Ørestad Versus Indre By
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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