Comparative analysis of three innovative housing models in Copenhagen for social mix

Copenhagen has been attracting residents both from abroad and other regions of Denmark, embracing a comprehensive development plan following an economic boom since the 1990s. Local decision-makers have been striving to transform the housing stock of the city in line with the evolving demographics of the city and consequent new demands of the urban society. At the same time, people are seeking cheaper and flexible alternatives of living; thus, social housing (almen bolig) emerges as an affordable option with reasonable qualities for Copenhagen residents. This study uses a comparative analysis to evaluate spatial approaches of three innovative social housing models developed by partnerships of some non-profit housing associations with Copenhagen municipality in 2015. Each model has a distinct motto; Generationernes Byhus (GBYH) builds up neighbourhood across generations; Boliger for Alle (BOFA) provides opportunity of transition across ownership types; and Almene Storbyboliger (ASBB) creates flexible/plastic system addressing demographical structure under change. Methodologically, the research is based on interviews with key stakeholders and in-depth analysis of visual and written documents. It provides a comparative analysis of the models, concentrating particularly on dwelling design approaches which address social mix and diversity. The paper concludes that although the social housing market is strictly controlled for socio-economic reasons, it still has the potential to support the evolution of the urban demography of Danish society thanks to embracement of innovative perspectives both by governmental authorities and forerunning housing associations.

PDF

___

Andersen, H. (2008). Copenhagen, Denmark: Urban Regeneration 11. Copenhagen, Denmark: Urban Regeneration. In T. Kidokoro, N. Harata, L. Subanu, J. Jessen, A. Motte, & E. Seltzer (Eds.), Sustainable City Regions: Space, Place and Governance (pp. 203-226). Springer.

Arthurson, K. (2010). Operationalising Social Mix: Spatial Scale, Lifestyle and Stigma as Mediating Points in Resident Interaction. Urban Policy and Research, 28(1), 49-63. doi:10.1080/08111140903552696

Bech-Danielsen,C., Mechlenborg, M., & Stender, M. (2018). Welcome Home: Trends in Danish Housing Architecture. Copenhagen: Politikens Forlag.

Bican, N.B. (2016). Securing future of social housing: Learning from an akternative regeneration/ Gyldenrisparken in Denmark (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.

Dansereau, F. G. (1997). Social mix: old utopias, contemporary experience and. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 6(1), 1-23.

Domea. (2016). Bolige for Alle: Blandede Ejerformer i Koebenhavn. Copenhagen.

Fogh Black, L. (2017). Københavns Kommune og de almene boliger: et studie af nye almene boligkoncepters betydning for udviklingen af København som en sammenhængende by med plads til alle (Unpublished study report). Copenhagen: Aalborg University.

fsb, Lejerbo, AAB. (2015). Smat & Smart: Almene Storbyboliger. (Version 4). Copenhagen: RUBOW Arkitekter A/S og Grontmij. Retrieved 04 01, 2017, from https://www.fsb.dk/media/770113/almene-storbyboliger_folder.pdf

Gehl Architects. (2016, February 1). The Public Diversity Toolkit.Retrieved from https://issuu.com/gehlinstitute/docs/20160128_toolkit_2.0/4.

Habraken, N. J. (1972). Supports: An Alternative to Mass Housing. London: The Architectural Press.

KAB, SAB, AKB, B3B. (2016). Brochure on Generationernes Byhus. Copenhagen.

Lawton, P. (2013). Understanding Urban Practitioners’ Perspectives on Social-Mix Policies in Amsterdam: The Importance of Design and Social Space. Journal of Urban Design, 18(1), 98-118.

Levin, I., Arthurson, K., & Ziersch, A. (2014). Social mix and the role of design: Competing interests in the Carlton Public Housing Estate Redevelopment, Melbourne. Cities(40), 23-31.

Livingston, M., Kearns, A., & Bailey, N. (2013). Delivering Mixed Communities: The Relationship between Housing Tenure Mix and Social Mix in England’s Neighbourhoods. Housing Studies, 28(7), 1056-1080.

Mortensen, P. D. (2018). Homes, Ensembles, City.Copenhagen: Arkitektur B.

Robert, M. (2007). Sharing Space: Urban Design and Social Mixing in Mixed Income New Communities. Planning Theory & Practice, 8(2), 183-204.

Sarkissian, W. (1976). The Idea of Social Mix in Town Planning: An Historical Review. Urban Studies, 13, 231-246.

The Ministry of City, Housing, and Rural Districts. (2014). Tænketanken – Byen 2025 Faelleskaber i Forandring (The Think Tank - The City 2025 Communities in Change). Copenhagen

The Municipality of Copenhagen. (2015a). Municipal Plan 2015 - 2015. Copenhagen, Denmark.

The Municipality of Copenhagen. (2015b). Invitation to Partnership on Social Housing_Indbydelse til partnerskaber om almene boliger - Københavns Kommune juni 2015.

Tiesdell, S. (2004). Integrating affordable housing within market-rate developments: the design dimension. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31, 195-212. doi:10.1068/b2998