Planning for Authenticities

PLANNING FOR AUTHENTICITIES

Authenticity resonates throughout the urbanizing world. As cities’ commercial corridors and downtowns start to look increasingly the same, and gentrification displaces many original neighbourhood residents, we are left with a sense that our cities are becoming “hollowed out,” bereft of the multi-faceted connections that once rooted us to our communities. And yet, in a world where change is unrelenting, people long for authentic places. This book examines the reasons for and responses to this longing, considering the role of community development in addressing community and neighbourhood authenticity. A key concept underscoring planning’s inherent challenges is the notion of authentic community, ranging from more holistic, and yet highly market-sensitive conceptions of authentic community to appreciating how authenticity helps form and reinforce individual identity. Typically, developers emphasize spaces’ monetary exchange value, while residents emphasize neighbourhoods’ use value—including how those spaces enrich local community tradition and life. Where exchange value predominates, authenticity is increasingly implicated in gentrification, taking us further from what initially made communities authentic. The hunger for authenticity grows, in spite and because of its ambi- guities. This edited collection seeks to explore such dynamics, asking alternately, “How does the definition of ‘authenticity’ shift in different social, political, and economic contexts?” And, “Can planning promote authenticity? If so, how and under what conditions?” It includes healthy scepticism regarding the concept, along with proposals for promoting its democratic, inclusive expression in neighbourhoods and communities.

Laura Tate, PhD (University of British Columbia), is an urban planning scholar, lecturer, and consultant. Laura has an extensive practice background in city planning and public health. She lives in Victoria, British Columbia, and has most recently held the position of Visiting Lecturer at the California Polytechnic State University.

Brettany Shannon, PhD in Urban Planning and Development (University of Southern California), studies how media arts and digital communications intersect with urban and social placemaking. As the USC Bedrosian Center for Governance Scholar-in-Residence, she continues her research in the interview-based podcast, Los Angeles Hashtags Itself. First published 2019 by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2019 Taylor & Francis The right of Laura Tate and Brettany Shannon to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Tate, Laura Ellen, 1966- editor. | Shannon, Brettany, editor. Title: Planning for authentiCITIES / edited by Laura Tate and Brettany Shannon. Description: New York, NY : Routledge, [2018] Identifiers: LCCN 2018008395| ISBN 9780815384908 (hardback) | ISBN 9780815384922 (pbk.) Subjects: LCSH: Urban renewal. | Community development. | Neighborhoods. | City planning. | Urban policy. Classification: LCC HT170 .P65 2018 | DDC 307.3/416–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018008395

ISBN: 978-0-8153-8490-8 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-8153-8492-2 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-351-20287-9 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by Wearset Ltd, Boldon, Tyne and Wear Contents

List of Figures viii List of Tables x Notes on Contributors xi Acknowledgements xvi

Introduction: Planning for AuthentiCITIES 1 Laura Tate and Brettany Shannon

Part I Mooring Authenticity 31 Laura Tate

1 Chinatown, not Coffeetown: Authenticity and Placemaking in Vancouver’s Chinatown 36 Leslie Shieh and Jessica Chen

2 Neighbourhood Authenticity and Sense of Place 57 Vikas Mehta

3 Urban Authenticity as a Panacea for Urban Disorder? Business Improvement Areas, Cultural Power, and the Worlds of Justification 75 Daniel Kudla vi Contents

4 A Framework of Neighbourhood Authenticity for Urban Planning: Three Aspects and Three Types of Change 94 Justin R. Meyer

5 Negotiating Diversity: The Transitioning Greektown of Baltimore City, Maryland 112 Naka Matsumoto

6 Planning and Authenticity: A Materialist and Phronetic Perspective 130 Laura Lieto

Part II Performing Authenticity 147 Laura Tate

7 Authenticity Makes the City: How “the Authentic” Affects the Production of Space 154 Maria Francesca Piazzoni

8 Authenticity’s Many Performances in the Urban Studies Literature 170 Brettany Shannon

9 Tactical Urbanism as the Staging of Social Authenticity 177 David Franco

10 Sincerity, Performative Authenticity, and Tourism in New Orleans 195 Lauren Lastrapes

11 Gardening in America 210 Angela Babb, Adrianne Bryant, and Daniel C. Knudsen

12 Utilizing Comical Mascots (Yuru-kyara) to Create City Authenticity? 226 Keiro Hattori

13 Authentic Downtown Project: Intentional Community Making in the Digital Age 243 Brettany Shannon Contents vii

Part III Healing Authenticity 267 Laura Tate

14 Relocated Authenticity: Placemaking in Displacement in Southern Taiwan 271 Shu-Mei Huang and Jeffrey Hou

15 Coding the “Authenti-City”: North Harbour and the Århusgade Quarter, Copenhagen 287 Mike S. Harris

16 Diálogos for Latino Communities 309 Cecilia Giusti and Edna Ledesma

17 Planning for Reconciliation: Indigenous Authenticity in Community Engagement and Urban Planning in Canadian Cities 325 Jeffrey Schiffer

18 Urban–Social Imaginaries of Authenticity: And the John Lennon Wall 342 Laura Tate

Index 381 ContriButors

Angela Babb is a critical human geographer whose work encompasses critical food studies, ideology, and political economy. Her research examines the political economy of hunger in the United States and the contemporary food move- ment. She teaches on geographies of food security, food justice, and food sovereignty as a visiting scholar at Indiana University. She prefers cooking to gardening, yet she still enjoys growing random fruits, vegetables, and herbs every year.

Adrianne Bryant is ever fascinated with the workings of the natural world, from microbiological processes to human behaviour. She studied environmental biology and biological anthropology at the University of Colorado before com- pleting a Master’s Degree and several research projects in anthropology at Indi- ana University. Drawn to collaborating directly with patients on applied health problems, she now works in the healthcare field, and she is employing her apparently endless curiosity in studying to become a Physician Assistant in Denver, Colorado.

Jessica Chen is a Canadian urban planner currently based in Montréal, Quebec. Her city planning work focuses on developing urban policies and strategies that encourage pluralistic understanding of cities. She started her consulting practice Wabi Sabi Planning Laboratories in 2012, after a 12-year planning career at the City of Vancouver with a focus on the regeneration of historic inner-city neighbourhoods. Her current work explores issues of inclusivity and examines how cultural and community-owned assets help shape the urban landscape and city economy. She holds an MCP (Planning) from the University of Pennsylvania. xii Contributors

David Franco is a licensed architect and an architecture theory scholar. He holds a PhD in Architectural and Urban History and Theory and an MArch from the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. He currently holds the Robert Mills Professorship at Clemson University, where he is part of the tenure-track faculty, having held full time positions at the University of Idaho and at the Escuela Politécnica Superior USPCEU of Madrid, where he was the Director of the Architecture Thesis Program. He is a member of the Editorial Com- mittee of the Architecture Media and Politics Journal and of the Constellations Architecture Academic Journal.

Cecilia Giusti is Associate Dean in the College of Architecture and Associate Professor of Urban Planning at Texas A&M University. Her PhD is from the University of Texas at Austin; MA from the Institute of Social Studies, The Hague; and Bachelor from the Catholic University, Lima, Peru. Her research area is Texas and Latin America focusing on economic development and planning, informality, land values, public spaces, and equity.

Mike S. Harris is a landscape architect and urban design researcher, teacher, and practitioner. He is a Lecturer in Landscape Architecture at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, and is currently researching how the aims of mixed-use megaprojects, with an explicit narrative of global economic com- petitiveness, are reconciled with the delivery of strategic infrastructure, liveability goals, local identity, and social equity.

Keiro Hattori is a professor in the Faculty of Economics in Meiji Gakuin University, Tokyo, Japan. He has also been a licensed city and regional planner since 2002. He has a doctorate degree in Policy Studies from Kwansei Gakuin University, a Master’s degree in City and Regional Planning and Landscape Architecture from University of California at Berkeley. He graduated from Tokyo University with a bachelor’s degree in Civil Engineering. His publications include books and reports, such as “Curitiba, Human Oriented City” (2004), “Town Planning for Teenagers” (2013). He was born in Tokyo, in 1963.

Jeffrey Hou is Professor of Landscape Architecture at the University of Wash- ington, Seattle. His work focuses on community design, civic engagement, and cross-cultural placemaking with an emphasis on the agency of individuals and marginalized social groups in shaping the built environment. He is known for his pioneering work on guerrilla urbanism and bottom-up placemaking, through collaborative publications including Insurgent Public Space: Guerrilla Urbanism and the Remaking of Contemporary Cities (2010), Transcultural Cities: Border-Crossing and Placemaking (2013), Messy Urbanism: Understanding the “Other” Cities of Asia (2016), and City Unsilenced: Urban Resistance and Public Space in the Age of Shrink- ing Democracy (2017). Contributors xiii

Shu-Mei Huang is Assistant Professor at the Graduate Institute of Building and Planning, National Taiwan University. Her research interests include post- colonial urbanism, transnationalization of care and space, and recovery planning. She has carried out research into defunct prisons built by the colonial regimes in several East Asian cities, including Taipei, Seoul, Singapore, and Lushun. In collaboration with her Korean colleague, she is preparing for a book project on remembering of punishment in post-colonial Asian cities. She is author of Urbanizing Carescapes of Hong Kong: Two Systems, One City (2015).

Daniel C. Knudsen is a Professor in and Chair of the Department of Geography at Indiana University and Adjunct Professor of Anthropology and Tourism Studies. He is a cultural and economic geographer working in the fields of critical food studies, tourism, and landscape studies. In his spare time he tends iris.

Daniel Kudla is a PhD candidate in the Sociology and Anthropology department at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada. He is also a part-time lecturer in the Sociology department at King’s University College at Western University in London, Ontario. His research interests include socio-spatial criminology, municipal governance, policing, legitimization, and justification. He works with perspectives from cultural sociology, the pragmatic sociology of critique, and social constructivism. His current research examines the justification processes enacted by business improvement area stakeholders.

Lauren Lastrapes received her PhD in Urban Studies from the University of New Orleans in 2012. In general, her research uses life history methods to examine the mechanisms through which people create and maintain identities within cultures of belonging. She has taught anthropology, economics, and liberal arts seminars at the University of New Orleans and at Bard Early College in New Orleans. She currently teaches World Geography at Benjamin Franklin High School in New Orleans.

Edna Ledesma is an Emerging Scholar of Race and Gender in the U.S. Built Environment at the University of Texas at Austin School of Architecture (UTSOA). She holds a PhD in Urban and Regional Science from Texas A&M University, a Master of Architecture and a Master of Urban Design from the UTSOA, and a Bachelor of Environmental Design from Texas A&M Univer- sity. Her research focuses on understanding the spatial configuration of the twenty-first century American city, in particular the landscape of immigrant populations, micro-economies, and their development of the “informal” sector as new understandings of city development and design.

Laura Lieto is a professor of urban planning in the Department of Architecture at “Federico II” University of Napoli (Italy). She works on critical urban xiv Contributors theory, urban informality, and transnational urbanism. Among her recent publications: “Transnational Planning and the Middle East Hybrid City,” in: H. Molotch and D. Ponzini (Eds.). Learning from Gulf Cities (forthcoming); “How Material Objects Become Urban Things?” City 21(5) (2017); Planning for a Material World (2016), co-edited with R.A. Beauregard.

Naka Matsumoto received her PhD at the University of Maryland, College Park in Urban and Regional Planning and Design with a Fulbright scholarship. Her research focuses on how diverse groups of people work together at the neighbourhood level and how policy and physical environments help people to do so, with a particular interest in the immigrants and minorities in community development. She has been teaching courses on community planning and urban policy, as well as a planning studio at Keio University in Japan and at Columbia University in the United States.

Vikas Mehta, PhD is the Fruth/Gemini Chair and Ohio Eminent Scholar of Urban/Environmental Design and Associate Professor of Urbanism at the University of Cincinnati. He is interested in various dimensions of urbanity through the exploration of place as a social and ecological setting and as a senso- rial art. His work focuses on the role of design and planning in creating more responsive, equitable, supportive, and communicative environments. He is the author of 101 Things I Learned in Urban Design School (2018, with Matthew Frederick), Public Space (2015) and The Street: A Quintessential Social Public Space (2013), which received the 2014 Book Award from the Environmental Design Research Association.

Justin R. Meyer is a research associate at the Center of Science and Industry and an adjunct instructor in City and Regional Planning at Ohio State Univer- sity. His research focuses on the interactions between art/cultural institutions and their neighbourhoods. He holds a Master of Philosophy in Environmental Design in Architecture from the University of Cambridge, and a Master and PhD in Urban Planning from the University of Michigan.

Maria Francesca Piazzoni is a PhD candidate in Urban Planning at the University of Southern California. Her dissertation combines discourses on multiculturalism and the right to the city to look at the Bangladeshi street ven- dors of Rome. She holds a PhD in Architecture and Urbanism from IUAV, University of Venice, and received a Master of Architecture Summa cum Laude from Sapienza, University of Rome.

Jeffrey Schiffer has Métis and European ancestry, and was born and raised in unceded Coast Salish territory. He holds a BA in anthropology from the University of British Columbia, and an MA and PhD in anthropology and Contributors xv education from Columbia University. He has conducted collaborative research with Indigenous communities in Canada, the United States, and Guatemala. His dissertation focused on indigenizing Aboriginal child welfare in urban British Columbia. He has worked at Vancouver Aboriginal Child and Family Services Society, the Justice Institute of British Columbia, and is currently the Indi- genous Affairs Consultant with the City of Toronto.

Brettany Shannon, MPL, PhD (University of Southern California), is an urban planning and development scholar who studies how people use digital communications for urban and social placemaking. Her broad research agenda allows her to explore the ways digital communication, aesthetics, culture, policy, and technology interrelate to shape the city as we know it. She is currently the USC Bedrosian Center on Governance’s first Scholar-in-Residence, where she is producing a podcast series, Los Angeles Hashtags Itself, that explores how Angelenos of various fields use digital communications to create, shape, and engage community.

Leslie Shieh is the co-founder of Take Root Studio, a Vancouver-based firm with a focus on social purpose real estate. She holds a BS in Urban Studies from Cornell University and a MCP (Planning) from University of California, Ber- keley. She completed a PhD in Urban Planning from University of British Columbia where her research examined community building and governance under the context of China’s rapid urbanization. Her work in Vancouver combines her extensive experience working in different urban contexts and bringing together research, theory, and practice.

Laura Tate, PhD (University of British Columbia), is an urban planning scholar, lecturer and consultant with deep interests in community social and material interactions. Before this collection, she co-edited Actor Networks of Plan- ning with Yvonne Rydin. She lives in Victoria, British Columbia and most recently held the position of a Visiting Lecturer at the California Polytechnic State University. She has an extensive practice background, as the Executive Director of the InnerChange Foundation, Provincial Director of the Com- munity Action Initiative, Director at the BC Ministry of Health, Manager, regional growth strategies at the BC Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and as a land-use planner in suburban Vancouver. 15 CODING THE “AUTHENTI-cITY” North Harbour and the Århusgade Quarter, Copenhagen

Mike S. Harris

The transformation of redundant working waterfronts under internationally competitive narratives has continued unabated since the first leisure-focused projects in Baltimore, San Francisco, and Boston during the 1960s and 1970s (Smith & Ferrari, 2012). From the late 1980s and early 1990s, in response to global patterns of increasingly deregulated market-rule ideology (Brenner & Theodore, 2005), a massive redirection of global investment from physical to human capital (Sassen, 2001), and the growth of knowledge and service economies (Moretti, 2013), these projects shifted focus to attract increasingly mobile capital, companies, and workers of the knowledge economy, Canary Wharf London being the exemplar (Newman & Thornley, 1996). Today’s “competitive precinct projects” (Harris, 2017) combine office and leisure functions and add a residential offering, capitalizing on the return to city living and the urban concentration of knowledge workers (Moretti, 2013). This competitive urban process has been described as “re-centring” the city towards investors, developers, business people, and tourists (Swyngedouw, Moulaert, & Rodriguez, 2002) in which urban space and the activities within are geared primarily for commodification and consumption under a cosmopolitan lifestyle image (Oakley, 2009). The remaking of these sites has ignited debate about the authenticity of particular places and generated a raft of reinventions of authenticity (Zukin, 2010) as a product of consumption itself or a grass-roots reclamation attempt, at times combining in a difficult to distinguish authentic-consumption.

Consistent Global Criticism These competitively positioned megaprojects are not limited to postindustrial waterfronts, although due to single-government ownership, water’s edge 288 Mike S. Harris amenity and proximity to city centre functions, they are the most common, and arguably the most lucrative. As a project type occurring over the past few decades they have been poorly received in the literature. An analysis of 30 reviews covering 42 mixed-use megaprojects (24 being waterfronts) in 20 countries identified “five consistent criticisms of ‘global’ mixed-use megaprojects” (Harris, 2017). In summary, they are: (1) circumventing local planning frameworks and accountability; (2) global positioning towards a mobile elite prevail- ing over local issues; (3) self-contained and disconnected from the host city; (4) generic urban form focused on image projection and encapsulating a narrow view of urban life and culture, and; (5) minimal commitment to public benefit with a primary focus on profitability. This evaluation represents virtually the opposite of what might be considered urban authenticity.

Urban Authenticity This chapter reviews the collective attempt made at one competitively positioned mixed-use megaproject to operationalize authenticity. Urban planners and designers are tasked with the project/dance/gamble of “city making”—a process emblematic of the struggle for meaning embedded in that slippery term, authenticity. Ellin (2013) proposes the “authenti-city” as an accrued mixture of large and small, old and new, planned and unplanned, representing local history, culture, climate, and landscape, manifest by the varied hands of communities, organiza- tions, corporations, and government bodies. As opposed to the Functionalist City, this urban assemblage acknowledges that the complex collection of built things and spaces, the flows of people, capital, and goods, the social, economic, and political processes, and their contingent relationships is messy and imposs- ible to control in its entirety (DeLanda, 2016). The ambition in Ellin’s authenticity is to understand as best we can and give guidance to these processes within a framework that allows for change and accommodation of new ideas, diversity, and complexity. Zukin (2010) acknowledges authenticity includes the “look and feel” of a place but stresses the social connectedness a place enables. She warns that authenticity today, subverted by consumer culture, is more con- cerned with “style” than “origins”—things and experiences more than people and communities. Zukin’s understanding of authenticity in “origins” advocates that people of all socioeconomic standing be able to put down roots, ultimately facilitated by mixed rent levels for housing, retail, and offices. These interconnected characterizations represent the start and continued theoretical lineage of urban authenticity, focusing on human behaviour, social interactions, and identity, and how these are influenced by spatial design and functional mixes. Both draw on and extend Jane Jacobs’ (1961) seminal observational work and her four “conditions for city diversity,” mixed uses, small blocks, aged buildings, and density, that underlie the belief that diversity is Coding the “Authenti-City” 289 essential for cities to sustain their economic and cultural livelihood. Jacobs stresses the need for these conditions to occur in an integrated manner, rather than being viewed as isolated categories. Within this lineage, Jan Gehl (1971), William Whyte (1980), and Donald Appleyard, Sue Gerson, and Mark Lintell (1981) advanced Jacobs’ socially oriented observational methods as practising methodologies for understanding and designing cities, quantitatively verifying her qualitative findings. Collectively, along with many others, these urbanists introduced and disseminated this mixed-use, people-based approach which has been increasingly embraced in urban planning discourse and practice (Dovey & Pafka, 2017). Many of the tenets of this approach are explicitly evoked in the planning processes of Copenhagen’s North Harbour. Codes set out parameters for land use, design, and construction that must be demonstrably met in order to obtain planning permission. Codes are set and approved by the statutory approval authority, usually local government, and are intended to achieve overarching goals of urban morphology, health and safety, and public good. In contrast to the evidence demonstrating the delivery over decades around the world of un-authentic mixed-use megaprojects this chapter asks, has authenticity been coded at North Harbour? An analysis of the Århusgade Quarter at North Harbour through the lens of Ellin’s (2013) authenti-city of the objectives, planning processes, and built outcomes to date shows that flexible frameworks that balance control with interpretation can meet many of the ambi- tions of the authenti-city. It is evident that functional and material authenticity can be coded and implemented in clear guidelines that enjoy broad support; however, socioeconomic authenticity remains the most challenging interdepend- ency of the authenti-city. A particular challenge in achieving a more robust authenti-city at North Harbour is reconciling two land value-based public good goals: the provision of a new city metro line financed by sale of lots at North Harbour and the provision of affordable housing in an increasingly expensive city.

North Harbour and the Århusgade Quarter We wanted North Harbour to be like Copenhagen because we live here and we like it. The success of Copenhagen is based on the quality of life you can find in a city like this. The ease of bicycling and the easeof living, the common, everyday social interactions and the relative small scale. We didn’t want to change this, we wanted to evolve it. Not try to come up with something completely foreign or strange or new. (R. Boserup, consulting project manager, COBE, personal communication, January 16, 2015)

North Harbour’s vision of a diverse, inclusive, connected, and vibrant city anchored in local identity counters the globally consistent criticism of competitively positioned mixed-use megaprojects and shows traces of Ellin’s 290 Mike S. Harris authenti-city in its integration of city functions, demographic difference, private and public, local and global, process and product, planned and spontaneous. North Harbour’s objectives are to be: (1) an “eco-friendly city,” where an environmentally friendly way of living is the easiest option; (2) a “vibrant city” with an active and diverse urban life offering a wide range of experiences; (3) a “city for everyone” with a mix of residents including families and single people, young and elderly, and people from all income groups, with a broad range of workplaces, and where both residents and visitors feel welcome; (4) a “city at the water” where the waterfront is accessible to all and all buildings are “audience-oriented” to the public domain along the water’s edge; (5) a “dynamic city” acknowledging the nature of continual change of cities, where new workplaces, public institutions, facilities, and experiences are continually evolving, a place where international knowledge workers and students live and work among local residents and where residents and people living elsewhere will be able to use and enjoy each other’s facilities, and, lastly; (6) a “city with sustainable mobility” where public transport, cycling, and walking are the most convenient options (City & Port, 2008a). The manufacture and presentation of a recognizable, internationalized image has been perceived as essential for cities to gain competitive advantage on the global stage (Zukin, 1992). North Harbour, however, has been presented as quintessentially local, representing both the city’s history and future, as well as addressing local urban deficiencies in transport and housing (City & Port, 2012). North Harbour shows signs of reconciling international economic competit- iveness with local issues and identity.

Project Background North Harbour was conceived for the primary purposes of financing the City Ring metro line and providing housing and knowledge industry employment close to the city centre. When complete in 40–50 years, North Harbour is expected to cover a total area of 360 hectares and be home to 40,000 residents and 40,000 jobs in a total of 3.5 million square metres of building floor space (Copenhagen Municipality, 2012). North Harbour is being delivered by CPH City & Port Development (City & Port), a public–public partnership owned by Copenhagen Municipality (95 per cent) and the Danish state (5 per cent). City & Port was created in 2007 in a merger between the Ørestad Development Corporation1 (ØDC) and Port of Copenhagen Ltd in order to focus the strategic scope of the ØDC on development of public land located mainly in harbour areas. While a public company, City & Port is intended as an arms-length delivery authority in order to weather political cycles over the long term, with a remit to operate under market conditions. In terms of sheer scale of development in Copenhagen, City & Port is by far the single largest player, holding a significant responsibility for the Coding the “Authenti-City” 291 emerging expression of the expanding city. The company acts as owner, planner, approval authority, and project manager of its land, as well as property marketer and vendor for individual lots. Copenhagen Municipality plays an additional role as the municipal and statutory approval authority under traditional approval processes. In 2007 the Act on urban development of North Harbour was passed and public consultation began. With a programme informed by meetings and debates with citizens and stakeholders,2 an open and anonymous international ideas competition was held in 2008 with the challenge of designing “the future sustainable city.” In total, 180 entries were received from 36 countries, and results were announced in 2009 (City & Port, 2008b). The Local Plan for the first phase, the Århusgade Quarter, covering 22 hectares with a maximum of 350,000 square metres of floor space, was approved late 2011. The delivery of this megaproject is planned to occur incrementally, island by island, each with its own Local Plan. Local Plans are formulated and approved within Copenhagen Municipality. Each building application must meet the requirements of both City & Port and Copenhagen Municipality. As at Ørestad,3 City & Port are responsible for delivering the trunk infrastructure and all public domain. After construction, Copen- hagen Municipality takes on the management of the main streets Århusgade and Lüdersvej, as well as the six-metre wide “super cycle path” (Copenhagen Muni- cipality, 2012).

Lessons Learnt North Harbour has been described as the culmination of a learning process. From over two decades of large projects, Copenhagen now better understands the potential of the city’s harbour and functionally mixed compact form (Kvorning, 2009). Past projects in which authenticity has been called into question, where diversity, local character, and liveliness were seen to have been inhibited, have been acknowledged in the planning process, as has the growing appreciation for aged and mixed neighbourhoods and finer scales of streets, buildings, and uses. The popularity of the seventeenth century canal neighbourhood Christian- shavn and its capacity to adapt to economic and social change was an underpin- ning design rationale of North Harbour (R. Boserup, personal communication, January 16, 2015). In response to Ørestad’s emptiness, the design team adopted an “open space diet” for the Århusgade Quarter of small, enclosed plazas and tightly defined promenades (R. Boserup, personal communication, January 16, 2015; J. Sangberg, personal communication, January 28, 2015). Nicolai Axholm, Director of Sales and Leasing at City & Port (personal communication, October 18, 2017), explains the Århusgade Quarter’s traditional inner-city high street-inspired concentration of retail along a central street is in response to 292 Mike S. Harris the lack of street shopfronts and street activity at Ørestad, which has an internal- ized megamall. In response to the dull, inactivated public space at waterfront developments Langelinie and Amerika Plads, street retail at the Århusgade Quarter is given a subsidized head start and coordinated for diversity (N. Axholm, personal communication, October 18, 2017; J. Christiansen, personal communication, February 2, 2015), and residents are invited to use public space like a front porch (R. Boserup, personal communication, January 16, 2015). In response to the large traffic oriented subdivisions at Ørestad and the mid-1990s Kalvebod Brygge project, the Århusgade Quarter is made up of small blocks and an intricate street network designed to prioritize walking and cycling (J. Højgaard, K. Sundquist, & J. Matzen, personal communication, January 30, 2015). In response to public and political outrage at corporatizing the waterfront at Kalvebod Brygge (Desfor & Jørgensen, 2004) and the success of residential fronted harbour parks and free harbour swimming pools at Islands Brygge, the promenade at the Århusgade Quarter is permeable and residential with a public swimming area (R. Boserup, personal communication, January 16, 2015). The 2006 city-led housing canal development Sluseholmen in South Harbour demonstrated to investors, architects, and residents the diverse and engaging possibilities, and financial viability, of finer-grain post-industrial waterfront development (R. Boserup, personal communication, January 16, 2015; J. Christiansen, personal communication, February 2, 2015). According to Jens Kvorning, Professor of Urban Planning at KADK Architecture School and fre- quent competition jury member (personal communication, July 1, 2015), Sluse- holmen also revealed the problem of offering too much standardization of dwelling type across an area, so a series of planning codes ensures a wide range of dwelling sizes at the Århusgade Quarter. Rita Justesen, Director of Architec- ture and Planning at City & Port (personal communication, December 15, 2014), explains how the desire to attract famous architects to Copenhagen4 to install signature buildings had faded, and how the jury for the North Harbour anonymous design competition appreciated and ultimately rewarded the design sensibilities of local architects. North Harbour should be seen as a step in a lineage of projects in Copen- hagen that has responded to the early spatial criticisms of Ørestad and re- explored finer grain, smaller scale, and diversely configured neighbourhood design that encourages social interaction. This process queries what already works in the city—how previous neighbourhood projects have been received by the city’s publics—and how that can be translated to a new project’s context. An appreciation and extension of the city’s “genetic code” (Ellin, 2013). City & Port is acknowledged to have become “wiser each time” in this regard according to Karsten Ifversen, architecture critic for the national newspaper Politiken (personal communication, July 13, 2017). Coding the “Authenti-City” 293

The Design Competition I think that’s why we ended up with Danish architects, because they know the history, they know the climate, they know the mentality. It can be hard for people from other parts of the world to really understand these local conditions. They [international entries] thought it was important to do something very special. Crazy projects some of them. Giant shapes that you can only see from the sky for example. That’s not Copenhagen. Dubai maybe, but not Copenhagen. (R. Justesen, personal communication, December 15, 2014)

The jury found entries that drew inspiration from Copenhagen’s traditional forms and way of life to be more successful. The COBE/Sleth/Rambøll scheme was selected for its built form, site-structuring, and phasing strategy, but the jury was also impressed by how Polyform applied existing inner-city patterns in its approach to public space type, scale, and distribution. The firms combined efforts to progress the scheme in collaboration with City & Port and Copen- hagen Municipality (J. Sangberg, personal communication, January 28, 2015). The winning competition scheme presented a simple and compelling parallel with the old city. Where the old city’s church and town hall towers rise above the compact, pedestrian friendly, mid-rise settlement, the new waterfront city’s adapted silos rise above a similarly mid-rise settlement that borrows from the existing waterfront administrative buildings’ material and structural character (City & Port, 2009). The inner-city fabric was proposed to combine with the heritage of the waterfront to create new and distinctive, yet familiar, city structure (see Figure 15.1).

Coding the Concept To us the strongest thing with North Harbour is that it is part of Copen- hagen. It’s taking the qualities and structure of Copenhagen where you have the islets and scale and towers, and continuing that in a contemporary way. It’s not going to be a medieval city but it’s going to be at a scale and organization and density that reflects the spaces that are so well known from the old city. (J. Sangberg, personal communication, January 28, 2015)

As such, the Local Plan for the Århusgade Quarter’s detailed urban design attempts to realize the vision negotiated between Copenhagen Municipality, City & Port, planning and design professionals, and public sentiment for a compact, diverse, and lively neighbourhood that bears a strong connection to traditional urban form and local identity and exemplifies a “future sustainable city” (Copenhagen Municipality, 2012). A framework negotiated by communities, 294 Mike S. Harris

FIGURE 15.1 COBE’s conceptual image of combining the old city with the existing site structures at North Harbour Source: courtesy of CPH City & Port Development. government bodies, developers, and designers allows residents to occupy, adapt, and improvise to create a neighbourhood with a “lived in” atmosphere. This framework of codes could be described as an attempt to operationalize the authenti-city. The codes (see Table 15.1) offer a degree of flexibility within firm parameters, aimed to allow a range of interpretations within a coherent urban structure—a guiding strategy to “allow the city to blossom and define itself ” (Ellin, 2013). The two primary functions of residential and commercial (including offices, service trades, shops, schools, and institutions) were to mix almost evenly. A minimum 40 per cent for each with 20 per cent flexibility for market preferences at the time of development (City & Port, 2012). A number of lots were offered without functional use requirements. These could be residential or commercial, depending on developer interest, until the minimum 40 per cent had been reached (R. Justesen, personal communication, December 15, 2014). Each lot is sold individually, allowing an incremental, albeit fast, build out of the area by a number of different participants with varying development interests and site con- straints. These contained parameters ask for “inventiveness within the ordinary” (Ellin, 2013) and wait for what comes back. Each new participant responds to the land use and lot availability at the time. The first developer to buy in has the most flexibility in choice. So far 20 investor/developers and 19 architects have TABLE 15.1 Examples of codes in the Local Plan for the Århusgade Quarter intended to generate authenticity inspired by traditional forms and ways of life, yet with flexibility for experimentation

Urban form and land use Public domain Blocks Buildings Streets Århusgade “high street” Transport

Compact 3–6 storey Must be designed to be Small blocks. All ground floor Staggered grid All ground floor Min. 30% cycling mid-rise settlement clearly public, signage apartments have direct informed by levels bought back by and walking. Each block is 1 with converted silos suggesting privatization street access. existing settlement City & Port and lot, delivered by 1 Min. 30% public and 1 new tall building prohibited. and wind company created to developer and 1 Reddish, orange-red, and transport. standing above. protection. coordinate diversity All ground floor architect. earth shades of of tenants. Reduced Max. 30% driving. Min. 40% residential, apartments have “edge predominantly brick with All streets, lanes, Each block rent offered for 3 Min. 40% commercial, zones”—either 3–4 metre occasional cladding. and promenades No on-site contains several years. 20% flexibility. terraces within property besides Århusgade parking. 1,900 smaller, Converted silos in lighter boundary open to street or and Helsinkigade Housing in at least spaces within 1.8 plot ratio, matching individually shades as monolithic right-of-use 0.6–1 metre act as shared space. 75% of each quarter. 90% the “old city.” accessed building volumes. zones in public domain. building’s floor space, leasable parking in components, built At least 75% of 20% small apartments Ground floors of in at least 3 of the 6 3 parking Edge zones must be to street each building’s 50–70 square metres converted silos and the new blocks and not 3 structures. designed in parallel with boundary. floor space, in at and average dwelling new tall building to be on the same side. the interior ground floor to least 3 of the 6 10% 30-minute size 95 square metres. Each block must publicly accessible with facilitate the use of the new blocks and and handicap contain at least 3 non-commercial facilities Small apartments in at edge zone by the resident. not 3 on the same parking on streets. differences in and the top floor to house least 7 blocks, and in at side, must be Publicly accessible, active building height a publicly accessible least 1 block within housing. frontages and “outward with at least 2 function. each sub-area. facing” private frontages. changes in facade Housing in at least Entrances to provide Housing must be used expression or 75% of the All ground floors to be 4 publicly usable shelter, for full-time residence materiality. building’s floor metres high with potential seating, and space for and not as holiday space above the to be used for residential, bicycle parking and prams. homes. ground floor along retail, or other commercial All dwellings dual aspect. the promenade. uses.

Source: Copenhagen Municipality, 2012. 296 Mike S. Harris contributed to the physical making of the Århusgade Quarter. In some areas, the Local Plan assigned more prescriptive codes and capped square metres for uses, but still towards the aim of having flexible blocks and uses. For example, the promenade is intended to be strongly residential and the high street, Århusgade, is intended to be dominated by neither residential nor commercial.

Subdivision and the Compact City

Urban Form and Land Use The Århusgade Quarter was planned to match the scale and profile of the surrounding harbour settlements, as well as the older adjacent neighbourhood of Østerbro (c. 1890–1910). The subdivision of the Århusgade Quarter expands on the existing settlement patterns as an intricate, fine-grained street network with small, staggered blocks creating a number of varied urban spaces with the intent to generate a spatially diverse and intimately scaled neighbourhood (Copenhagen Municipality, 2012). This staggered grid with many intersections provides legibility and order with surprising encounters of pocket plazas, vistas, and people, striking the authenti-city balance between the predictable and unexpected (Ellin, 2013). While not officially protected by heritage significance, the existing collection of administrative buildings, nicknamed the “Red City,” was seen as representa- tive of the site’s harbour culture with a “quirkiness and identity” worth preserv- ing and extending (R. Boserup, personal communication, January 16, 2015). The spatial structure and materiality of the Red City has directly informed the new street network and design codes (see Figure 15.2). Demolishing to provide

FIGURE 15.2 New development underway, extending from the old “Red City” with small blocks and a staggered network of laneways Source: CPH City & Port Development/Ole Malling. Coding the “Authenti-City” 297 bare lots for sale and increased densities would be arguably easier and more profitable from a development point of view. However, the position taken was that without these buildings, the entire area would be ultimately devalued through the loss of identity and character. A similar discussion took place regarding the silos. The design team saw these monuments as an important part of the site’s history and worthy of adaptation, whereas City & Port were more inclined to demolish them, doubtful of their sale value. A compromise was made in which they would be put on the market for three years. If no buyer was found within this time, they would be demolished. The first lot to be sold in the Århusgade Quarter was the Portland Silos, converted to offices in 2013–2014 (R. Boserup, personal communication, January 16, 2015). Renovat- ing, rather than razing, has value after all.

Blocks Built form codes are intended to create blocks similar to the traditional fine grain, street defining composite blocks of inner Copenhagen, although in a contemporary architectural idiom (see Figure 15.3). These patterns reinforce the connection between the old and new city and engender walking and social interaction through their high number of intersections and engaging ground floor frontages. The difference at the Århusgade Quarter, and similarly Sluse- holmen, with the old city is that the blocks are visually but not structurally composed of individual buildings. Traditional blocks in older parts of the city are constituted of individual buildings that can be demolished and rebuilt independent of their neighbours, allowing incremental change within a block over time. Blocks at the Århusgade Quarter are effectively one building designed to appear, in varying degrees, like a composite of buildings. Århusgade Quarter buildings are not to be architecturally striking or viewed in isolation. Rather they act as a compact, coherent mass with narrow alleyways and small irregular spaces, echoing the grain and corresponding pedestrian experiences of the older city. The converted silos rise above this base as land- marks, maintaining their dominant position in the harbour, and acting as visible reference points from the city and the water—a careful coordination of monu- mental and background buildings (Ellin, 2013). The silos and the new tall building on the headland must respond to the site’s character and history but should also “represent forward looking and experimental architecture” (Copenhagen Municipality, 2012). This concurrent engagement with contemporary agency and the local historic landscape is central to the authenti-city, appreciating urban space as an ongoing iterative project (Ellin, 2013). Rather than being a constraint on the pragmatics of development, this framework has resulted in a smooth implementation process. According to City & Port, developer agreements have been processed more efficiently and with less sense of risk than in other development areas since the clear codes provide FIGURE 15.3 Harbour Park and Kronløbshuset development Source: courtesy of CPH City & Port Development, author, and Mangor & Nagel. Notes: Clockwise from left: diagrammed codes for single block development and the built interpretations. Coding the “Authenti-City” 299 certainty for developers in terms of what they are buying and the parameters in which they must build (R. Justesen, personal communication, December 15, 2014).

Streets Besides Århusgade and Helsinkigade, all streets and promenades act as shared space. Car access on the promenade was a controversial proposal, especially in a city that has prided itself on decades of car-limiting policies. However, the view is one of embracing complexity and diversity where all modes mingle, providing the most human, vulnerable, socially engaging, and therefore authentic (Ellin, 2013) of all modes, walking and cycling, are not jeopardized. The shared streets, lanes, and promenades are designed to ensure very slow driving. There is no private car parking associated with habitable buildings. For those wanting perma- nent parking, spaces can be leased in one of three car parking structures. The first to be completed is no mundane parking structure. This hybridization (Ellin, 2013) provides an all-ages playground on the rooftop accessible by two dramatic exterior staircases and overlooked by the higher floors of the converted silos, a Netto grocery store, recycling centre, and ground floor-bicycle parking,5 slowly becoming covered by vines in hanging planter boxes. The parking structure- strategy addresses three objectives. First, it disincentivizes car ownership by detaching parking from dwellings and offering it as a separate leasable option, as well as addresses the goal for driving to constitute no more than 30 per cent of trips. Second, it minimizes car traffic in the shared space streets, lanes, and promenades, as car movements are contained primarily to Århusgade and Hel- sinkigade from which the parking structures are accessed. Third, it increases opportunities for social interaction and a sense of street life—if a car-owning resident chooses to leave by car, they must first walk out of their front door and through the neighbourhood. In addition, the structures provide an ongoing revenue source for City & Port who retain ownership of the parking structures.6

Plazas The number of plazas decreased during the Local Plan’s development. This was not in favour of more building floor space, as the maximum density allowed has not changed since the competition brief. The floor space ratio matches the most densely built areas of inner Copenhagen (Copenhagen Municipality, 2012). Rather, it was due to the view that too much open space would threaten the vibrant urban environment desired. The compact scheme already reflected the lessons of too much open space from the case of Ørestad, yet comparative studies showed the Århusgade Quarter still had twice as many city spaces as older and popular, inner-city quarters like Vesterbro and Nørrebro (J. Sangberg, personal communication, January 28, 2015). 300 Mike S. Harris

Edge Zones Codes for building frontages encourage interaction between private and public realms. In addition to active frontage requirements, defined as publicly accessible businesses such as shops and cafes, there are “outward facing” frontages, defined as “audience-oriented” private uses with direct street access and mostly glazed facades, such as community rooms for residential buildings or employee canteens for commercial buildings. An “outward facing” frontage is permitted to become an active frontage, but not vice versa; publicness can only be increased. A range of residential edge zone types (see Figure 15.4) are provided that cover all ground floor residential frontages. There are three and four metre terrace edge zones partially raised above street level and visually open to the public or a 0.6–1 metre edge zone at street level that residents can occupy as they please with tables, chairs, potted plants, or other belongings.

Århusgade Århusgade is envisaged as North Harbour’s high street, where shops, cafes, and restaurants are concentrated. A challenge acknowledged on other similar projects, whether in Copenhagen at Amerika Quay and Langelinie (J. Christiansen, personal communication, February 2, 2015) or HafenCity in Hamburg, is the difficulty in fostering an active high street environment in the early stages of a district-scale project. In an attempt to overcome this, City & Port has bought back the ground floor levels of all buildings along Århusgade and created a company in partnership with Nordic Real Estate Partners (NREP) that owns and manages these shops in a coordinated manner. Shops will be leased at below market rates for the first few years to attract diverse and distinct tenants and allow them to survive in the early stages of North Harbour’s development. This strategy also allows City & Port to coordinate a diversity of retailers and services normally found in established high streets. The intent is to attract residents from the surrounding neighbourhoods to Århusgade and demonstrate early that the Århusgade Quarter is an authentic part of the city with similar social and economic interdependencies (Ellin, 2013) found in traditional inner- city neighbourhoods (R. Justesen, personal communication, December 15, 2014). This strategy of which social exchange is a fundamental component is anti-enclave but also grounded in more pragmatic financial viability. While not seen as a profit-making venture for City & Port in its own right, it is part of a broader value strategy that recognizes a vibrant and desirable neighbourhood needs a variety of activities on offer. An authentic shopping street of diverse and distinctive retail activity is intended to raise the value of unsold lots (N. Axholm, personal communication, October 18, 2017). The vibrant city is a profitable city. FIGURE 15.4 Diagrammed codes for edge zones and two built interpretations, at Kajplads and at Kronløbshuset Source: courtesy Copenhagen Municipality and author. Notes: Clockwise from left: diagrammed codes for edge zones and two built interpretations, 4 metres at Kajplads, and 0.6 metres at Kronløbshuset. 302 Mike S. Harris

Managing Diversity and Distinctiveness

Århusgade The company has turned down a number of tenants deemed unsuitable, such as a rapidly internationally expanding Danish food and beverage chain. This particular prospective tenant was ousted during negotiations by recently signed up tenants who claimed bringing in a chain store would be selling out on the concept. City & Port are encouraging these tenants to form an independent association, hiring a manager from the successful boutique food markets Torve- hallerne in the city centre to help them formulate a model (N. Axholm, personal communication, October 18, 2017). The shops will be distinctive, local, focusing on Nordic and ecological practices, and, apart from the Netto super- market, expensive. Authentic to some, out of reach for others.

Housing Codes ensuring a range of size and types of dwellings will contribute to achieving a “city for everyone.” In response to growing single person occupancy, 20 per cent of housing must be small apartments, between 50 and 70 square metres. The average dwelling size must be 95 square metres. To achieve this average a number of larger dwellings need to be built. This has resulted in a variety of dwelling sizes including one, two, three, and four bedroom apartments plus townhouses. To ensure meeting the dwelling size distribution requirement across the quarter, City & Port found it most effective to negotiate 20 per cent small apartments for each block (R. Justesen, personal communication, December 15, 2014). This has resulted in more dispersed dwelling size than the minimum required by the codes. The Local Plan states that housing must be used for full-time residence and not as vacation real estate, noting the Population Register (folkeregistertilmelding) can be used to enforce this. Combined, these policies ensure neighbourhoods are diverse, consistent, and able to grow in place. They answer both Ellin’s (2013) wish for connectedness between communities and places7 and Zukin’s call for “origins,” where people can put down roots and form communities— that the people here today, will be here tomorrow.

A City for Everyone? In order to reach the “city for everyone” objective, an informal goal of 20 per cent social housing in North Harbour was agreed. This would match the city and national average, however the housing mix at the Århusgade Quarter has not achieved this goal. While the objective states that “residents from all income groups” should be represented at North Harbour, there was no legal Coding the “Authenti-City” 303 mechanism, or code, in which this could be enforced.8 When the North Harbour objectives were translated down to objectives for the Århusgade Quarter, the “city for everyone” objective was dropped after it became clear this could not be guaranteed through an informal process or by cost-saving design alone. Pressure on maximizing early financial returns from high upfront costs was cited as reasons for low social housing provision, including contribu- tions to the construction of the City Ring metro line, new canals, trunk infrastructure, and public domain works. However, Marc Jørgensen, Centre for Urban Development Teamleader at Copenhagen Municipality (personal communication, December 23, 2017), describes the relationships between development costs and social housing as complex and not necessarily interdependent. Ultimately Copenhagen Municipality and City & Port made a voluntary agree- ment that 7 per cent of residential floor space at the Århusgade Quarter would be social housing. However, a landmark national policy change in 2015 gave local governments the power to demand up to 25 per cent social housing in new Local Plans. From this point on, Copenhagen Municipality can require 25 per cent social housing at each unplanned quarter at North Harbour and, by law, City & Port has to deliver. The Local Plans for Århusgade Quarter West (5.3 hectares), Trælastholmen (6.0 hectares), and Levantkaj West (6.4 hectares), all released in 2013, do not stipulate social housing requirements. But, in July 2015, the Local Plan for Sundmolen was released with the requirement that 20 per cent of housing there, as well as in the next quarter, Levantkaj, be social housing (Copenhagen Municipality, 2015). Social diversity as outlined in the “city for everyone” appears to be the only objective not completely fulfilled at the Århusgade Quarter. However, as noted, this objective was not explicitly extended from the overall North Harbour objectives—possibly an admission of the difficulty, or lack of determination, for delivery. While legal mechanisms to enforce social housing targets were not available before 2015, City & Port is free to develop and sell land under market conditions, such as the high street strategy, a liberty Copenhagen Municipality is not entitled to under anti-collusion laws (J. Kvorning, personal communication, July 1, 2015). In comparison, North Harbour’s predecessor Ørestad was explicitly premised on attracting affluent residents back to the city, yet the early quarters to be developed, such as Ørestad North achieved 20 per cent social housing through voluntary agreements. A lack of social diversity in employment has also been raised. Kvorning (personal communication, July 1, 2015) identifies the narrow rent range at Ørestad, resulting in the same type of offices and jobs across the 300-hectare project, and argues that if North Harbour is to be the size of a provincial town, the planning process should seek to ensure there is residential and commercial diversity on a stage-by-stage basis. Kvorning argues there is enough room in an area the size of North Harbour to provide for established and successful companies, as well as 304 Mike S. Harris the small and young ones, and that to achieve diversity of people, there must be diversity in rent. He acknowledges the architectural and spatial complexity at North Harbour, but so far sees no complexity in commerce or culture, arguing it is the same type of company paying high rents and residents on high incomes. North Harbour is built to a high standard, with some of the most expensive housing in Denmark. The largest apartment on the top floor of one of the converted silos reached a new national record for a newly built apartment (K. Ifversen, personal communication, July 13, 2017). On one hand this represents a successful development, particularly in regard to reconciling significant upfront development costs. However, the Århusgade Quarter has been described as a “liveable city for the wealthy”—human scaled, spatially diverse, socially inviting, yet truly inhabitable only by those that can afford the high price tag (personal communication, July 13, 2017). Copenhagen Municipality strives for a “city for everyone” but especially for those in the knowledge economy, an explicit goal of North Harbour. It is the knowledge economy that is driving Copenhagen’s (and in turn Denmark’s) economy. Here we find the tension between competing social goals: the provision of affordable living in an increasingly expensive city and the provision of city-wide access with public transport. Both could be considered critical to achieving a “city for everyone” and demands have been placed on North Harbour to provide them both. In response to Ifversen’s critique, Frank Jensen, Copenhagen’s Social Demo- crat mayor and vocal proponent for more affordable housing, argues the recent legislation will ensure the new quarters of North Harbour will

be developed into a real mixed town where people with money and people with ordinary incomes live next door to each other and where their kids go to kindergarten and school together, in keeping with my social democratic vision for Copenhagen. (Jensen, 2017)

This vision of social authenticity has been partly coded within the 20 per cent social housing requirements in the Local Plan for the as-yet-unbuilt Sundmolen and Levantkaj quarters. If realized, as the functional and material authenticity has, then despite the global criticisms of mixed-use megaprojects to the con- trary, the Copenhagen model might just come close to operationalizing all levels of Ellin’s authenti-city.

Discussion The planning process at North Harbour and the Århusgade Quarter can be seen to engage with almost all tenets of Ellin’s authenti-city. The physical form, functionality, and materiality is diverse, yet held together with a strongly guided framework anchored in the site and city’s structure, culture, and history. It is Coding the “Authenti-City” 305 rooted in the past but not nostalgic, offering new uses and modified forms to remnant site structures and functional hybridity. It is human scaled and places vehicular traffic firmly as secondary to a pedestrian oriented street network. The neighbourhood invites exploration on foot. Visual and spatial relationships between residents’ private space and public space is strong. The abundance of open, protruding balconies, and ground floor “edge zones” allow residents to occupy and adapt public space, influencing the neighbourhood’s visual and social character. This megaproject has no mega-developers or foreign fly-in starchitects. Many local investors and designers have played their hand interpret- ing the codes. North Harbour’s objectives embrace processes of change, foster exchange of people and ideas with other parts of the city, and experiment with urban initiatives, intending to “reinforce Copenhagen’s position as an international city of knowledge” (City & Port, 2012). Where North Harbour so far fails to achieve the authenti-city is in the socioeconomic diversity outlined in the “city for everyone” objective. This raises the question, can an “international city of knowledge” also be a “city for everyone?” This could be interpreted as evidence of the justified criticism of the persistent tension between the desire to accumulate capital and the govern- mental obligation of social justice (Fainstein, 2010), demonstrating a core challenge of Copenhagen’s development model under City & Port. Leveraging the value uplift from rezoned government land to finance new metro lines for other parts of the city can be viewed as a redistributive public benefit outcome. However, this financing responsibility incentivizes City & Port to maximize profits on the sale of lots in order to meet the metro financing payment sched- ules. Compounding with the desire to attract mobile knowledge workers, this financial pressure in turn has led to the development of a high-end, some argue exclusive, neighbourhood. This creates tension in achieving other social goals of Copenhagen Municipality who proclaim affordable housing as one of the major issues facing the city. As a major land owner and owned itself by Copenhagen Municipality, City & Port arguably represents the greatest opportunity for achieving housing affordability goals. This may not be technically within City & Port’s remit; however, a “city for everyone” is one of their six guiding objectives for North Harbour. City & Port is a unique entity in Denmark, having the liberties of a private company yet owned by the government. This arrangement allows it to manage its property in ways the government cannot, such as sell or lease land below market levels, as demonstrated by the reduced rent and collective management of the high street strategy. In similar projects globally, this power to operate beyond normal government powers has been exploited for private gain over public good, as embodied in the globally consistent criticism of circumventing planning frameworks and accountability. It can also be used to address challenging social goals that normal government processes are unable to, should the will exist. What the North Harbour affordable housing debate does suggest is that 306 Mike S. Harris will, even in a country with a good track record of social housing provision under voluntary agreements, is not enough to guarantee social diversity. To date, socioeconomic authenticity has not been sufficiently coded at North Harbour, at least not until the social housing legislation is brought to bear and the built results can be evaluated. The Århusgade Quarter contains threads of both Zukin’s “style” and “origins.” On the one hand, it projects an image, a city brand of liveability, a compact urbanity of local and high-quality placemaking and place marketing. On the other hand, it shows a commitment to lineage, neighbourliness, connectedness, and strategic planning. In this way, an urban brand of authenti-city has been constructed (Ellin, 2013). The strategies for achieving diversity are based on both a genuine pursuit of authentic places and more pragmatic economic return. Each step is negotiated between a range of participants in the planning process, at times conflicting within the same organi- zations. North Harbour’s incremental phasing strategy enables learnings from the preceding quarter to be applied to the next. This has happened spatially with modified “edge zone” types and codes that guide more housing diversity within each block. The remaining question for the authenti-city is, can the North Harbour project learn to code inclusiveness?

Notes 1 Prior to 2007, the Copenhagen Municipality and the Danish state owned 55 per cent and 45 per cent of ØDC, respectively. When ØDC merged with Port of Copenhagen Ltd. to form City & Port, responsibilities for delivering the expanding metro system was transferred to a new company, Metroselskabet. 2 Over 800 people participated in three workshops, informing the guiding objectives of the competition. 3 Ørestad was Copenhagen’s first competitively positioned megaproject, enacted by legislation in 1992 and delivered by the same delivery authority. 4 In the 1990s and 2000s an explicit ambition of Ørestad, and more generally of Copen- hagen Municipality, was to attract world famous architects to design striking buildings in an attempt to project an international image (J. Christiansen, personal communication, February 2, 2015; R. Justesen, personal communication, December 15, 2014). 5 The ground floor of parking structures cannot contain car parking. 6 Strict rent control applies to housing and commercial property in Denmark; however, no rent control applies to car parking, making it a lucrative market in an affluent city with limited parking. 7 Community permanence is enabled more generally in Denmark with laws limiting property investment speculation and providing long-term tenant security. Rent cannot be raised unless apartments are renovated to a level commensurate to the rent increase. Tenant evictions are extremely difficult and rare. Lifelong leases are possible and can be passed down between generations. Tenant leaseholders are able to trade their leases and switch homes without the property owner’s consent. 8 Historically, social housing has been provided through informal agreements with developers (J. Christiansen, personal communication, February 2, 2015). To qualify as social housing rent cannot be higher than 60 per cent of market rent levels (K. Ifversen, personal communication, July 13, 2017). Coding the “Authenti-City” 307

References Appleyard, D., Gerson, M.S., & Lintell, M. (1981). Livable streets. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Brenner, N., & Theodore, N. (2005). Neoliberalism and the urban condition. City, 9(1), 101–107. City & Port. (2008a). Nordhavnen brief: Open international ideas competition. Copenhagen: Author. City & Port. (2008b). Nordhavnen jury report: Open international ideas competition. Copen- hagen: Author. City & Port. (2009). Nordhavnen urban strategy. Copenhagen: Author. City & Port. (2012). Nordhavnen: From idea to project: Inner Nordhavn, Århusgadekvarteret. Copenhagen: Author. Copenhagen Municipality. (2012). Lokalplan nr. 463: Århusgadekvarteret i Nordhavn. Teknik og Miljøforvaltningen, Copenhagen Municipality. Copenhagen: Author. Copenhagen Municipality. (2015). Lokalplan nr. 524: Sundmolen i Nordhavn. Teknik og Miljøforvaltningen, Copenhagen Municipality. Copenhagen: Author. DeLanda, M. (2016). Assemblage theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Desfor, G., & Jørgensen, J. (2004). Flexible urban governance: The case of Copenha- gen’s recent waterfront development. European Planning Studies, 12(4), 479–496. Dovey, K., & Pafka, E. (2017). What is functional mix? An assemblage approach. Plan- ning Theory and Practice, 18(2), 249–267. Ellin, N. (2013). Integral urbanism [Taylor & Francis eBooks collection]. Retrieved from: www.tandfebooks.com. Fainstein, S. (2010). The just city. Ithaca, NY: Cornel University Press. Gehl, J. (1971). Life between buildings: Using public space. Copenhagen: Danish Architec- tural Press. Harris, M. (2017). Competitive precinct projects: The five consistent criticisms of “global” mixed-use megaprojects. Project Management Journal, 48(6), 76–92. Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York, NY: Vintage Books. Jensen, F. (2017, March 11). Frank Jensen svarer igen på “frontalangreb” i Politiken: I stedet for at blive sur vil jeg invitere jer på tur i Nordhavn. Politiken. Retrieved from: http://politiken.dk/indland/art5868198/I- stedet-for- at-blive- sur-vil- jeg-invitere- jer-p%C3%A5-tur- i-Nordhavn. Kvorning, J. (2009). Transformation of the Copenhagen Harbour. A+U, (469), 10–15. Moretti, E. (2013). The new geography of jobs. New York, NY: Mariner Books. Newman, P., & Thornley, A. (1996). Urban planning in Europe: International competition, national systems, and planning projects. London and New York, NY: Routledge. Oakley, S. (2009). Governing urban waterfront renewal: The politics, opportunities and challenges for the inner harbour of Port Adelaide, Australia. Australian Geographer, 40(3), 297–317. Sassen, S. (2001). The global city: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Smith, H., & Ferrari, M.S.G. (2012). Waterfront regeneration: Experiences in city-building [Taylor & Francis eBooks collection]. Retrieved from: www.tandfebooks.com. Swyngedouw, E., Moulaert, F., & Rodriguez, A. (2002). Neoliberal urbanization in Europe: Large-scale urban development projects and the new urban policy. Antipode, 34(3), 542–577. 308 Mike S. Harris

Whyte, W. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. Washington, DC: Conservation Foundation. Zukin, S. (1992). The city as a landscape of power. In L. Budd & S. Whimster (Eds.), Modernity and identity (pp. 195–223). London: Routledge. Zukin, S. (2010). Naked city: The death and life of authentic urban places. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.