they were caused by "thoughtless protocols and configurations from the ISPs side". I wrote him back with this reply:
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1996 14:51:32 +0100
To: k-punkt@pip.dknet.dk (Amager Kulturpunkt)
From: itsjg@inet.uni-c.dk (John Gotze)
Subject: Re: Kulturpunktet på Internettet
Hej Ulrik
Tak for din mail.
Er du ny i butikken?
De "gæster" jeg skrev om, var - så vidt jeg har fået historien fortalt - på besøg midt om natten, og med sig tog de alle computerne!
Er det fremover dig, der læser posten?
I min tidligere besked nævnte jeg det her med WWW. Jeg hjælper jer som sagt gerne med at lave en hjemmeside for Kulturpunktet/Kulturrådet. Udover selve design- og programmeringsarbejdet kan jeg også tilbyde jer plads på selve nettet (på mine egen hjemmeside, altså).
Dette er IKKE et forsøg på at sælge en vare - jeg arbejder frivilligt. Det koster altså ikke noget - i penge.
Jeg har allerede prøvet at sælge ideen til Karsten Lægdsmand, men han har jo så mange andre jern i ilden.
Hvis du - eller andre - er interesseret, kan vi jo prøve at holde et møde. I skal bare sige til!
Hilsen
John Gøtze
Amagerkaner
Here, I repeat my "offer", and suggest that we arrange a meeting when ever they are ready. Ulrik showed Jesper Nordahl, the manager of Kulturpunkt, my messages, and then the ball started rolling! As it turned out, Jesper was already thinking of establishing a homepage. Himself a computer expert on multimedia, and former manager of a multimedia training centre, he took up my offer immediately, and a meeting was set up within days.
At the first introductory meeting, we decided to go on with the project, and we established a design group. The group consisted of the general manager of AK (Jesper), the coordinator of the Culture Shop (Karsten), the "information man" in the House (Kim), the volunteer graphic designer (Nulle), and myself. I took the role as system designer, Nulle the graphic designer role, and the other three was to be responsible for providing content from each of their areas (Shop, House, Stage).
We held several ordinary meetings in this group. Here, we made several "rich pictures", although we did not refer to them as such. Nulle made the concrete pictures, even though it was I who told her that what she did has a name in systems design - with me having prepared and anticipated a "soft systems" approach, using the well-known "techniques" of rich picture making, mock-ups and the like (Checkland, Ehn). As I discussed in chapters 3 and 4, designing for WWW is well suited for these kinds of methodologies.
Besides having scheduled meetings ( ~ one a week), the design group started using cyberspace for communication among ourselves. Daily, although sometimes with interruptions of a few days, we exchanged emails. These "e-debates" went on from February until May 1996. Below, I have shown some of the messages, to give a flavour of our debates:
In the beginning, the "tone" was information oriented and the communication not very "deep", mainly consisting of greetings and practical messages:
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 16:30:53 +0100
To: itsjg@inet.uni-c.dk
From: k-punkt@pip.dknet.dk (Amager Kulturpunkt)
Subject: Kultur
Hej John
Tusind tak for sidst, Nulle og jeg har været helt euforiske siden.
Det bliver enormt spændende at komme rigtigt igang med vores
projekt.
Tak for dine E-mails, vi kan vist godt blive enige om at
Københavnerbasen er kedelig og temmelig ulogisk opbygget. "det kan
vi gøre bedre ikke?"
Jeg har talt med Ulrik vores tidligere MAC-systemmand, og vi har
aftalt at i to skal ringe sammen så du er rigtigt klædt på når du
skal presse DKnet.
Hvordan bærer du dig iøvrigt an når du ligger direkte links til mig
via E-mail?
Vi ses
Med venlig hilsen
Jesper Nordahl.
During the process, the emails got more and more communicative, either directly dialogue like, or "chat-like", or more reflective, personal as in this example:
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 23:47:38 +0000
From: Butikken <k-punkt@pip.dknet.dk>
To: John Gotze <ITSJG@INET.UNI-C.DK>
Subject: til vores WEBmaster
Hej igen John
Det var ærgeligt at det ikke var i aften "Torsdag d.22-2-1996" at du
kom med din vejleder i Huset. Der var møre amerikanske bøffer og
stiftende generalforsamlig i Copenhagen country music club, hvor 80
udklædte cowboys var mødt op.
Jeg havde imidlertid glemt mit tidligere tilsagn om at være
ordstyrer. En sjov forestilling var det" de var hamrende utjekkede"
men jeg kom da igennem det. At opleve sådan en aften , i det hus der
for bare et halvt år siden var røv og nøgler og hvor ingen mennesker
kom, kan fryde mig meget og lover godt for kulturpunktets fremtid.
Nå men det var slet ikke det jeg ville skrive om, men for at
fortælle dig at din Amager on-line er helt igennem genial. Jeg
vidste ikke at du var så velskrivende, det er både morsomt og enormt
seriøst. Jeg foreslår derfor at du bliver redaktionel WEBmaster hvis
du vil og syntes du har tid. Dit sprog og overblik kombineret med
Nulle Tram kan blive skide godt.
Jesper.
Perhaps the most interesting parts of our cyber-activities are from the stage where we began the concrete design work. As I was doing my design work in Lyngby, and Nulle was working in the Shop, we had to establish a distributed work form. Of course we had scheduled meetings, but the continuous design reflections and sharing thereof were actually first and foremost an activity taking place in cyberspace.
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 18:39:38 +0100
From: Butikken <k-punkt@pip.dknet.dk>
To: John Gotze <ITSJG@INET.UNI-C.DK>
Subject: Web væsen
Hej John
Ja, det ligner sgú noget rod...
Vi prøver at attache et nyt logo,
når du har lidt tid tilovers kan du
smække det ind på den sorte baggrund
igen.
Bevar "under construction"!
Jesper spørger om den kan blinke???
hmm...hmmm... no comments
Drop evt. den nederste frame
her i første omgang, for vi vil jo
nødig forvirre en evtentuel "bruger",
der måske får forvildet sig ind på siden.
(links´ne er der jo ikke endnu).
Vi ses domani
XXX
Nulle & Jesper
We also started using email in the production process, mainly for filetransfer between Amagerbrogade and DTU. Filetransfer "the good old way", to fetch/bring the file on a portable media, e.g., a disk, or to send it by "snail-mail", would mean that there would be a delay. With the use of email, however, filetransfer becomes very easy and fast, since all computer files can be "attached" to a normal email. All graphic design was done on the Mac workstation in the Shop, and then sent by email to Lyngby, where it within minutes would be at my PC in Lyngby, and if wished so, be transfered again to the WWW-server in seconds. In the design process, this was a great advantage, making it possible for us to "play" with things, and a good example of CMC/CSCW in practice. Had we not been using email and electionic filetranfer, the tasks would not only have been extremely, (unrealistically under the circumstances) timeconsuming, but also much less collaborative, since we (mainly the graphical designer and I) were able to share our design world, and to work closely together with the material.
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 17:46:26 +0000
From: Butikken <k-punkt@pip.dknet.dk>
To: John Gotze <ITSJG@INET.UNI-C.DK>
Subject: Fra Jesper til John
Hej John
Det er mandag og du sidder sikkert i huset og venter på repmøde, mens
jeg venter har jeg lige scannet et par perspektivtegninger fra
bioprojektet som du kan ligge ind på vores side.
MVH
Jesper
Attachment Converted: c:\eudora32\attach\bio Foyer gif
Attachment Converted: c:\eudora32\attach\Bio sal gif
In addition to these electronic conversations, we often met face-to-face, in design meetings as well as "just socially". Our meetings were most often held in Kulturpunkt, although I once - in a weekend - took the whole group to the institute in Lyngby and showed them what a high-speed connection to the Internet "felt like". They were fascinated. Jesper came back several times, by the way once to participate on-line (IRC, chat) in a "real" conference held in Norway, among citizens houses, where one session about "houses and the net" had invited the on-line world to participate(1).
The design process was a true learning process for all of us. Nulle and Jesper, who both were computer literate, became "netizens" and learned electronic communication, and learned much about good and bad webdesign, not only from our own design activities, but also by actively studying others' webdesign. As for myself, I learned much from the process, which was the first serious participatory design project I made being designer. I already had the technical qualifications for webdesign (i.e., I knew HTML), but to get to work so closely with 1. a "customer" (Jesper) and 2. a graphic designer (Nulle), both of them very skilled in their areas, was a learningful experience where I learned much about my role as a designer, and about webdesign as a design activity.
After having produced many prototypes, evaluated them, got other peoples opinions on them, discarding them, and making new ones, etc., we decided to use a simple frame-based layout which would give a flexible user-interface with easy navigation, where we used the existing graphic design concept of Kulturpunkt:
Basically, the Wired Amager homepage is a "normal", state-of-the-art, web presentation, giving the visitor basic information about Kulturpunkt and the local networks. The main target group is of course ordinary citizens on Amager, but also others who want to learn about Amager. We also made an English version, although not as comprehensive as the Danish version.
In addition to "normal" webpages, we wanted also to make Wired Amager as "interactive" as possible. For this purpose we first established a guestbook. That has been interesting, because it proved to be a good way to get inputs from visitors, and showed us that someone "out there" appreciated our work. It also showed that Wired Amager got attention from many other places than Amager - thus, we had visitors from as distant places as Croatia, Iceland, Australia and the Mohawk Indian reservation in Canada. Many visitors were people who once lived on Amager, or had family or friends from Amager.
Most visitors, however, were and still are locals. The number of visitors is unfortunately unknown for the first months. Two or three months after opening Wired Amager, I got access to the server logs, and learned that there were some 50-100 visitors daily, a number we found satisfactory, "all things considered".
The following organisations are represented on WWW via this project:
We also established a webforum in the hope of getting visitors to participate in debates:
The webforum has not been very active (the same goes for 99% of other webboards around the world). Lack of thematisation, lack of a "critical mass", people's fear of exposure, computer's system errors, and more, would be my explanation for this. Some of the same reasons are probably behind the fact that another "interactivity feature" on Wired Amager - a chat room - was never very active.
Another, perhaps more successful part of Wired Amager is a collaboration with KultuNaut, "the unoffical culture guide in Denmark":
http://www.KultuNaut.dk/
KultuNaut is the largest Danish culture guide on the internet, and by many seen as one of the "best sites" in Denmark. It contains a large database with all kinds of cultural activities, and is based on the idea that users can enter new activities directly in the database; either as "producers" (e.g. a bar, concert hall, museum, etc.) or as "consumers" (review an activity, e.g., a concert). Wired Amager teamed up with KultuNaut, who developed a special interface into the database so all of Amager was searchable directly. This interface was then used within Wired Amager, where Kulturpunkt took the responsibility of entering activities on Amager into the database, hereby adding value to both sites. Today, several public authorities are using KultuNaut to provide citizens info locally (e.g. Roskilde Municipality), and more will follow(2). KultuNaut is a grassroots initiative, non-profit based, and mainly one mans work.
The linking up with KultuNaut was one of the important "milestones" in the process, also because Mads, who runs KultuNaut, was helpful with technical aid, and instrumental in expanding the "network" (of contacts).
Another milestone was on May 23-24, 1996 where we invited a group of experts(3) for a public meeting on "Cyberspace, Information Society and Democracy", held in Kulturpunkt. That meeting also served as the official "opening" of the Wired Amager homepage. We had hoped that "ordinary citizens" would show up, and had announced it in the local press, made leaflets and posters, and of course announced it on the internet (in Danish newsgroups, and by email to potential participants). Surprisingly few showed up, but both days we managed to overcome the feeling of mortification and establish some very interesting debates.
The meetings also had a "milestone"-effect in that the initial design group was dismantled, not because it had "done its job", which it only in one sense had (it had created the homepage, not quite as extensive as first planned, but still "a product"). In another sense, it had only just started something which was far from "integrated" in the local organisation. The dismantlement of the group was unavoidable however, for the simple reason that all of its participants had other things on the agenda - Jesper had to give his full attention the the work with the Cinema, and being general manager in general, and Nulle, the volunteer, had many other project which took her attention. I had, first of all, to pay attention to this thesis, secondly, to other culture council affairs (as mentioned, I by then became involved as citizen activist).
In the Shop, we started taking in job-projects aimed at establishing a new internet group in Kulturpunkt. We took in unemployed, typically young male, computer freaks, and by squeezing the budget, we managed to establish some workplaces and an ISDN-connection to the internet. We did this knowing it was problematic; to do what we wanted we would need more support and management, and funding. But we also knew that if we did not do something with the available resources, showing that we did indeed have some competence, we would probably not be able to do anything at all. Although working with far from optimal circumstances and conditions, the Internet group has been a valuable addition to the continuation of Wired Amager, and has shown us that there are indeed local potentials for further development.
Wired Amager was initially, through my research, supported by the Technical University of Denmark, who also provide space on a webserver, but no special support of the project as such (in fact, the system administration has been rather unsupportive). Wired Amager now needs to establish itself with its own identity and website. Besides the general wish for one's own "domain", where ours would be something like www.wiredamager.dk, there is a simple reason for the need to become independent from DTU, namely the one that we at DTU cannot use sponsorships (and advertisements). Since sponsorships are much used in other Kulturpunkt activities, it would be natural to also use such in the Wired Amager context.
In late 1996, however, the whole situation around Kulturpunkt was destabilised, and many other things than Wired Amager came into focus. First of all, the very existence of Culture Shop was threatened, since public funding stopped. The Culture Council had taken over the shop, formally, but without public funding it could not exist. The Council went to the city administration, and asked for funding, but were caught in a political "game" between mayors, departments and institutions. As treasurer in the Council I followed this process closely, and learned - from the inside - much about the "way things work" in such cases. To put it simple: All "buttons" on the political activity scale were pushed, all available lobbyists were sent out in an attempt to influence the decision makers directly, all local party members were told to talk to their representatives, etc.
In addition, when it seemed that all the traditional means were employed, unsuccessfully appearently, the Council launched its final attempt to save the Shop: A public campaign, on the internet! In the guise of a Christmas story ("calender"), we told the story day by day though December, as a fictional story about Amagercan "culture pixies" and attic mice, who observed and reflected on the situation, and even became "real", as I opened an email address to one of the mice! Here, we told the "whole" story, in "free form", allowing us to say in public much more than if we "talked straight". The calender was announced - by the mouse! - all over the place, to the press, to usenet, and in targeted emails to decision-makers, political parties, institutions, organisations, even members of the parliament (one of whom actually replied, and thus entered the story)! The calender had more than 500 visitors daily, which was far more than we expected, and in fact a quite significant number of visitors even compared to "professional" (corporate) sites in Denmark.
We still do not know what influence on the process this calender had. In the Council, it gave us hope, made us "feel good" (telling the world about our problems). The ordinary activities were not stopped, and the lobbying may have been the most influential contribution. Whatever it was, the Lord Mayor himself, two days before Christmas, decided that it should, after all, become Christmas on Amager, and authorised public expenditure for the Shop by granting us funds to continue for three months, and opted for a continuation of the Shop, possibly with funding from particular public projects.
Building on the Wired Amager project, the Culture Council and the Shop started looking for ways to get funding to help establish a professional environment for the continued work on introducing the citizens of Amager to the Internet and the Internet to the citizens of Amager, and as an attempt to establish a framework for the continuation of the Shop.
One application was a joint venture with a county council in England. Only a week before the application deadline, someone called Ced made a "call for bids" to the so-called ISPO-list, an email list maintained by the Information Society Project Office under the European Commission. As one of the 400 subscribers, I got his mail. The programme he had in mind was one I was well aware of, and saw some possibilities for Wired Amager in, for which partners were needed. Since we (kulturpunkt, council) could not fulfil the demands on the main contractor role, we had not taken further steps. When I saw Ced's message, I thought, why not? - and I mailed him, and said we were interested. At that time, some 6-8 other responses had arrived, and I thought we had no chance; the others were mostly other government bodies, from Italy, France, Germany, etc. It turned out, however, that none of the others were "serious", so it was Kulturpunkt/Council and the county council who made the application, which unfortunately was outflanked by the many, often corporate, competitors in the bid.
With EU (or other) funding, a new phase of Wired Amager could begin. In the above mentioned proposal, we imagined one path of development. We proposed that a project manager would be employeed, a website ("webhotel") established, and a new training programme initiated. The training programme would aim at qualified, but unemployed, people with qualifications in computing (e.g., database development, graphic design, etc.), but not necessarily internet-experience. The training should be a combination of project oriented in-house, in-practice training and "in-company training" in selected corporations, institutions and organisations on Amager. The idea was that the project group should act as 1. a production team for web-design, 2. a community-oriented consultancy on ICT, and 3. a testbed for a local ICT-learning centre. Through design practice, the trainees should work together with the project manager and local network partners on concrete Internet-design projects, such as establishing websites for community-based organisations and corporations. In the proposal it said (something like; edited a bit):
Awareness raising is an important part of the project. Target groups are both community citizens and social networks and community corporations (mainly SMEs). Through the already existing networks and participants, the project has easy access to most parts of the community life. By establishing a community based website a first step towards a community-wide information system is taken. The CWIS-model, known from universities around the world, will be converted into an urban community model for integrated, network-based information systems. With dissemination into the community, new forms of communication and information will be developed.
The focal issue is at the same time on supporting innovative community design activites. The creation of an electronic culture guide, including local history books in electronic versions, local museum guides, a database of organisations and institutions in the community, etc., will be a major activity. Local businesses will be included in shopping guides, catalogues, etc., and with professional design support at cheap rates. The already existing collaboration with KultuNaut, "the unoffical cultureguide" on WWW, will be expanded, and corporate sponsorship will be sought in this process. At the technical side, the project will develop high-quality websites as the main activity. This will include the newest web-technologies (plug-ins, etc.). Partnerships with commercial Internet Service Providers will be established."
The GR@SP proposal (Global networks, Regional resources, Spatial exclusion, and Personal empowerment) as it was called was perhaps not the best prepared proposal ever made, but the basic idea, which was "mirrored" in the English context, is still very interesting, I think.
Alas, the Wired Amager project had from the very beginning been highly dependant on my own work, and even though I worked on it, so to speak, as more than a research project (i.e., as a citizen activist, outside my actual research work), and thus kept it "on the air" beyond the PhD work as such, it suffered from the classical action research problem of dependence of the researcher, and still needs consolidation in the local community work, as well as funding for its continuation independently of university intervention. Although generally recognised in Denmark (and internationally) as an interesting project, the general situation around the Culture Shop and Council, and the lack of support from public, local authorities, has created a kind of Catch 22 situation, where no easy solution can be seen for the continuation.
The project is clearly defined as a community based project in the same spirit as the general work carried out by the culture shop and council, thus distancing itself from the public authorities. With the Christmas calendar as perhaps the most significant exponent of a distancing policy, so clearly establishing a opposition position and critique of the municipality and the decision makers (politicians as well as high ranking bureaucrats), we put ourselves in a situation where support from the public authorities did not seem very likely at all. Also, the need for support for the basic activity itself (running the shop) made it somehow irrelevant to seek support for continuing the Wired Amager project until the "basic" support was achieved.
The Wired Amager project can in many way be seen as an attempt to establish a practice based on the politics of difference, as is also the case with the Culture Shop and Kulturpunkt in general. Although community based and oriented, it does seek a third way between gemeinschaft and gesellschaft in that it acknowledges the ontological difference between subjects, at the same time as it aims at establishing, or enhancing, community values in a broad sense. As in all other community networks, the task of overcoming the fear of exposure was perhaps the most important "democratic learning process" in the project, and the internet activities were indeed an attempt to bring together strangers. With the Christmas calendar in particular, the internet became an instrument for the civic network to make public and transparent the voice of the network. Although, admittedly, more aiming at exposing the network's view on the general political situation and the practices of the politicians and bureaucrats than on the network itself, the ambivalence of transparency and exposure was handled in much more open ways than ever seen before in the network.
The Culture Shop and the Cultural network around it (basically Amager Culture Council is in my view exemplary in their democratic perspective on urban development. A genuine citiznes-based social and cultural network, working for community development across as well as within different groups and individuals. The democratic perspective does not, however, always result in exemplary democratic practice. From the activists' points of view, they are "up against" very undemocratic systems of bureaucracies, lobbyists, and other formal or informal cultural institutions and social networks, inside as well as outside Amager. Resistance rather than collaboration has been used against the public authorities, at the same time as "secret" negotiations takes places behind the closed doors.
'The City Council of Copenhagen expects the Ørestad to contribute dramatically to Copenhagen's renaissance as a commercial and cultural centre at the entrance to the Baltic Sea'
Jens Kramer Mikkelsen,
Lord Mayor of Copenhagen
In the following I will focus on the Ørestad. This urban design project is the largest urban development project in Denmark in modern times, and certainly one of the most ambitious. The Ørestad is a vision about a 2½ km2 area on Amager. Today, most of the area is a public greenfield, Amager Common, which is connecting the city to Copenhagen's largest 'green wedge', Western Amager. If the vision comes true, this area will, during the next 30 years or so, become a new inner-city urban township with about 60.000 workplaces. The area is situated very close to Copenhagen City Centre (at the closest a distance of only 1 km), and should be seen as an extension of, or amendment to, the city of Copenhagen.
In 1992, the Danish Parliament decided upon the Act on Ørestad (no. 477 of 24th of June 1992), and the Ørestad Development Corporation was founded shortly thereafter. The corporation is owned jointly by Copenhagen Municipality and the Danish State. the corporation has two goals:
To develop the Ørestad area, market it, and sell the land
To construct a minimetro connecting the Øretad and Central Amager to Copenhagen City, and to finance this by selling the Ørestad land
The history behind the Ørestad actually begins many years ago (4), although the special construction on the financing side is new. The idea of urban development on Amager's greenfields goes back to the 1960's, when the adjoining areas were built up. As a matter of fact, in 1965 there was a design competition on this, and the second prize winner's suggestion could almost have participated - and won - the Ørestad competition, so close to the brief was it. The first prize went to somebody else, whose ideas were only partially adopted. The man behind that second prize, Knud E. Rasmussen, is today Planning Director in the Municipality of Copenhagen, and thus the manager of the municipality's work with the Ørestad, it should perhaps be noted.
It wasn't himself, however, who "reinvented" the Ørestad. That was done by The Committe on Traffic Investments in the Capital Region (Udvalget om Hovedstadsområdets Trafikinvesteringer), also known as the Würtzen committee, who published their white paper/report on March 22nd, 1991, which was the first time in recent history the Ørestad was mentioned. The Würtzen committee, set up in January 1990, had as its task to make a coherent plan for traffic investments in the capital region and its financing. The committe members were top civil servants only, no politicians.
The details of this committee and the decision-making process leading to the Act on Ørestad has been documented by others (Gaardmand, 1996; Petterson, 1994). It is an interesting process showing what Gaardmand calls the introduction of corporate planning in Denmark, i.e., the involvement of "hand-picked" commercial and institutional interests and actors in the societal strategic planning, and the (elitist) "mahogany table" decision form with close contacts to "the inner circles of power" (Gaardmand, 1991,1996). Gaardmand thus, correctly, I think, connects the Ørestad to the line of previous, more political, committees' and parliamentary debates, which in the late 1980's and early 1990's led to a new national planning approach - planning for growth. The Link to Sweden was in the 1980's the "signifier" for this approach, but with the Würtzen-report, Ørestad became the growthmachine metaphor of the 1990's.
The Act on Ørestad was first proposed to parliament by the Minister of Finance (Dyremose, Conservative) on May 3, 1991, and, as mentioned, votes upon on 24 June 1992 (split decision 92 for, 24 against, 5 undecided (Gaardmand, 1996)). The fact that the Act was proposed only weeks after the Würtzen report was published shows that this project is of national interest. As in other situations where "statesmanship" is required (wars would be the classical example, but I'm reffering more to less "extraordinary" events, such as the building of airports, motorways, harbours, etc.), the national interest supersedes potential interests of citizen.
It is important to see the city-building as well as the minimetro in relation to the overall strategic plans. In the Master Plan for the Ørestad, the overall plan is illustrated with this figure:
(Masterplan leaflet)
1. Fixed link to Sweden
2. Copenhagen Airport
3. University of Copenhagen
4. Waterfront and adjoining areas
5. Exhibition Centre
6. Ørestad (a. Ørestad; b. minimetro (JG)
7. Amager Common (Fælled)
8. Harbour
9. Western Amager
There are of course several levels of decision and design processes, and potentially many actors, involved in the urban development of the Ørestad. The design moves necessary in this process are impossible to pre-determine, but we can describe the process in terms of the following milestones:
At the end of 1996, the Ørestad became an amendment to the Copenhagen Municipal Plan, and the construction of the minimetro has begun, making the project visible and appearent in the city-scape - with inconvenient, but necessary, construction sites at several infrastuctural bottle-necks, such as Amagerbrogade, Torvegade, Kongens Nytorv, and Nørreport.
The ideas competition was initiated in April 1994, and that was the first time the development corporation went public, although broad citizen participation was neither sought nor facilitated, not by the corporation and not by anyone else. In the Act it said that a broad public debate should take place after the competition. In the competition brief it is held that the competition 'is thus the beginning of a continuous and challenging process, a process which will result in a new town with a unique character'. Participation in the competition was open to citizens and architectural firms in EU (+ Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden), and several international architects were invited to participate. 119 proposals from 17 countries entered. In November 1994 the result was announced: No clear winner was appointed - but the four first prize winners were all accepted as workable suggestions. All contributions were showed in public at an exhibition in the Bella centre.
During the competition period, the Ørestad Development Corporation organised a symposium about 'the changing city' (10-11 June 1994). At this event, all the registred competition participants were invited. To attract people, there were invited lectures from some famous architects. One of these, Daniel Libeskind from Berlin said, that
'making a city, making architecture, is the most human thing one can do, since there is an order which is totally imposed on things, it's an geometric order, it's a spatial order, it's in every house that we build and in whatever style we build in. And whatever city existing in the world, is a city invented and created by desire.'
Through his presentation (of his own work) he was describing his own design world. So were the others (their design worlds, that is). Not being an architect myself, nor being familiar with much architectural urban design, I was interested in finding out about their approaches, and, if possible, understanding their design worlds. Michael Sorkin from New York said:
"The discourse is dominated by the idea of reconstructing existing cities. So, part of the problem is that the only models that seems to be available to us are preservationist models, models which are drawn a little too literaly from existing cities ... This may be a suitable site for inventing models of more general applicability, but the fact remains that we lack the models, and that we need them."
There were many different approaches to the issues raised by Libeskind and Sorkin. Almost everyone agreed with Sorkin about the lack of suitable models. Yet, they were all practising urban designers. In their own design worlds they are of course using architectural models (mental as well as physical models), but when it comes to wider urban issues (e.g., cultural, social, technical) they basically gave the game away; not making more than casual or smart remarks, such as:
A:"The reason we all love Berlin is because of all the punks beating up the police ...";
B:"Well, most of those punks are nazis ...".
With regard to their own design rules and types many hinged on deconstructivist approaches and the idea of a 'city of deconstructions'. The movement which calls itself 'deconstruction' puts a high value on difference and discontinuity, and believes that the sense of concreteness in physical things is tied to sensations of uncertainty, and therefore seeks to create experiences of radical disorientation of the sort created by the Guggenheim Museum in New York (Sennett 1990).
A "radical distortion" is perhaps too dramatic a label to put on the symposium event, but it was obvious that the invited speakers were speaking out of the actual context, most of them probably completely unaware of what they were taking part in, namely, a legitimisation process of some kind, carefully laid out so that no "critical" points were made about the Ørestad context. When Rem Koolhaas made a last minute cancellation, a Danish architect (researcher) filled in for him and talked about Copenhagen's history, but even he avoided talking about the Ørestad, perhaps because (or although) he himself was just around that time appointed to chair the referee committee in the competition.
The fact that four winners were chosen had some significant influence on the further process. First, it took away the "responsibility" from one architect/team's shoulders, and put it not only on the other three team's shoulders, but also, in a sense, on the citizens, who were "given a choice", and had a "real chance to influence the decisions", as Anne-Grethe Foss said in an interview, where she emphasised her willingness to listen to citizens, if they said "we want that one!". As if citizens should be able to choose between the four design models - not even trained architects I met at that time were able to make a choice, if not even to really "tell the difference".
The four models were presented to the citizens in two steps. First, at an exhibition held in Amager Kulturpunkt (who basically "just" rented out the cafe, and emphasised that this did not mean that a new corporate-local coalition was made). Reportedly, the exhibition had "many" visitors. After the exhibition, two public hearings were arranged (25.1 and 9.2 1995) by the Ørestad corporation and held locally on Amager. Some 4-500 participants took part in the meetings which was held in a "lively, sometimes tumultuous" (Gaardmand, 1996) form. Anne-Grethe Foss and her people talked 2/3 of the time. While the actual aim of the meetings was to "give the citizens of Copenhagen and in particular Amager's present citizens the possibility to have influence on the design of the Ørestad", and this was emphasised by Foss, both meetings showed that the citizens were interested in one thing, and with a few exceptions, one thing only, and that was a subway under Amagerbrogade. On that theme, Foss could but refer to the Act on Ørestad, where traffic matters were settled, and fixed, she said. The minimetro could be discussed, but the decisions were made.
The message Foss got on the actual Ørestad was: "We don't want it!" - "None of the above!"
With that message from the citizens and the planning community who mostly had the same objections, the Ørestad corporation went, to use Gaardmand's terminology, back "behind the closed doors" (and probably also to many mahogany tables). They themselves picked one winner model as the basic design concept, hired the firm behind the model (a Finnish firm), and "went back" to developing the Ørestad, and realising the basic idea: to build a minimetro by selling land. The minimetro project was launched, and during the next two years contracts were made and the actual development initiated. On the urban development side, the plan was as mentioned implemented as an amendment to the Copenhagen Municipal Plan, and that happened very "smoothly"; the municipality kept extremely low profile with regard to publicity, and stuck to the absolute minimum (required) level of involvement, although of course dutifully making the plan public, and perhaps taking in a few minor objections, but otherwise, again, refered basic complaints to the Act on Ørestad which specifies this and that.
With the Master Plan at hand, the Ørestad corporation started marketing the land. In order to gain credibility, it was important to find someone who would use/buy the Ørestad, and here, many interests are involved. Within the development zone, there are already today a few corporate and governmental organisations present, namely:
Also, there are the land owners:
And already a few publically announced potential occupiers:
Besides, there are the immediate neighbours, who have more or less direct interests, some of whom may not survive the Ørestad, unless details at local plan level are changed:
While I am listing all these actors, I will add a few other central actors to give a more complete picture of the situation:
Local organisations:
Interest organisations:
There are probably many other relevant actors. These are just the ones with relation to the Ørestad itself; the list would become even longer if the minimetro was included. The Ørestad is the "pet aversion" not only for local citizens groups, but also for a great majority of urban planners, both practitioners and researchers. The Danish National Association of Architects and Planners was very close to a regular boycott of the design competition, something which to my knowledge has never happened before. Also, when the Ørestad project was first presented by the Würtzen committee, all (seven) Danish professors of urban planning published a joint, very sharp criticism in which they took sharp issue with the very idea of an Ørestad.
One critic, architect Jens Nielsen, was saying what many felt:
"... det seneste eksempel på at Thatcher-bølgen breder sig i den offentlige administration. Ørestaden er undfanget i en uhyrlig alliance mellem raske nyliberalister og planbureaukratiske betonhoveder fra tresserne, som har gemt Maos røde bog til bedre tider og nu giver den som developers og yuppies i offentligt regi ...Ørestaden fremstilles som kraftcenter for byens udvikling ... I virkeligheden er den en kræftknude i Københavns grønne lunge. Må alle gode mennesker forenes om at skære den væk, før den vokser sig stor"
...the Thatcher-wave rolling over public administration .... alliance between quick neoliberalists and planbureaucratic rock-heads" from the sixties, who put away Maos red book for better times .... growth center ... cancer tumor in Copenhagen's green lung ... cut it off before it grows big
The criticism can be boiled down to a few points:
Corporate planning should be avoided in large-scale urban projects; the Ørestad Development Corporation should not have been set up
The "land speculation" (rise in land prices) approach is out of range with reality, and it is basically fraud,
The financing of the minimetro by selling land is very problematic in itself, the minimetro should be financed by the state, just like motorways in Jutland,
The infrastructural problems on Amager are not solved with the minimetro, the two lines are located in the wrong places,
There is no "need" for an Ørestad on Amager - there is much empty office space in the region already, and probably better sites to build new ones, if the need should arise,
"New Town"-development on Amager Common (Fælled) and Western Amager is not what the locals and nature preservation organisations want; they want it to become a nature park for recreational activities
There may be other critique points, but these are the ones that have dominated the public, and planning scientific, debate. On top of these comes all those concerning the process itself, where the lack of public participation has been held as the main critique.
In my opinion this main critique is correct, although I would take a less "conspiracy-oriented" approach than for example Gaardmand. Although much can be critised in the way the Ørestad corporation and the municipality have handled the process, as well as the way the whole process was handled by both the locals, who focused too much on the minimetro, and the professionals (designers, practitioners, researchers), for example architects and their associations, who never really tried to establish a dialogue.
The nine points in the Amager landscape are the real Ørestad context. The investments in the Ørestad itself, via the Ørestad Development Corp., with its minimetro are of course big, but in the total picture, they only account for a part of the planned/realised investments - the link to Sweden is the largest single expenditure, but there are also billions-kroner plans for the university alone, just as the investments in the waterfront and harbour areas are very significant (5). However "big" the Ørestad plan might seem, it is therefore even bigger than what is under Anne-Grethe Foss' reign.
The lack of innovative media usage by all actors, through this whole process, is one major problem, I think. Sure, there has been extensive, "normal" media coverage (I have hundreds of newspaper articles; and it has been on both TV and radio (once where I participated, as a matter of fact)), but as far as I know, not one multimedia experiment of any kind. Nor has the Ørestad project in any way shown that the region is ready for the coming K-society, at least not in the information and communication sense, where one would expect at least a minimum use of modern ICT. But alas. As I will come back to, the Ørestad Corporation was indeed approached by myself in an attempt to get them interested in the use of ICT, in particular, the internet. Today, there is no website called www.orestad.dk (although the name is registered), but internet surfers will find an orestad site on the web, namely www.orestad.se:
- which by the way goes by several other names too, e.g. oresund.com. This site, just as all other "official" websites (those of the Municipality of Copenhagen and Copenhagen Capacity, for example) offer no information whatsoever about the Ørestad.
In my opinion, the non-existence of the Ørestad on the internet is not only "strange" seen from the corporate view, noting that "city marketing" as well as real-estate affairs increasingly becomes connected to the internet and are already said to have significant influence on, for example, location strategies for international corporations.
The non-existence is also, in my context, an expression of the fear of exposure held by the Ørestad corporation and the corporate planning approach in general. Basically, their interest is not to get an open and citizen involving process, but instead, to further their own, normative ideas about the future. With a project based on a parliamentary decision, they have "their backs free" in (their) relation to "the democracy", and the citizens opinions are overruled on allegedly legitimate grounds.
The way the Ørestad project has been handled by the Ørestad Corporation and the public authorities is a good example of the modern fear of exposure and ambivalence, and a general unwillingness to create transparency to the public of the political issues at hand. The whole project has been elitist to the extend that even the most narrow definition of democracy cannot, or should not, be applied in this context.
In a way, one could argue that the project inherits some more gemeinschaftlich values than gesellschaftlich ones, in that it basically is based on an idea of shared final ends alone, and with the growth idea seeks to promote a common vocabulary of discourse and a background of implicit practices and understandings within which the opacity is reduced. The point is, however, that the whole idea here is related much more to transparency as power exercise than to emancipation, participation and influence on decision making.
As I describe in the methodological chapter to come, I actually see the Ørestad case as an interesting, but sad, story of participation and non-participation of the citizens in urban development. Good intentions or not, the fact is that the undemocratic starting point has locked the "trajectory" of development. But as my research showed me, the official "line of business" for the Ørestad Corp has not even attempted to change course. By letting me inside in their corporation very early in the project, they did show interest for communication issues (my initial approach). Referring to the Øresund Link case they said they wanted to do something "better". Not masscommunication oriented, but rather aiming at establishing a communication structure allowing them to go into dialogue with citizens, and others (researchers, institutions, corporations).
Alas very little actually happened. Transparency or not, only very few - professionals - bother to look into things thoroughly. The citizens are presumably still against the Ørestad, but as the minimetro becomes visible, they no longer see other solutions than silently taking into their lives yet another "shit thing" on Amager. "How typical - no-one listens to us!". And at the end of the day that is the case for all public authorities in this case, not just the Ørestad Corp. Comparing their task with for example some of the urban planning work done by the Municipality of Copenhagen, or the Danish state, the Ørestad Corp has in fact been more transparent to the concerned spectator than several other, larger as well as smaller, projects. The political and structural problems of the whole region are seen not only in the Ørestad project.
The parliamentary creation of the Ørestad project left no room for public debate about the project. It did however apply the basic rules of the representative democracy ideal, although with an extreme elitist tendency, but still supported by a clear majority vote. Shaped by gaining the support of various groups or coalitions of such groups, rather than as an expression of the popular will. The weltanschauung embedded in the Ørestad project is modernist in its strong belief in progress, and at the same time Utopian in Bacon's sense. Yet, it was also pragmatic, or tactic; the financing model was instrumental in getting a majority vote in parliament, since it would not drain the state budget. But the financing model was also instrumental in causing disturbance in the public debate, with its closure of the agenda, and its framing of the perspective.
To the public, especially the citizens in Amager, the Ørestad was first and foremost a question of the minimetro, and in general, the traffic situation in Sundby. Local pressure groups in Sundby made an explicit conflict out of the minimetro issue, but only after the parliamentary decision was made (but at the first time a public meeting was held).
Notes
1. "Kulturpunkt" is difficult to translate to English, because it is (partly) metaphorical. In German, the word is the same, however (could perhaps also be Kulturmitte). Culture Point, Culture Spot, or, as it has been decided upon by the Culture Council recently, Culture Centre. The direct connotation to a place is somewhat lost in the English translation, however.
2. Jesper and I were the only foreigners participating, I think. We had a "good chat" with some of the Norwegians, whom we later that year met in Copenhagen, in real-life.
3. I know not only becuase I am a friends of Mads who runs KultuNaut, but also because I have been called in as internet consultant in KUC (Copenhagen Youth Centres) and there connected KultuNaut to KUC.
4. The experts were: Laue Traberg Smidt, Dansk Oplysningsforbund & GrundtvigNet; Karin Levinsen, Nøddeknækkeren og International Interactive Communications Society; Rudy Madsen, Huse i Danmark;Marcus Schmidt, Foreningen for Direkte Demokrati; Kresten Storgaard, Statens Byggeforskningsinstitut; Lars K. Christensen, Københavns Universitet Amager
5. See Gaardmand (1993) for more on the historical background.
6. The planned cartunnel between Amager (Refshaleøen) and Sealand (Nordhavn/Østerbro?) should be incorporated, but goes under either 4 or 8.