Ørestad versus Indre By
The struggles of homeless in public spaces
Roskilde University
2nd Semester, spring 2017, SIB house 21 Number of characters: 96 908
Supervisor: Maria Persdotter
Group 15: Karen Jaxel Utrera Robaina (61310)
Esbjørn August Thorlaksen (60559)
Andrea Milovan (60847)
1
Table of contents 1. Introduction ...... 3 1.1. Problem Area ...... 5 1.2. Research Question ...... 8 1.2.1. Working Questions ...... 9 2. Methodology ...... 10 2.1. Project Design ...... 10 2.2. Methods ...... 11 2.3. Use of Empirical Data ...... 17 3. Theoretical framework ...... 19 3.1. Literature Review ...... 19 3.2. Theory of Social Exclusion ...... 23 3.3. Public Space ...... 24 3.4. Place and Sense of Place ...... 24 3.5. Politics of Public Place and Space ...... 25 4. Urban Development in the City of Copenhagen ...... 26 5. Comparison ...... 30 6. Analysis...... 35 7. Conclusion ...... 41 8. Bibliography ...... 43
2
1. Introduction
Public space is, by its definition, a public area open for all individuals. While being a place of constant movements and social interactions, it is also a place dedicated to “promoting a city’s image, consumer activity, and economic renewal” (Collins & Shantz, 2009: 517). Political agendas are determining the usability of public spaces for all the social classes which is often excluding towards homeless people who are thought to be unpresentable for the ‘city's image’. Public spaces are progressively becoming privately owned, surveilled or protected by security guards. Politicians are hiding behind the justifications of making the ‘safer environment’ for its citizens while shaping its city by inclusion and exclusion of different socioeconomic classes. In addition to developing exclusionary environments, they are also creating a confusion within the society in regard to what public spaces are they allowed to use and consume openly.
For our second semester project, we have decided to conduct a research on excluding environments of public spaces in Copenhagen. We have chosen to do a comparison study in which we are analyzing public spaces in a ‘newly’ constructed area of Copenhagen and an ‘old’ area. For this we have selected Ørestad, as a newly built area, often referred as ‘Denmark’s Dubai’ (Graham, 2017). It has many famous and tourist-attractive buildings, luxury hotels and it is eco-friendly. In contrast to Ørestad, Indre By is one of the Copenhagen’s oldest neighborhoods. It can be entered from Vesterport, Østerport and Nørreport and it is well-known for its small streets, filled with second-hand shops and small cafes. It also has a historical and medieval aesthetic. By using observations and participant observations in those areas, we examined the differences in architecture and analyzed if the public spaces in the newly built and old area of Copenhagen are excluding towards homeless people. We have observed how the benches, streets, squares, sidewalks and bus stations are constructed in order to compare if the architecture is suitable for homeless people in both areas. Participant observation is used to examine the usability of public space and the comfort of the different components within the public spaces in those areas. Comfort and usability of public space is of great importance to homeless people, since they do not have their private space to carry out daily necessities such as eating, sleeping, or going to the toilet.
3
Access to the toilet and a pleasant and appropriate space to live their daily lives is their right as much as it is to every other citizen and should be the government’s priority as well.
From discussing the topic after observation and participant observation along with all the other empirical data we have gather, we argue that there was a shift in perceiving homeless people. From seeing homeless people as socially marginalized people who have to be integrated into society, homeless people are now looked upon nearly as criminals who have to be punished for their lack of home. Besides creating exclusionary environment to homeless people and accessible only for certain social classes, soft exclusion policies are becoming more frequently used. This means that rather than forbidding the full access in some areas of the city, the access is limited or has to be paid for. Examples of this can be found in parks, which are closed during the night or have signs on the squares restricting the use of benches for sleeping. Soft policies of exclusion are elaborated in detail in the following chapters of this project, however, they are spreading throughout the city, slowly preventing certain actions in the public space and restricting usage of public space for homeless people. We have observed the components in the public spaces of Indre by and Ørestad, compared them, examined, and analyzed their potential exclusion towards homeless people.
The project consists of eight chapters, starting with the Introduction chapter to give the readers an introduction to our project design. This also includes the Problem area formulation of our research project, followed by the research question and working questions. In continuation is our second chapter, where we elaborate in detail about the project design and methods used along with explaining why we have chosen them. Additionally, we are explaining our empirical data collection and use. Then, we have our theoretical framework followed by the chapter “The Urban Development of the City of Copenhagen” where we briefly introduce the readers to the history of urban development of Copenhagen. We continue with the Comparison and Analysis chapters of the two examined areas, Indre By and Ørestad.
The aim of this project is to examine if the new architecture of public spaces is going in the exclusionary direction and if it is user-friendly and approachable for all classes. Furthermore, by comparing the new construction of the urban landscape in Copenhagen with the historical one in
4
Indre Byen we have analyzed if the certain components of the urban landscape differ from each other and how.
1.1. Problem Area Public spaces are considered to be a common property, a place where public has a freedom to stay and use the space. Since homeless people do not have their private property, they can only use common property to sleep, eat and rest, lead their daily lives in general. Homeless people in Denmark are considered to be those in the following categories: rough sleepers, users of emergency night shelters, hostel users - those sleeping in hotels due to homelessness, those temporarily staying with family and friends, people going through transitional housing, and finally, categories of homeless going through Institutional release from prisons or through Institutional release from hospitals/treatment centers (Benjaminsen and Juul, 2009). For the purposes of our project we are focusing only on rough sleepers.
In his essay “Homelessness and the issue of freedom”, Jeremy Waldron (1991) says that: “A place is common property if part of the point of putting it under collective control is to allow anyone in the society to make use of it without having to secure the permission of anybody else.” However, even though public spaces can be used by the “public”, there are restrictions and laws that have to be followed. Ordinarily, there are three kinds of prohibitions in public spaces (Waldron, 1991). Firstly, there are general rules - rules that prohibit actions like murdering or selling narcotics, followed by “rules of fairness”, characterized as rules that ensure that a person has a freedom to use the public space the same as every other person (ibid). Lastly, there are rules that are more specific than other and have an influence on a daily life of homeless people. They include prohibition of urinating on public spaces, sleeping in some areas such as parks, benches and so forth (ibid). As we have mentioned earlier, since homeless people do not have a home to perform actions of that kind, they have to make use public spaces to do so.
Some public toilets are free of charge; however, they are guarded by a surveillance cameras or a security personnel. Sidewalks in the inner city are considered to be public spaces, though they can be rented by private owners who are using it as a terrace for their restaurant or a coffee shop. By
5 taking over the public space, prohibiting certain actions, redesigning a specific area of the city and so forth, the authorities are conceivably taking over a space which homeless person may have used. Catharina Thörn defines the mentioned restrictions as “soft exclusion policies”. While the urban landscape is improving to fit the ‘city’s image’, the homeless people are finding themselves more often with no place to eat, sleep or stay during the day. By urban landscape we are referring to every architectural structure that is part of city, which includes private places such as houses, and public places such as recreational areas and open public spaces just as parks or squares. Together with urban planners and architects, the government decides on the design and creation in which areas are constructed.
The Restoration of old buildings, squares or sidewalks is looked upon as an ‘improvement’ which results with homeless people losing their right to use the public spaces within the city. In order to make a city clean and free of social and economic problems “the homeless are frequently removed (e.g., to alternative accommodation provided in more peripheral locations), and street trading and informal economic activity prohibited” (Collins & Shantz, 2009: 519). Privatization of public spaces is becoming a bigger issue in the United States, once again, under the excuse of making the safer and cleaner environment. While public space still remains partially public, the control within those places is increased and homeless people are not allowed to rest, eat or stay there for a longer time. Even though these issues is omnipresent mostly in United States, the policies of exclusion of homeless people in the public spaces are spreading within Europe and becoming a larger issues. In his book, The Right to The City (2012), Don Mitchell argues that homeless people are left with fewer rights than people with houses. He introduces readers to the concept of ‘broken windows’, as homeless people are referred to, as groups of people creating an unsafe environment and being a threat in the neighborhood. They are held responsible for the vandalism in the neighborhood as well as urinating, drinking in the public, prostitution and so forth (Mitchell, 2012).
Furthermore, in his book, Don Mitchell (2012), argues that the fear also comes from the speculation that one criminal act leads to creation of a criminal net and in time, attracts more criminals in the neighborhood. Those arguments are used to justify the criminalization of the homeless and to restrict their usage of public space. Instead of fixing the problems such as lack of
6 housing, possibility of finding a job and so forth, they are holding the homeless responsible for crime or health issues. The authorities are perceiving homelessness as being a choice rather than being a condition and generalizing them in order to create fear within the society. It can be argued that during the squatting movement in Nørrebro, where squatters have been pushed away from the abandoned buildings to create a ‘better looking and safer’ suburb for its citizens, squatters have been considered as criminals. They have been associated with crime and violence even though their aim was to create a free community, oriented towards political left wing parties (Karpantschof, 2014). Although the media supported the squatters, authorities presented them as hooligans who are a threat to the newly constructed and designed area.
In order to ‘fix’ those problems, such as crime and vandalism. and enable homeless people to use public space, benches are customized in a way that does not allow homeless people to sleep on them, sprinklers are turned on in the middle of the night and parks are been closed after a certain hour. New design is referred to as an ‘improvement’ such as “the provision of street lighting, closed-circuit television (CCTV), security staff, cleaning, and street furniture” (Collins & Shantz, 2009: 519). Improvements happened in Copenhagen as well, in the former harbor area, when a new concept of urban density housing was implemented (Andersen, 2006). Vesterbro, formerly known as a poorest district, became “the district with the highest price per square meter” (ibid). As mentioned earlier, Nørrebro has also became an attractive neighborhood, previously known as the squatting district. Since the center of Copenhagen consisted of “large number of one- or two room flats, the lack of housing forced families to move in the suburbs of Copenhagen and reconstructing areas around the city (Andersen, 2006).
One of those areas is Ørestad, a newly constructed area of Copenhagen, often referred as ‘Denmark’s Dubai’ (Graham, 2017). It is an area that is built by famous architects, a “new world of urban development and cutting-edge architectural projects, from high schools and student housing to business hotels and concert halls.” (Graham, 2017). It has many famous and tourist- attractive buildings, luxury hotels and it is eco-friendly. In contrast to Ørestad, Indre By is one of the Copenhagen’s oldest neighborhoods. It can be entered from Vesterport, Østerport and Nørreport and it is most famous by its small streets, filled with second-hand shops and small cafes
7 which creates a sense of historical and medieval environment. In 2015, public spaces within the city, such as Indre By, have been described as inspiring and non-excluding towards sensitive groups of people in the article called ‘Lessons From Copenhagen: Key Ingredients For A Successful Public Space’, written by Darren Proulx and Samuel Baron and published by Spacing Canada. Copenhagen was praised for its people-friendly and inviting public spaces (Streets and Streets, 2015).
Simultaneously, in 2014, Denmark has been evaluated as one of the countries with the highest risk of social exclusion within the city (Ec,europa.eu, 2014). According to the European statistics on social exclusion from 2014, spreading the city’s development to the suburbs resulted with a fewer changes of a good education, health services and a lower housing standards. Moving the city center to the outlying area of the city, results with the inequality of providing the same living standards as for those living in the center. Although, Denmark is a welfare country, it is a country with a high income inequality (Ec,europa.eu, 2014). Social exclusion is measured by GDP per inhabitant and defined “in accordance with three distinct criteria, but only need to have one of these situations to be considered as part of this subgroup” (ibid). People who are at risk of poverty, are materially deprived or are housed under very low income are considered to be in the situation that leads to social exclusion (Ec,europa.eu, 2014). Due to contradictory information, we want to examine if public areas in the newly constructed and praised Ørestad, differs from the small, charming and historical area of Indre By. We are interested in knowing if Copenhagen is going towards exclusionary environment and if usability of public space is as open in the new and the old area of the city. That bring us to the following research question:
1.2. Research Question How does the urban landscape of public spaces in Ørestad differ from the urban landscape in Indre By, in regards of its usability for homeless people with reference to benches, bus stops, parks, squares and sidewalks?
8
1.2.1. Working Questions - What are the conditions of public spaces in Ørestad and Indre By?
9
2. Methodology
In this chapter, we have elaborated and explained our methodological approach and choices. Starting by illustrating our project design that gives the reader an overview of the whole project structure, we continue by formulating the methods we have used throughout the project. That includes the reasons of such choices and its advantages and limitations in a theoretical and practical manner. This chapter finalizes with the explanation of our use of empirical data.
2.1. Project Design The objective of this project is to identify the differences in urban landscapes in Ørestad, as a newly constructed area of Copenhagen, and Indre By, one of the old parts of the city. We are examining the usability of public spaces for homeless people in both areas and analyzing their current state to find if there is any indication of exclusion towards homeless people.
In the Theoretical Framework chapter (the third chapter), we explain the theory and the concepts we are using. Among the concepts, the reader will find: public space, politics of place and place. We are linking these to urban landscapes in Copenhagen, to see whether the areas researched (Ørestad and Indre By) are excluding towards homeless people. The following chapter, is called “Urban Development in the city of Copenhagen” and it was made to give the reader a brief introduction to the history of urbanization of the capital of Denmark. This chapter contains information about when did the urban renewals happened and what led to the development of specific areas Copenhagen. In addition to the historical facts, the chapter also examines the limitations of using a public space within the city at the moment.
The next chapter the reader will find, is the Comparison chapter. In this chapter, we elaborate and explain in detail what have we observed and experienced during the fieldwork time (benches,
10 squares, sidewalks, and public space in general). We have examined distinctions between urban landscapes in both areas, but also observed the people walking by us, and user-friendliness of the public spaces we found. This chapter also includes our participation, as we not only did observation but also participant observation. Participant observation provided us with an insight of the usability of public space during the fieldwork.
The project then moves towards our sixth chapter (the Analysis), where we have examined and analyzed our findings from the previous chapter together with the selected concepts and theory from the theoretical framework. Through this chapter and the previous one, we have answered our research question and working question. We are answering whether or not, the newly constructed area, Ørestad is exclusionary towards homeless people with its new designs of famous architects which are supposed to make an area more attractive, and if the public spaces of Indre By differ from those in Ørestad in regards of exclusion towards homeless people. Moreover, in the conclusion we have more directly answered our research question and working questions, and reflected on our findings in general. In addition, we have drawn on the possible biases we might have had before and our current opinions in the given topic.
2.2. Methods For this project, we began our research using the readings from the International Encyclopedia of Human Geography entries for public space, place and politics of public space. This was, as mentioned the beginning of our research for secondary sources. We found the literature of great relevance to our project, thus we decided to integrate the concepts of Public Space, Place and Sense of Place, Politics of Public Place and Space that we have drawn from the International Encyclopedia of Human Geography to our Theoretical chapter. These concepts mentioned above, are fundamental to settle the ground for our further research. From these readings, we have gathered most of our initial empirical data that lead us to continue researching. When we further develop our research from our initial finding in the International Encyclopedia of Human Geography entries, we decided to look for journal articles, books and Institutional sites to obtain more empirical data. We have used journal articles the most throughout our developing of the
11 project, especially to make the literature review. We have used books and journal articles for the problem are formulation. For chapter four (Urban Development in the City of Copenhagen), we have used journal articles and institutional sites such as and the Center for Trafik og Byliv.
All the type of sources mentioned above will compose our secondary sources. Moreover, we included quantitative data in our fourth chapter in the form of statistics from institutional sites. For this we have used the Eurostat site. We used Center for Trafik og Byliv and Eurostat, to have an insight on why the public areas of Indre By and Ørestad are constructed the way they are and what political influences took place in those decisions. The Eurostat site provided us with statistics on social exclusion within Europe, where Denmark is mentioned as being one of the countries with the highest risk of social exclusion. Additionally, we have used in this methodological chapter, a book written by Flick, called “An Introduction to Qualitative research” to support the illustration of what is Observation and Participant Observation, as well as how to use them and their advantages and disadvantages.
In this project, we have also included primary sources in the forms of observation and participant observation. Through the use of these primary sources our goal has been to gather empirical data directly from the selected areas of our research in Copenhagen (Indre By and Ørestad). We have chosen observation and participant observation as our qualitative methods, because we aspired to analyze how our selected areas in Copenhagen are conformed and structured, in order to conclude on whether or not they are constructed in a way that excludes homeless people from using public spaces in our conclusion chapter at the end of the project. We believe that through observations and participant observation we can achieve that goal as is a fundamental tool to the type of research we have made, which is center in the qualitative type of research.
During our fieldwork, we have observed the characteristics and environment of the public spaces, this took place during our observation of Indre By and Ørestad, while during the participant observation, we have actively made use of the public spaces of Indre By and Ørestad, such as their streets, sidewalks, bus stops, benches, parks and squares. We have had four days of fieldwork at
12 different times of the day and during week days. Due to our limited timeframe, we have selected only these amount of days (four days). During these four days, we have dedicated two of them for doing observation and the other two days were for participant observation. We have clearly delimited our roles during each day, to avoid confusions and to stay focused on the type of method we were exercising. Additionally, our goal was to maintain our objectivity throughout the whole fieldwork and project in general. This does not mean that were not aware of the difficulty this implied and the possible bias we could have developed once the fieldwork began. Therefore, we have checked our empirical data gathered from each individual member of our group and compared it. This, to our belief helped us to detect the possible subjectivity that could have had appear during our observations and participant observation.
Observations involves all the senses of the researcher, it is not only about seeing and hearing, something that we are aware of and we have had it present during our observation time (Flick, 2014). We have collected all the possible primary data firstly through observations in natural situations, thus we chose weekdays and different hours of the day to observe as well as to make the participant observation (ibid). We have not interfered with the natural sense of the environment during the observations as Flick (2014) states observation should be conducted.
As mentioned in Flick (2014), we went through the different stages of participant observation. Starting, we used descriptive observation, which served to give us an awareness to the field we were studying, also provided more information on the complexity of the field of study, and at the same time, helped us elaborate a more concrete research question and working question. This means, that we at the beginning of our participant observation were confronted with the places itself, which gave us a more complex understanding of the surroundings we were in. Thus, this reflected in the later change of our research question, the elimination of one working question and the modification of the remaining one. Then, we moved to the second stage of participant observation (focused observations), where we narrowed down our perspective to the processes and problems which are the most important to the project. Meaning, that once we were at our fieldwork, we were able to dissect the important elements to our project aside from the other aspects of the fieldwork area that were not relevant to our participant observation. Finally, we went onto selective
13 observation, which helped us elaborate on findings and focus on finding more examples and evidence for the processes and practices (ibid). By this we mean, that at the end of our participant observation experience each day, we were able to record our thoughts of the experience and findings in addition of the pictures taken during our fieldwork. This gave us an in-depth idea of what we had to look deeper into to obtain more evidence relevant to our project for the second day of participant observation.
During our participant observation days (the fourth and fifth of May in the present year) first in Ørestad and then in Indre By in correlation to the different stages of the participant observation process, we were testing out benches and other public spaces, such as sidewalks, bus stops, parks and squares. To test the benches, we sat on them and tried to use them for different purposes, such as laying down and reclining on them. Also, we have carefully examined its comfortableness, as to for other public spaces, we have additionally examined the size and comfortableness of sidewalks for its users as well as the bus stops. Lastly, on parks and squares we also made use of every part of them as a regular public user could have done, by this, we mean sitting, walking and all the forms of use for those places.
When we were making only observations, starting with Ørestad (2nd of May, 2017) and the following day (3rd of May, 2017) Indre By, we were very careful not to disturb the environment, due to the broad amount of different people in Indre By and Ørestad. We blended in with the community, and tried not to draw attention to ourselves, as Flick (2014) suggested observations should be conducted. To achieve this goal, we walk the streets as any other passerby was doing and instead of suddenly stopping to take notes, we recorded our thoughts with our phones and took pictures of the areas we were meeting along our fieldwork as a tourist or someone interested in the aesthetic architecture of the place would have done.
As mentioned before, we were using a voice recorder from our phones to document the findings as we went along throughout the fieldwork. This means that we recorded ourselves individually and sometimes as a group depending if we were surrounded by a group of people or not, to not
14 disrupt the environment by appearing as we were documenting the people. Also means that we did the recordings every day from the second of May till the fifth of May in the current year, during participant observation and regular observations as well. Recording ourselves helped us to document data in a faster way than handwriting and without having to write down long notes in a paper sheet that would have required for us to make a pause during the fieldwork for that or having to do it after the fieldwork of the day had ended, which could have led to losing some of the information. Additionally, to recording as also mentioned before, we took pictures of the relevant surroundings in each area and the important elements we were to examine in the chronological steps we walk through Indre By and Ørestad. This means that, we took pictures of the different benches we found, the sidewalks, the squares, the parks and the bus stops.
There are advantages and disadvantages in the use of observations. Is our belief that, to our research the main advantage is that we got to watch and examine the field area first hand, which provided us with a better insight in what we are writing about, instead of only relying on secondary sources. Moreover, the participant observations provided our group with the advantage that allowed us to try out the different facilities in both Ørestad and Indre By. This made the group able to become a part of the fieldwork. To get to know the research area (Indre By and Ørestad) first hand was important for answering our group’s research question and working question. Furthermore, through the usage of both qualitative methods (observations and participant observation) we were able to obtain our primary data from Ørestad and Indre By.
The challenges we found during the fieldwork we did in Ørestad and Indre By were less than we had anticipated. As three quite different students in appearance, but at the same time similar in age, we were able to blend in without difficulties. This applies to Indre By, where we found a large amount of people going in every direction including tourists, and guide tours through Indre By in different languages, which enabled us to be taken as tourist when we were taking pictures as well as recording ourselves, because we did so in English. Another thing that helped the group to pass as tourists, was that we constantly were looking at the GPS to know where we were and not step aside the selected areas. This was necessary because in Indre By or Ørestad, there are no signs or something explicit that debilitates the area. In one occasion, we were even asked if we needed
15 helped to find a place. Even though one of our group members is a Dain, we answered in English without giving away information that we were only examining the area for the purposes of making this project. Moreover, a possible limitation we could have had from only using observation and participant observation as the only primary sources of data, could be a shortfall in the delivering of the whole picture. As we were fundamentally dedicated to focus on the usability of public components only, and due to the vast amount of different people in the Copenhagen area, we believe that we indeed did not disrupt the natural environment we observed.
The fieldwork done was a fundamental part to elaborate our analysis chapter altogether with the concepts we had developed in the theoretical chapter. In order to analyze the data gathered during the observations and participant observations in our analysis chapter, we started by processing all the data gathered. This means that, we firstly started to put together all the pictures of each day and the voice recordings, then we compared what each of the group members had from every part of the fieldwork for each of the four days we were doing so. After that, we proceed to discuss the findings day by day from the second of May until the fifth of May 2017 that we gathered individually and as a group from Ørestad and Indre By. Then, we continued to elaborate our comparison chapter, in which we have described the findings from the fieldwork and how we have found the data, starting when we first arrived at the station in Ørestad and Nørreport Station in Indre By, and ending with a comparison of the data from both places. All that was mentioned above set the ground to the analysis which was a combination of the data and the concepts to discover if Ørestad and Indre By’s public spaces were exclusive in any way towards the homeless people.
We validated our qualitative empirical data through triangulation. This was done through the assessment of the observations, participant observation and the secondary sources (books, journal articles and entries from the International Encyclopedia of Human Geography). Before the triangulation, we did cross referencing within our secondary sources to assess its reliability, which was not so easy, because most of the authors do not specifically talk about Denmark and less about Ørestad and Indre By directly. Furthermore, we stayed aware of the possible agendas that the institutional sites might had at the time to determine its reliability and we analyzed it together with
16 our qualitative data before using it. Regarding the collection of empirical data during the observation and participant observation time, we as earlier mentioned did not took notes but recorded our thoughts and took pictures of the selected sites (Ørestad and Indre By).
We are using an inductive approach. Meaning that we developed our theoretical framework from the readings we have done. We have combined different concepts to create our theory section. We made use of the interpretivist viewpoint from the epistemological view. This viewpoint revolves around interpreting our empirical data and findings from fieldwork. More specifically, we have used this in a phenomenological perspective, which relates to our observation and participant observation, where we tried to understand the phenomena that might be excluding homeless people from certain areas. Throughout our observations and participant observations, there was always a direct link between the researcher and researched area (Ørestad and Indre By). From the ontological view, we have used objectivism. In this sense, we have observed social actors (users of public spaces and those that created them) as constructors of the reality within public spaces. We have consistently reflected upon our empirical data critically and as objectively as possible in order for our group to deliver the best project and evidences as possible. We have remained objective to all the empirical data gathered during the fieldwork, since we collected it until we have applied it in the project in both the comparison chapter and the analysis chapter to elaborate a critical but objective conclusion.
2.3. Use of Empirical Data The empirical data we have used comes from our primary and secondary sources. The primary sources came in the form of the observations and participant observations we did in Ørestad and Indre By throughout four days of fieldwork at different times of the day and during week days for about four hours per day. This was the basis of our analysis chapter and through which we as expected, assisted us in answering our research question and working question. The secondary sources we have made us of, comes from journal articles, books, different websites such as institutional, university and architectural sites, also articles in The International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. We have used these in the theoretical framework chapter, to explain the
17 concepts we have incorporated and the selected theory and to complement the different authors we have used in our literature review and those in our fourth chapter as well.
We have also made use of articles from scholars such as Tim Cresswell, Lynn Staeheli, Catharina Thörn and John Allen for the elaboration of concepts and the last two authors in our literature review. Additionally, we had used the book “No Right to the City” of Don Mitchell to develop our Problem Area, as well as an architectural site from Canada, that we are aware it is not an academic source. However, we have taken under considerations the possible agendas they could had and use it as objectively as possible. Moreover, we made use of the institutional site of Miljø - og Fødevareministeriet (Naturstyrelsen) along with municipal site that provided us as a secondary source to our fourth chapter - municipal plan for the developing in Ørestad. In combination with other secondary sources, as sources that gave us quantitative data, we have decided to complement them with qualitative data in order to deliver a more complete chapter that described the whole picture we tried to present.
18
3. Theoretical framework
In this chapter, we will begin with illustrating the literature review we have made about the social exclusion arguments made by different scholars through time. Then, we have elaborated and explained the theory and concepts we selected, also from different scholars. All that was mentioned before in correlation to what lead us to select them and why we have made those choices.
3.1. Literature Review Jeremy Waldron is a Professor of Legal and Political Philosophy at NYU School of law (Its.law.nyu.edu, 2017). He defines private ownership as a place where an individual has the right to determine who is allowed and who is not allowed in that place, without answering to anyone. He notes that some privately-owned places are usable to the general public which are made legal through the state. These places could be shopping malls (Waldron, 1991). From this, we argue it also applies to rented areas in Copenhagen, for example restaurants who rented the areas around the sidewalk, and other, otherwise public spaces. People are still allowed to walk on the sidewalk even if they are not entering the restaurant. Waldron (1991) argues that the streets are becoming more limited, and they are shrinking, making it difficult or outright impossible for homeless to live out their lives. This is making them unfree. The “non-homeless” person only has a few places where he has the right to be when he wants, like his home. This is something the homeless is deprived of. Waldron (1991) fears a society where the streets are privately owned, as some libertarians’ want, where homeless have virtually nowhere to go. He argues that some types of social exclusion are already occurring, through limiting the usage of parks and squares by time. Politicians are softly altering what is acceptable in public areas, saying that parks is for playing, and not making dinner, and squares is for socializing and not sleeping (Waldron, 1991). We found Waldron (1991) argumentations relevant to our project, because he makes argumentations directly about exclusion of homeless people in public spaces and we are specifically looking for that in our selected areas of Copenhagen. Thus Waldron (1991) creates a suitable insight into what has been talking about the topic, and even though he has argued this in 1991, it is still of great usability and applicability.
19
Catharina Thörn (2011), alike Waldron (1991) talks about exclusion of homeless people on the streets, but she introduces us particularly to certain policies of exclusion. Thörn (2011) argues that potential exclusion, is not only decided by ambience and aesthetics, but also the way in which “proper space” is established through issues of security and social containment (ibid). Different strategies can be found among “soft policies of exclusion”, as illustrated by Thörn. There are sanitizing strategies and Imagineering strategies. Sanitizing strategies, Thörn (2011) argues, are those strategies that try to make the city safer by changing the observable and perceptible of its landscape, therefor making it more controllable and easier to watch over (ibid). This shows that homeless people that faces changes from sanitizing strategies will have a more difficult time to prevail in their life within the city without overexposure and persistent examination (ibid). Imagineering Strategies are more focused on providing validation for the sanitizing strategies taken, this ensures that both the public sector and the private sector work together in pro of the city's best interest as suggested by Catharina Thörn (2011).
Combining sanitizing strategies and Imagineering strategies, sensitive groups such as homeless people are not directly excluded from cities that had changes in their structure or were recently build in a modern style, but the architecture and ambience does not attract them or make them feel comfortable (ibid: 1001). Meaning that, “soft policies of exclusion.” are an expression of power, which intends to create homogeneous spaces in cities center. Redesigning public spaces or as mentioned before building it in this sense from scratch and by so excluding sensitive groups, and at the same time constructing a reality that will deny such exclusion. The ambience created in the public spaces relies on allurement rather than persuasion (Thörn, 2011).
Although we have explained Catharina Thörn’s (2011) argumentations first, she inspired some of her argumentations in some of John Allen’s (2006) arguments. Allen (2006) argues that power works through how people experience public spaces and its particular ambient rather than impose power. John Allen develop his concept of Ambient Power, which entails, that there is certain atmosphere or character within urban settings that can be applied to Public Spaces as part of the
20 urban setting. This atmosphere influences the experiences had in such Spaces. Whether it inhibits the public or encourage them to behave or act in a certain way in Public Spaces (ibid).
“What goes on in such spaces, how they are used, is circumscribed by the design, layout, sound, lighting, solidity and other affective means that can have an impact which is difficult to isolate, yet nonetheless powerful in their incitements and limitations on behaviour” (Allen, 2006: 445)
This refers to type of public space, where power works through inclusion and not necessarily exclusion (Allen, 2006). The qualities of such public spaces are controlled by manipulation and separation. Directing urban public spaces, to separate different kinds of people and exclude sensitive groups as described by Susan Christopherson (1994) on Allen (2006). When he talks about sensitive groups we are only using homeless people, as that is the focus of our research and they indeed are part of what is called sensitive groups. Allen (2006) and Thörn (2011) are relevant to our project, since they in similar ways argue that the governments are trying to exclude homeless people by implementing different soft policies. An example of what has been illustrated by them could be in Copenhagen City Hall Square, where the nicer and comfortable benches are situated on the sides of the square. In Copenhagen City Hall Square, there are signs that say in Danish and English that sleeping is not allowed there, but outside of the City Hall Square the only benches available are made of what can be described as cold stone benches. This example could be interpreted in two different ways at the same time, one as a sort soft policy and the other as not soft policy from the government to control what kinds of people are in different places. This will be further touched upon in the comparison chapter.
To continue with the argumentations on the topic of exclusion of homeless people, we have chosen Nicholas Blomley, who is a professor of geography at Vancouver University (Blomley, N, 2017). We have selected him because, we believe it is also relevant to include direct policies and not only soft policies to deliver a more accurate picture of the topic (Exclusion of homeless people). Blomley (2014), argues that sitting on the street and begging is considered to some common people and politicians a hindrance of traffic, and this belief is enforced under the traffic code that regulates
21 the activities people are allowed to perform on the streets. Blomley (2014), makes an example using Seattle, where sitting or sleeping on the side of the street near commercial areas is forbidden, as according to legislation in that state, it is an obstruction to the daily flow of traffic. Blomley (2014), disapproves the traffic code that forbids beggars in the streets as one of the social practices that in his belief generates a lack of balance among public users of the streets. He also argues that the law is presented in a way that hurt sensitive groups such as beggars. By taking away the right to beg, they are intentionally limiting the rights of homeless on the street who are part of the sensitive groups of people that make use of public spaces (ibid).
Don Mitchell is a Professor in Geography, specialized in cultural and political economy of landscape, social exclusion and the distribution of power (Maxwell.syr.edu, 2017). In our project, we are using his book “The right to the city”, which is a combination of his previous work with expansion of his writings. He is linking social justice to social rights and exclusion of homelessness in America's public space (Mitchell, 2012). He is claiming that the public space should not just be constructed but also used by public, however, that usage is limited due to the numerous of anti- homelessness laws. Mitchell is arguing that the homeless people are losing their right to city as privatization and the preferable new design of the urban landscape are becoming more frequent within the public space. He is concerned with a struggle upon the public space and the right for free speeches as well as the freedom of actions within it. In his previous studies, Mitchell is arguing that in the modern world, we have reached the end of the public space, however, in the book “The right to the city”, he is saying that the “argument is overly simplistic, since it assumes that public space already simply existed (rather than was socially produced through struggle)” (Mitchell, 2012). His argument changed due to his neglecting of electronic media which influences the new reforms and protests within the public space. Mitchell’s main concern is the future of homelessness who are increasingly losing the space within the city. Anti-homelessness laws changed the construction and the design of public space which turned the city “in highly sanitized city and a fully deracinated politics— a politics that elevates the importance of aesthetics over the needs of some people simply to survive” (ibid). Subsequently, he is analyzing and explaining the ‘broken windows’ theory which displays homeless as criminals who are the threat in the neighborhood. Mitchell argues that the homeless people should have the right to inhabit the public space, not only
22 use it to fulfil their daily needs, such as sleeping or urination. He is building that argument upon the fact that “if anyone needs the right to the city, surely it is the homeless (Mitchell, 2012). He recognizes the need for a new order, where the focus will be on providing the solution for homelessness, though he is not giving a suggestion about how the order should look like. Rather, he is saying that is should be a product of social practice combined with the laws of social justice and social rights (ibid).
3.2. Theory of Social Exclusion Graham Room (1999), cited in Manuel Aalbers (2011) illustrates five different essential features that composes what we argue is a theory of social exclusion. Aalbers only develops four of them which he believes are the most relevant and useful to describe the social exclusion term used nowadays which represents a shift to what it meant when it was first developed in France during 1974 (ibid).
1. Multi-dimensional Disadvantages: Aalbers draws from Room (1999) and De Haan (1998) that the foundations of social exclusion are more than the simply examination of resource distribution methods. But that also embodies “power relations, agency, culture and social identity” (De Haan, 1998: 12 cited in Aalbers, 2011: 19). 2. Dynamic Analysis: It is necessary not to only enumerate and portray the attributes of those disadvantaged, but it most also include which elements take part into the aggregation or departure from the disadvantage state. Additionally, how long that state does lasted its transformation and consequences on those disadvantaged people (Room, 1999 cited in Aalbers, 2011). 3. Focus: It intertwines not only a concern of the resources of the households and the individuals that conforms it, but also includes those within its local community (Aalbers, 2011). 4. Relational Dimensions of Stratification and Disadvantage: It targets problems such as “inadequate social participation, lack of social integration and lack of power” (Room 1999: 171 cited in Aalbers, 2011: 19), which are part of the relational approaches, that also
23
integrates the function of the welfare state in the power allocation to the people (Aalbers, 2011).
Aalbers argues, from the four elements that Room (1999) and De Haan (1998) described conforms Social Exclusion and his interpretation of them that, Social Exclusion focuses in different processes (economical, geographically and socially) and institutions. Aalbers (2011) suggests that to the explained above, it is necessary to combine with Cornelis Schuyt (2000: 14) concept of social Exclusion which entails three elements. First, not being allowed to belong to; second, not being able to belong to, and third, not being willing to belong to. This embraces people segregated and self-segregated whether for economical processes they are going through or previous feeling of rejection by their surrounding people (Schuyt 2000: 15-17, cited in Aalbers 2011: 20).
3.3. Public Space Public space encompasses every location that is for people usage and interaction that is not privately owned, this means that these spaces are part of the community and people from every social class can make use of them freely (Mitchell et al, 2009). The materiality embodied within these locations are transformed through property management lead by the government, which decides how to distribute the property rights of public locations that forms public space. From this distribution of property rights some public spaces lose their publicness partially or entirely to private enterprises (ibid). Examples of public spaces are sidewalks, parks, squares, streets, benches and bus stops.
3.4. Place and Sense of Place Place refers to a determined location (a specific point within space) that merge said location with its material aspects, often used to describe the location, and sense of place. Sense of place covers all the emotions and memories related to that certain location that people have created there individually and/or shared (Cresswell, 2009). This means that in every place it can be found a mixture of “materiality, meaning and practice” (Cresswell, 2009: 169). These criterias are particularly important, because places are conform of material structures and in places people
24 develop feelings that gives meaning to the place. Moreover, development of those feeling occur when people interact and practice places (ibid). To describe an area or space as place, it must contain all the mentioned above, therefore social construction is part of places. This implies that places can be both public and private locations (ibid).
3.5. Politics of Public Place and Space Politics of public place and space are known as the political struggle revolving around places and who and what belongs in it. Locale is central to where politics surrounding place happens, because it grounds it. Locale relates to the people living in places and their connection to physical location of places. Finally, the sense of place refers to the invested feelings people have to the given place. All 3 elements are contested when politics comes into play (Staeheli and Mitchell 2009). Places are essentially a part of space but where feelings are present. Places are always built and rebuilt to fit the requirements of the people living there. Power relations are an important factor. The people with power can essentially decide what should be in certain places and who places are built for, and who belongs in it (ibid).
25
4. Urban Development in the City of Copenhagen
In this chapter we have further elaborated on where did the urban development in the city of Copenhagen took place and how did it influence its citizens. We are aware that the squatting movement had great influence in the urbanization of the city, however, we decided not to elaborate on the topic in depth due to inapplicability to our research topic.
The development of the city of Copenhagen took place after the World War II, followed by the economic growth and increased welfare in 1960’s (Mayer, Thö rn and Thö rn, 2016). Population growth combined with economic and welfare growth led to Copenhagen being perceived “as a node in the European urban system and as an engine of growth for all of Denmark” (Mayer, Thö rn and Thö rn, 2016: 40). Urban expansion of Copenhagen took place outside the inner city which has left the city center with a great number of elderly couples and people living alone, often with small incomes or relying on the social benefits (Andersen, 2006). The focal point was the urbanization of the suburbs, due to the increased need for family housing, which led to “uneven development: investments in the suburbs and disinvestment in the inner city” (Neil Smith, 2008 cited in Mayer, Thö rn and Thö rn, 2016: 182). Due to the high prices of housing in Indre By, inner city, most of the Copenhageners do not live in the center of the city (University Post, 2014).
Nørrebro, as one of the suburb in the city, was greatly affected by this change. It was the area commonly known as the alternative part of the city, where the most of squatting took place. Urban renewals of the district, raised a massive movement, also known as the ‘Youth Rebellion’ movement. The purpose of movement was “to establish free-spaces and alternative communities based on libertarian-socialist ideas of collectivism, self-organization, and direct democracy” (Karpantschof, 2014: 35). While some argue that the Youth rebellion movement was associated with violence and crime, the movement got the high support from the media (Mayer, Thö rn and Thö rn, 2016). Nevertheless, Nørrebro soon became an example of how the “urban landscape
26 dramatically changed by global finance capital, the ‘creative class’, and accommodation of urban policies.” (ibid: 40).
With increased immigration and decentralization of the public sectors, suburbs, formerly known as the poorest districts of Copenhagen, became areas dominated by the upper class. “This in turn created two strongly separated and segregated extremes in the city, with the major social differences in the term of income, educational levels, health and employment.” (Andersen, 2006: 19). This not only resulted in the division of housing within the city but the also, with the significant division in the society. Subsequently. in 2014, Denmark has been declared as not only one of the countries with the highest risk of social exclusion, but also as the country with the biggest difference between the city-dwellers and those living in the rural areas (Ec.europa.eu, 2014). Copenhagen was also declared as one of the cities with the highest unemployment rate and the city where people are facing the most difficulties paying their rent (Ec.europa.eu, 2014).
Though housing also has a great influence on the social exclusion and division within the society, the new plan for the urbanization, called Fingerplan, played also a big role in the urban development of the capital of Denmark. The plan was originally drawn in the 1947 and it has undergone many changes. The latest one has started in 2013, and the name came from “the idea is that the train lines (s-tog) spread like fingers on a hand from the “palm” of central Copenhagen. “ (Norman, 2015). It is development focused not only on transportation but also on the green areas between, due to the clause in the new Urban Design which “suggest that all residences in a city should be no more than 300 meters from a green space” (Norman, 2015). This lead to the lack of parks and large green areas in the city but with numerous small green area. The green areas are also often referred to as ‘green urban wedges’ (The Finger Plan, 2015). “The primary purpose of the green wedges is to allow for general outdoor activities, which therefore means that public access has top priority” (The Finger Plan, 2015: 12). Though is it stated that the public access is the top priority, green wedges are also meant to be the areas for the sport centers, luxury hotels and similar. Throughout the document, it is emphasized that the areas are going to be used for recreational purpose which is mainly going to be determined by the municipality where the green
27 wedges are located. There are few exceptions which can determine change of usage of the specific area but generally, wedges should be open for general use.
At the moment, some of the public spaces in Copenhagen can be used for private purposes. Legalizations according to Copenhagen commune regarding use of public spaces by firms states that it is possible for firms to use public spaces outside their shop or restaurant for street signs, tables etc. The permit is given after applying for dispensation to the commune. The yearly fee for usage is up to 5.000 Danish kroner, but it varies heavily of the amount of tables used outside, the size of the signs and decorative plants. In Indre By, the prices are significantly higher than other public spaces due to its old design and heavy usage by the population. The usage is restricted from 8 AM to 12 PM. In the hours in between, all signs and other privately owned items has to be removed or put aside so they do not take up space. From 2017, restaurants and cafes can apply to use parking lots for tables and chairs. This however is only from 9AM to 5PM (Københavns Kommune, 2017: Stadeplads). Subsequently, it is a possibility to apply for permission to set up stands, such as hotdog stands and fruit stands. There are a limited amount of areas designed for such purposes, but a stand can be set up in an undesignated area. This however does not apply for Indre By. In addition to that, these stands has to be removed in closing hours (ibid).
In 2015, the government of Denmark released their new municipal plan for further development of the city of Copenhagen. Ørestad is mentioned as the main example for the neighborhoods holding the major number of headquarters of large companies in Copenhagen, and it is planned to create more neighborhoods with the mentioned kind of structure which are thought to hold responsible for the good city economy (City of Copenhagen - Municipal Plan 2015, 2015). In the future, the Copenhagen municipality's plan is to connect Ørestad to the other parts of the city that are further away. Ørestad is one of the many suburbs that went through the changes of urban landscape along with Nørreport at the end of the 80’s. Even though Nørrebro was focused more on developing new, attractive neighborhoods for families, on the contrary, the development of Ørestad is concentrated on the financial growth, business and appealing architecture. Nevertheless, both of the neighborhoods, which are suburbs of the city of Copenhagen, went through different changes to make the city more appealing and suitable for upper classes.
28
At the moment, Ørestad is portrayed as a place with “an unequal balance within the public-private alliance caused a disjointed urban tissue” (Failedarchitecture.com, 2013). Even though it was planned to create a coherent public space with large green areas, the architecture of the buildings became a focus point. Which left the area looking like the development stopped once the buildings were constructed. “The privately developed individual architectural masterpieces have a tendency to stop designing at their front door, resulting in a cityscape as an ‘island of blocks’ with a lack of coherence and resistance in the public realm (Failedarchitecture.com, 2013)”. The public spaces in general are lacking and they seem disconnected to the other parts of the neighborhood. The authorities claim that this is only the beginning of the development of Ørestad and they call it a good start. According to ‘Copenhagen Growing’, a time lined plan for developing the area of Ørestad, the public spaces should spread and develop furthermore in the future (Copenhagen Growing - The Story of Ørestad, 2011).
Throughout the years, the free usage of public spaces in Copenhagen has evidently been reduced. After urban renewal of suburbs, the goal was to ensure creative, nature-like environment in the city that will promote the city’s image and reaffirm its citizens the feeling of comfort. The mentioned shift has been done since the World War II, when the city has put focus on development of suburbs to insure housing for families and continued through restriction of squatting in the specific areas of the city. For the future, the plan is to insure more green areas within the city that will be intended for general use. However, expansion of the urban areas includes construction of hotels, golf courses and recreational centers which implies exclusion of lower classes. Construction of new transportation system, as well as the wedges in between, raises the question of future usability of public spaces for general public. As Copenhagen is becoming more tourist- attractive city, the urban landscape has to be designed to ‘fit’ the city’s image. This could lead to the exclusion of sensitive groups of people, such as homeless people from certain areas and disable the free usage of space in the future. The revision of historical facts of urban development in Copenhagen has shown that, in general, the city is trying to ensure its citizens enough public spaces and green areas. The uncertainty is, will the public spaces be suitable for all the social classes or will it be shaped by the exclusion of sensitive groups of people, more directly homeless people.
29
5. Comparison
In this chapter, we will explain and summarize the findings of our comparative fieldwork study of Ørestad and Indre By. It will be structured firstly with an introduction to the observations we have made on both places and then we will proceed to compare the two of them. We will explain if we found the overall areas exclusive, by comparing accessibility to public areas around the center of each area, the urban suburbs, parks, neighborhoods and squares. We have chosen to explain the overall feel of the areas with broad strokes, and go into more details with a few selected areas.
Upon the arrival on Nørreport Station around nine o'clock in the morning, we are met by the flow of traffic of people rushing to work, school, shopping or other appointments. Much of the flow leads towards Indre By which contains a massive amount of shops, cafés and schools. The city’s old design is captivating and for every ten steps you take, you are constantly bombarded with new impressions, smells and design. The main walking street is called Strøget, the route we took brought us past Rundetårn on Købmagergade. This was the first public space with a more open feel to it. In the area around Rundetårn we found three benches for public use. At all times, we walked through this area, people were actively using at least one of the benches. The benches were about three meters in length and half meter tall.
During our participant observation, we found that the benches were comfortable and relatively easy to sleep on if someone does not have a place to stay, such as homeless people. The next public area we reached is Amager square, this area was surprisingly light on public items. Aside from the “Storks Fountain” there is no public place to sit down, rather than the many restaurants, where you will need to pay for the right to sit down on their chairs. On the square, there are two restrooms for public usage. The restrooms are marked with signs and divided by two staircases leading down to the underground, although the restrooms public, they are under surveillance by a guard. We argue that his/her purpose is to keep people from staying there and also to clean the facility, as we have not asked them or seen any sing referring to their duties.
30
Continuing our fieldwork, we moved towards City Hall Square, we visited the Church of The Holy Spirit, which is for public use. The Church area is separated by a large fence, outside the fence is Strøget; where there are five benches lined up, three of them were the same size as the ones at Rundetårn and two of them were two meters in length and same high. We observed the narrow alleys of Indre By and compared them to the bigger walking streets in the same Indre By. The Public Spaces of the narrow alleys of Indre By are sometimes contested with signs and tables outside restaurants, which makes it impossible to stay on the sidewalk and people has to go to the road to get around. The larger walking streets are the same, but since the whole street is intended to walk on, it does not share the same problem as the smaller alleys.
Furthermore, in our fieldwork, we crossed again with City Hall Square (Rådhuspladsen), which is the biggest square in Copenhagen and it lies right outside Indre By. When we observed City Hall Square (Rådhuspladsen), four big white tents were lined up at the center of the square, the tents had been used for the 1st of May celebration. Along the corners of the square benches are lined up, and there are also free public restrooms nearby. Signs are put up in all corners of the square listing the rules of usability of the square, which say that sleeping is forbidden in the area (Picture 1). The multiple wooden benches along the corners of the square comes in pairs one situated towards the square and the other towards the road. They were separated from the other pairs by small circular trash cans. These benches were of much greater quality than many of the other benches we came across during our fieldwork in Indre By. They were both comfortable to sit and lie down on. (Picture 2)
Across the road towards Indre By, more benches are lined up, these are made of stone and with different meters in length between the meter and a half and two meters. (Picture 3) During our participant observations we found these benches quite uncomfortable to sit on due to the material they are made of, which makes them really hard and cold. These benches are a mix of 2 meters and 1 meters in length, also there are no back support. There are a clear contrast between the two areas with the comfortability of the benches. It is ironic that the benches which are long, and comfortable to sit and sleep on, are in a square with a sleeping ban. The restrooms in this square are also under surveillance, and even though it was free, it felt like you were being watched by the
31 workers there, whose job is to clean the toilets. Another area we visited was the King’s garden (Kongens Have) which lies right by Rosenborg castle. This is a big park, which is engulfed by a large fence which helps to block out any noise from the nearby roads and also functions to keep people out at night. There are multiple signs at the entrances warning that the park will be closed off at 23.00 in the evening. The park itself is beautiful to look at, when we arrived people were making picnics in the grass or just enjoying the sunny weather lying on a blanket. People seemed to prefer lying on the grass rather than using the few benches lined up along the walking roads. These benches are made of wood and they range from 2 to 3 meters in length and have a back support. They are comfortable to sit and lie on. Another square we have visited was Højbro square. This square reminded us quite a bit of City hall square as it was very specious. We counted eight benches in this square, all lined up at the sides of the square facing the each other. These benches are in the shade of the trees planted there. All benches are 2 meters in length with back support, however there is a narrow space you can fall out of if you are sleeping on them. They are comfortable to sit on and it is possible to sleep on them.
Another square we found was at Gammeltorv. The square was also very open, but at first glance we could not find many benches. One bench we did found was centered around a tree. The bench was circular, which made it uncomfortable to sit on and near impossible to sleep on due to its shape and rounded back support (Picture 4). After a thorough search we found more benches hidden between the rented space of a restaurant and bicycle stands. (Picture 5) On this square there was also a bus stop. This bus stop had a roof and a windshield in addition to a small bench. The bench was somewhat comfortable to sit on but you cannot sit more than two medium sized people on it. Furthermore, the glass frame on the side was broken (Picture 7).
Moving on to the second selected area for fieldwork is Ørestad, which is a newly built area in Copenhagen. From Nørreport Station there is a direct metro line to Ørestad, and it takes approximately twelve minutes to get there. People can also take the train from Copenhagen Central Station and it takes about five minutes the commute. The first impression we got of the area around the Ørestad station, was how much deprived of social life it seemed to be the area. It was not crowded and most of the few people that we did see, were either headed towards the train station,
32 bus stop or the shopping mall called “Fields”. We decided to not make observations of Fields Mall, since it is a semi private space.
While doing the observations, we noticed that the surrounding buildings of Ørestad, indeed mimics the style of New York or other big cities, with big glass buildings and even good looking modern architectural design of the public spaces. We found a small number of benches around the central area, which are either made of flat stone or hardwood. In combination with the multiple springs around the harbor it is pretty to look at but not comfortable for its use. The area is also small when compared to Indre By in square meters. If people walk in any direction for about ten minutes, they will find themselves in another area or in a construction site, because some parts of Ørestad are still under construction. The majority of the buildings that surrounds the center of Ørestad, are mostly fancy hotels or elegant office buildings. We circled back along the parking lot leading back to the station via Fields. Along this parking lot there are multiple stone benches lined up. They are not very comfortable to sit on and they do not include a back support. The first day we visited it was cloudy and the other day it was sunny. Both days we found the benches cold to sit on. It was also very windy around that area, without any buildings to act like a windshield (Picture 8-9).
Following the metro line away from Ørestad Station away from the Copenhagen Center we found some red circular benches along one of the many water canals. (Picture 10) These benches was in our opinion constructed in a really bizarre way, as because of their shape and due to that they are so close to the ground it is very uncomfortable to sit on. The weird shape makes it look like it’s intended that they are designed to lie down on, but since they do not have a back support and because of the hole in the middle, this is not possible. Following the same path along the metro line found residential areas accompanied by a large park. The impressions we had of the park were very different from other parts of Ørestad, there are multiple benches lined up across the entire park, and two of them are even protected with a windshield, enabling people to sit down and have a good time on windy days (Picture 11). The bench in the windshield also included a table, so that you can use it for eating. 5 chairs were situated in a small opening in the center of tightly packed bushes, this we think is intended to give a forestry feel and block the noise from the surroundings (Picture 12). Along the bicycle and walking road there are multiple wooden benches with back
33 supports. These mostly come in pairs with a trash can separating them. These are all very comfortable to sit on, and also it can be argued that they are also good to sleep on (Picture 13).
Moreover, to the right side towards the residential area, there are playgrounds with slides, swings and other children attractions (Picture 14-15). Here, there is also a hammock which very comfortable to sit or lie down on. Furthermore, there is also a football court and many portable chairs spread throughout the park. The park, however is sometimes drowned by the noise of the metro passing through or a nearby construction vehicle/machinery. It is worth noting that, this park does not have any signs that prohibiting to sleep there. Even though, we are aware that it is possible that there is no such signs because, Homeless people do not stay around this area or even hang out there and thus, have not been deemed a “problem to the neighborhood”.
In comparison of Indre By and Ørestad, we find the two areas are very different from each other, both the urban landscape and the people living in the areas. Ørestad's public spaces are centered around Fields Mall. In contrast, through Indre By we have spotted several times homeless people selling their newspaper “Hus Forbi”. Additionally, we have spotted several other vulnerable groups, such as people sitting on their sleeping bags in a corner of the street, with all their belongings close by and begging. These people use the different public spaces, but it can be difficult to differentiate between public spaces and contested public spaces in Indre By. Most of the sidewalks are occupied by stands with clothes hanging from stores or chairs and tables owned by restaurants. It is likely that beggars find Indre By more attractive due to the constant flow of people, and the more spacious walking streets. We argue that there is not much to do in Ørestad for homeless people aside from visiting the mall where they are most likely to endure some sort of exclusion.
34
6. Analysis
In this chapter we are to examining the findings of the fieldwork we have done in Ørestad and Indre By throughout the four days we were there and what we have elaborated on, in our previous chapter where we also compared Ørestad and Indre By. When examining the findings, we are also analyzing them, regarding the theory and concepts we have explained in our theoretical chapter earlier on. We will respectively dissect the public spaces studied in both areas, including the users we have observed are commonly seen more in Indre By and Ørestad.
As we have mentioned in our previous chapter, we have observed, along with participant observation Ørestad and Indre By in a period of four continuous weekdays at the beginning of May, 2017. In Ørestad, “the newly developed and still under construction neighborhood” we have observed in Copenhagen, we have noticed that it is not constructed in a way that takes all classes into consideration. We argue this because of the small flow of people we witnessed to use the public spaces of Ørestad and the neighborhood in general, not only in the public spaces. To our group, this phenomenon could be interpreted as part of a soft exclusionary policy in some ways, and that we argue because, we did not spot many people as the hours went by during the two days we were there. We did not spot anyone who was specifically standing out from the small quantity of people that walked through the area. Additionally, there was no presence of homeless people, including not a single person that were there to sell “Hus Forbi” which is the homeless charity newspaper in Denmark.
To determine the rightness of the argument mentioned above about Ørestad based on what we have observed, now we proceed to connect them with the selected concepts from our theoretical framework. First of all, as we have to had specified before from the theory of social exclusion we have drawn from Aalbers (2011), social exclusion embodies institutions along with social processes. With the Municipality of Copenhagen as the principal and most important institution planning the structure of the developing in that neighborhood, and private investors as the secondary most important institution in the urban development planning, this component of the
35 theory is fulfilled. The mentioned institutions, as mentioned in our fourth chapter, have more interest in creating an inviting ambient for higher social classes than for every stratusses of the social classes. When it comes to the social processes, that happens in Ørestad, from our somehow limited in time fieldwork, we did not observed interactions within the community of the neighborhood. People passing by, we argue were merely in a transitioning path towards their final destination when they passed the public areas of Ørestad. which entails the lack of social participation and integration by the relative small amount of people that lives there. When we say relative small it is because we compared with the amount of people and homes we spotted at Indre By. The mentioned absent of social processes created and environment with tendency towards social exclusion, are key components of the social exclusion theory that points out that if there no such processes social exclusion can occur.
The government and its welfare policies play a fundamental role in creating ambient for all social classes in any area of its country, thus is directly a decision in their managing how to distribute resources within its municipalities. With the equal distribution among the municipalities, perhaps bigger municipalities could experience a lack of resources and a small municipality could experience a superavit. This is relevant because social exclusion, as earlier mentioned in the project entails also economic allocation of resources. Another important part of the social exclusion theory is that the aesthetic and the environment of a city must generate atmosphere for its inhabitants where they can feel included to the community and able to participate in a sensitive and open manner, trying as much as possible to prevent segregation and rejections among its people. In Ørestad, we have found that there are no signs of explicit social division, although we did noticed the absence of different social classes, being only able to observe upper class and middle upper class people. If a homeless person goes to Ørestad it will be noticed right away and it will be impossible to blend in, or find a public space where to settle for a time being without been overexposed even for a homeless person whom are always extremely exposed.
As we have mentioned before, we have not observed the presence of homeless people in Ørestad, even though we went there in two different occasions and combined we spent around 10 hours there in total. This, we belief has a direct relation to the environment of the neighborhood’s public
36 spaces, that as we have said has inclination towards the upper classes mostly. Public spaces, as we have defined in our theoretical chapter through the thoughts of Mitchell et al, 2009. embraces all the locations in which people can interact and freely use without having to be accountable for it. However, who’s responsible to distribute, design, built, and manage these locations is the government and not the private sector, thus making them entirely for public usage. This includes every free person that enters the area. In Ørestad as we have previously mentioned, there is not a vast quantity of public spaces such as benches, parks, squares and bus stops. Which alienates the homeless people to go there, since there is no many places where to make their daily necessities. Along with this, there is no sense of belonging in any place of Ørestad for homeless people, which is also why there is no sense of place for them too. As described by Cresswell (2009), spaces become places when people give them meaning as well as practice them. By not being there, the homeless people can not develop any emotions related to the public spaces of Ørestad which prevents them for turning those spaces into places, for them atleast. At the same time, by not being able to transform those public spaces into places there is no sense of place, meaning that they do not create feelings or memories that could relate them to Ørestad. Even though we did not found any sort of presence of homeless people in Ørestad, there were some people using the public spaces and living in the area and transforming spaces into places. This is because places can be both public or private, but we are not seeking to understand every places and spaces including all types of users. We were only focusing on homeless people and public spaces, as they are the only relevant to our project.
As mentioned sometimes before in our project, Ørestad in itself seems to have a lack of public spaces. it feels as if the building of the surrounding areas of public spaces have stopped right when the big buildings were completed, which has left the public spaces incomplete. What is left there, we argue seems like a ghost town. Although most of Ørestad gives the good-looking impression to the spectator, it is not very usable to the user, as we have tried them during our participant observation time there. The ghost town, alike atmosphere we believe seems to be a product of the design of the overall area. As mentioned in Staeheli and Mitchell (2009), places and public spaces are always under the influence of power struggles. This determine what the area is built for and who should be there. While it would be unfair to say that Ørestad in itself is very exclusive, as
37 there is no obvious indication of exclusion, we argue that the lack of suitable and long term comfortable public items around the central area, could be considered exclusionary in itself. The park is the exception in this area. it is like a refuge from the mountains of buildings and construction sites.
Moving now to Indre By, where our observations where in many ways different to those in Ørestad, as we have mentioned before and illustrated in our previous chapter. In relation to social exclusion, Indre By was very distinguished from Ørestad. In Indre By, although we found a larger number of benches, there were not all comfortable. With this, we refer to the great difficulty that a person, in this case a homeless person could face when trying to lay down in those benches. In some of them it is practically impossible to do so, due to how there are structured. An example could be a bench we came across during fieldwork that was round and the sitting space was quite thin (Picture 4). This, as we have previously explained through Catharina Thö rn’s (2011) argumentations is part of what is she calls soft policies of exclusion. The municipality where Indre By is located, is not directly telling the public in general or specifically the homeless people not to recline or sleep in benches. However, soft exclusion policies are incorporated in a way that the people could still sit there, surrounded by different aesthetic, which at the same time prevents people from lying down without the public noticing the exclusion in a first glance. The same applies for the stone benches we found throughout different places in Indre By, that causes real discomfort just by sitting on them for a while. As we have illustrated and explained before, benches are not the only public places. During our fieldwork in Indre By, we have also found squares of different sizes and shapes although we did not found any parks unlike we did in Ørestad. In addition to squares we also found a picturesque bus stop in Indre By (Picture 7). The bus stop was made in a way that only two people could sit on it and the space to sit is also quite thin, making it very difficult to sit if you are a large person or to lay down in the case of homeless people.
We argue that the larger amount of public spaces in Indre By, in relation to the smaller amount in Ørestad, is directly related to the its size of each one of them. Even though both of them belong to the municipality of Copenhagen, they are not similar at all. A perfect example of a very different public spaces in both areas are they sidewalks, which in Ørestad are wide and more than two people
38 can walk at the same time in each direction. However, in Indre By the sidewalks are thinner and there is constantly only space for one person to walk in each direction. For the purpose of our research, we relate this to the enabling of social processes, because in Indre By a large quantity of people collides with each other and there is no clear distinction of social classes. In the inner city, it is possible to find people from all the social classes interacting in their streets. Social processes, as Aalbers (2011) expressed are a fundamental part of social exclusion, because when people are deprived of social interactions with peers there is a clear social exclusion as much as when the resources allocation are used to created mentioned deprivation.
Additionally, in Indre by we found different types of issues that could be considered exclusion. As mentioned in the comparison chapter, the small area across from City Hall Square is equipped with uncomfortable stone benches and city hall square is equipped with comfortable wooden benches with back support. As mentioned in the comparison chapter, there were multiple people sitting on the streets with their belongings. We are assuming that the man described in the next paragraph was rough sleeper as he was in a sleeping bag with all his possessions with him.
We came across, what we argue is a homeless person (Picture 16-17), outside Seven Eleven who was in the middle of an argument with a Seven Eleven employee. It was unclear what exactly they were saying, but the Seven Eleven worker waved his hands multiple times towards the belongings of the homeless person, who then rushed away. We came back later the same day, and the homeless person was sitting at the same spot with some friends. While eating our lunch on a nearby restaurant, there was a conflict between the homeless person and a clothing store next to him. His friends had left by then, and two security guards had come. One of the homeless person's friends, had thrown a coffee cup with coffee inside backwards, and hit a clothing stand nearby a clothing store. This caused coffee to spill on a row of white pants (Picture 17). This conflict could be considered as a result of the streets getting narrower and that this is causing difficulty for the homeless people to live out their daily lives. The coffee that was spilled, we argue, did not seem to be intentional, but the result of the homeless person not been aware of the clothing stands behind him. This is an argument that Waldron (1991) uses, as the streets are becoming more contested, the homeless people are being excluded, and are having difficulty living their lives. The streets are
39 becoming more privatized, and while it might not be an issue for the person rushing to work or running some errands, it is however an issue for the person who lives on those streets. That presents a problem for them as certain places like squares and parks are being closed off at night, and certain practices like begging, which is one of their sources of income is prohibited. We argue that it is not only a fight for the streets but also a fight against the law.
40
7. Conclusion
After finalizing all the previous chapter of this project, where we have exposed our observations and participant observation and have analyzed the findings from our research fieldwork in combination with our theoretical framework, we have concluded that exclusion does occur in the areas of Copenhagen we have selected. Although we have concluded that the exclusion is present, it takes different shapes and it is not as easy to perceive as one would have thought at first. We have found evidence in both Indre By and Ørestad, that soft policies of exclusion are being applied there and the design of public spaces excludes those who are homeless. We have seen the examples of that by observing the numerous ways in which the urban landscape in both areas is constructed and their location within the area. Even though some of the components of the urban landscape in Indre By and Ørestad was not excluding as such, the areas where they were located did not allow certain actions that are necessary for homeless people to live their daily lives. We have come to believe, that the main problem regarding social exclusion occurring in Copenhagen at the moment is the soft policies of exclusion. Government allows homeless to use the public toilets as an example and other public spaces, but while they are being surveilled and not allowed to spend a large amount of time there.
We have deducted that Indre By has more public spaces to be used, however, privatization of public spaces is larger than in Ørestad. Privatization occurs in the form of contesting a public space with restaurants or coffee shops, which is not as present in Ørestad where we have not seen that form of privatization. On the other hand, Ørestad is lacking public spaces which we believe, can be looked upon as the gradual ending of public space, as Don Mitchell has argued, it is becoming omnipresent within the modern society. As a result of absence of public spaces in Ørestad, we have found that Indre By was a lot more attractive to homeless people. In addition to the design of the urban landscape, Indre By is easily reachable with public transportation than Ørestad and it is filled with much more tourists due to its position within the city of Copenhagen, giving the area more life and constant flow of people. With all those factors considered, we can conclude that the
41 inner city is also more profitable for homeless people, in terms of begging or finding a place where they will not be as easily exposed as in Ørestad.
Overall, from what we have gathered from our secondary sources, we have concluded that the quantity of homeless people in Denmark is a relatively small margin compared to other countries such as the US. The privatization as well is not as increased and public spaces in Copenhagen still remains partially public and open for all social classes in general. Homeless are a part of the society within the city and can find a suitable place to perform their daily necessities without having to commute towards the suburbs of Copenhagen such as we have observed in Ørestad. When combining our secondary sources with our primary sources, we can come to the conclusion that homeless people in Copenhagen still have a freedom to sleep, eat, stay in certain areas and use the public toilets. These public areas both in Ørestad and Indre By are kept in well conditions, with this we refer to the well maintenance of the facilities and open public spaces, meaning that the public are fit for its use, regarding of where they are placed or the quantity of them. That freedom is limited due to numerous of different factors mentioned above, however they are active users of the numerous public spaces found, at least when it comes to the inner city of the capital of Denmark. The question that raises, due to the future planning of urban development of the city is, how will the future development of the Copenhagen look like and will it by time, become more exclusive towards homeless people.
Drawing from our previous chapter, it is clear that the public spaces in Copenhagen are becoming progressively exclusive within the last 50 years. The construction of the green wedges should provide more public spaces for the citizens of Copenhagen, however, the main concern for the homeless is will they be reachable and suitable for their usage as they partially are now.
42
8. Bibliography
Aalbers, M. (2011). Place, exclusion, and mortgage markets. 1st ed. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K: Wiley-Blackwell.
Allen, J. (2006). Ambient Power: Berlin's Potsdamer Platz and the Seductive Logic of Public Spaces. Urban Studies, 43(2), pp.441-455.
Andersen, H. (2006). Urban competition and urban crisis: Urban Politics in Denmark. 1st ed. Roskilde: Roskilde University, pp.1-23.
Benjaminsen, L. and Juul, P. (2009). National strategy and monitoring of homelessness in Denmark. 1st ed. Copenhagen: SFI – The Danish National Centre for Social Research.
Blomley, N. (2007). How to Turn a Beggar into a Bus Stop: Law, Traffic and the 'Function of the Place'. Urban Studies, 44(9), pp.1697-1712.
Blomley, N. (2017). Nicholas Blomley - Simon Fraser University. [online] Sfu.ca. Available at: https://www.sfu.ca/people/blomley.html [Accessed 10 May 2017].
City of Copenhagen - Municipal Plan 2015. (2015). 1st ed. Copenhagen: Frank Jensen - Lord Mayor of Copenhagen.
Collins, D. and Shantz, D.M. 2009, 'Public spaces, urban.' In Rob Kitchin and Nigel Thrift, editors, International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, Volume 8, Amsterdam.
43
Copenhagen Growing - The Story of Ørestad. (2011). 1st ed. Copenhagen: CPH City & Port Development.
Cresswell, Tim 2009, 'Place.' In Rob Kitchin and Nigel Thrift, editors, Rob Kitchin and Nigel Thrift, editors, International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, Vol 8, Amsterdam.
Ec.europa.eu. (2014). Urban Europe — statistics on cities, towns and suburbs — poverty and social exclusion in cities - Statistics Explained. [online] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- explained/index.php/Urban_Europe_%E2%80%94_statistics_on_cities,_towns_and_suburbs_% E2%80%94_poverty_and_social_exclusion_in_cities [Accessed 11 May 2017].
Failedarchitecture.com. (2017). The Story Behind Failure: Copenhagen’s Business District Ørestad — Failed Architecture. [online] Available at: https://www.failedarchitecture.com/the- story-behind-the-failure-copenhagens-business-district-orestad/ [Accessed 13th May 2017].
Flick, U. (2014), “An Introduction to Qualitative Research”, 5th edition. Sage publications
Graham, J. (2017). Things to do in Orestad, Copenhagen: Neighborhood Travel Guide by 10Best.[online]10Best.Available at:http://www.10best.com/destinations/denmark/copenhagen/orestad/ [Accessed 29 Apr. 2017].
Its.law.nyu.edu. (2017). Jeremy Waldron - Biography | NYU School of Law. [online] Available at:
44 https://its.law.nyu.edu/facultyprofiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=profile.biography&personid=26993 [Accessed 8 May 2017].
Karpantschof, R. (2014). Violence that matters! Radicalization and de-radicalization of leftist, urban movements – Denmark 1981–2011. Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression, 7(1), pp.35-52.
Københavns Kommune. (2017). Retningslinjer for Udendørsservering. [online] Available at: http://www.kk.dk/artikel/retningslinjer-udend%C3%B8rsservering [Accessed 5 May 2017].
Københavns Kommune. (2017). Stadeplads. [online] Available at: http://www.kk.dk/stader [Accessed 6 May 2017].
Københavns Kommune. (2017). Udendørsservering og reklameskilte. [online] Available at: http://www.kk.dk/udeservering?nm_extag=Link%3D%27CFSLB%27 [Accessed 6 May 2017].
Maxwell.syr.edu. (2017). Don Mitchell, Distinguished Professor, Geography. [online] Available at: https://www.maxwell.syr.edu/geo/Mitchell,_Don/ [Accessed 15 May 2017].
Mayer, M., Thö rn, C. and Thö rn, H. (2016). Urban Uprisings. 1st ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Mitchell, Don and Staeheli, Lynn 2009, 'Public space.' In Rob Kitchin and Nigel Thrift, editors, International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, Vol 8, Amsterdam, Elsevier, pp. pp. 517-22.
45
Mitchell, D. (2012). The Right to the City. 1st ed. Guilford Publications
Norman, R. (2015). A Brief History of Urban Planning in Copenhagen. [online] Scandinavia Standard. Available at: http://www.scandinaviastandard.com/a-brief-look-at-urban-planning-in- copenhagen/ [Accessed 16 May 2017].
SLOW STREETS. (2017). Lessons From Copenhagen: Key Ingredients For A Successful PublicSpace.[online]Available at: https://slowstreets.wordpress.com/2015/04/27/lessons-from- copenhagen-key-ingredients-for-a-successful-public-space/ [Accessed 1 May 2017].
The Finger Plan - A Strategy for the Development of the Greater Copenhagen Area. (2015). 1st ed. Copenhagen: Danish Ministry of the Environment, Nature Agency.
Thörn, C. (2011). Soft Policies of Exclusion: Entrepreneurial Strategies of Ambience and Control of Public Space in Gothenburg, Sweden. Urban Geography, 32(7), pp.989-1008.
University Post. (2014). Guide to Copenhagen city areas and neighbourhoods. [online] Available at: https://uniavisen.dk/en/guide-to-copenhagen-city-areas-and-neighbourhoods/ [Accessed 12th May 2017].
Waldron, J. (1991) Homelessness and the issue of freedom, UCLA LAW Review, 39. PP 295- 324)
46