COPENHAGEN | CONQUERING THE WATERFRONT

KEVIN VICKERY | LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE. SPRING 2012.

Figure 1 | Palm Islands, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

INTRODUCTION When manmade islands began popping up like crop circles off the coast of Dubai (Figure 1), many considered them evidence of modern advances in technology and cheered for the ingenuity of mankind. Although many think the construction of artificial islands is a recent development, societies have used the process for centuries to create space for expansion or to reuse soil excavated from construction sites on land. The Aztecs, for example, created floating agricultural islands (Figure 2) around the island city Tenochtitlan as a solution to the

Figure 2 | Example of Chinampa.

problem of expansion (Chinampa). The artificial islands of Dubai may not represent new advances in construction technologies, but they do mark a recent shift in the attitudes of landscape architects and urban designers, because developers recognized the potential of the waterfront uncommonly early in the planning process. In recent decades, more people recognize the importance of waterfronts in the context of urban landscapes. Many governments are now reclaiming their waterfronts from the private sector to transform them into public spaces for leisure and recreation. Urban waterways crowded with smokestacks and under-used industrial warehouses represent relics of societies that once sacrificed quality of life for the thrill of productivity. Emerging industries in large cities sought waterside locations enthusiastically, taking advantage of water for transportation and waste removal. In many cases factories and warehouses forced residential areas far from the valuable land along waterfronts and created visual and physical barriers, while pollution further deteriorated any recreational value in the water (Stephens 3). Nowhere was this more apparent than in London

during the Industrial Revolution of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Abounding industry and exponential population growth during this time pressured waste removal facilities so much that untreated sewage overflowed and saturated the streets. A temporary solution was to direct most of the waste into the Thames River, but so much effluence was dumped into the river that instead of running a course to the sea, the waste backed up in urban sections of the river. In his book “The Great Stink of London,” Stephen Halliday describes how the river had become an open sewer and wreaked so badly of effluence that members of Parliament considered moving from the House of Commons because it was so close to the Thames (Halliday 35). As businesses continued to damage urban waterfronts, the effects on quality of life became shockingly apparent and policy-makers began to react by limiting industrial growth and disallowing pollution along waterways. Especially since the 1960’s cities have fervently redeveloped many of their industrial waterfronts to include recreational, commercial and residential facilities to bolster quality of life in these areas and attract people from other parts of the city and elsewhere. Since much of this redevelopment happens in places of former industrial

Figure 3 | Badeschiff, Berlin, Germany.

sites, where people have largely altered nature for human needs, redesigned waterfronts usually have a structured, somewhat sterile organization (Stephens 4). Additionally many waterways are still not clean enough for swimming, so waterfront neighborhoods are often disconnected from the water and offer only visual stimulation for visitors. The Spree River of Berlin, for example, is too polluted for bathing so artist Susanne Lorenz designed an enclosed, chlorinated swimming pool called the Badeschiff (Figure 3), which floats just above the water’s surface so people can imagine bathing in the river without danger to their health (Stephens 11-12). In this respect Copenhagen, Denmark offers interesting examples of redeveloped waterfronts because minimal industry along its waterways and close connections with the Baltic Sea make its harbors and canals sanitary enough for swimming. Following a trend earlier established in North America and other European cities, Copenhagen began in the 1990’s to significantly replace underused industrial neighborhoods along the waterfront with new districts of recreational, commercial and residential functions (Desfor 479-80). Now instead of factories and shipping docks, public plazas and walking paths dominate the waterfront. Small

Figure 4 | Amager Beach Park (Amager Strandpark), Copenhagen, Denmark.

sailboats now navigate canals once crowded with bulky trade ships. In less crowded areas of the city, the built environment can now extend into the water so residents can experience the Baltic Sea personally. Several recent projects in Copenhagen, particularly Amager Beach Park and the Harbor Bath, demonstrate the benefits of clean, usable waterways and represent emerging trends in intelligent urban growth. AMAGER BEACH PARK Amager Beach Park (Figure 4), established five kilometers from the center of Copenhagen in 1934, has presented problems with sand retention from the time of its construction. Shallow waters provide small waves, which are able to pull sand into the Øresund Strait but are not strong enough to push it back to shore. This means that the beach loses sand gradually and maintaining the beach requires additions of sand almost every year. In the late 1980’s local organizations formed a committee to solve the problem and improve the quality of the beach park. This committee proposed the creation of an artificial island to solve the problem of sand retention. Construction began in 2004 and the two-kilometer-long island opened the following year

(History). The island separates the existing beach from the waves of the Øresund, thereby creating a buffer and reducing sand loss on the original beach. The artificial island is further into the waters of the Øresund, where strong waves are able to remove and replace sand in equal amounts. While constructed landscapes along waterfronts are usually designed as extensions of present conditions, the new island at Amager Beach Park is physically separate from the natural shoreline. Constructing an island instead of extending existing land allows twice as much constructed shoreline and keeps the original beach intact, demonstrating respect for the history of the area. A long lagoon separates the island and mainland, except for three narrow bridges and a marina at the southern end (Figure 5). The island is closest to the preexisting shore at the southern end, where the old and new beaches run parallel to each other. The lagoon bulges in the middle, as the island bends out into the Øresund. The island itself is divided into two recreational areas of distinct landscaping languages. The northern half of the island is composed mostly of wide sandy beaches and low dunes. The material and formal characteristics of this area, combined with paths that

wind through the dunes (Figure 6), give the northern part of the island a more natural quality and provide a retreat from the structured urban life of Copenhagen. Additionally it is significant that the bridges connecting the island to the mainland are considerably longer at this part, thereby enhancing the feeling of detachment from urban life. For these reasons people wanting privacy, intimacy or general relaxation prefer this half to the more active southern half. Figure 5 | Marina at southern end of Amager Beach Park.

Figure 6 | Northern half of Amager Beach Park.

Figure 7 | Southern half of Amager Beach Park.

The southern half of the island consists of grass lawns on the western side and a narrow sand beach on the other, separated by a paved spine that runs down the length of this half of the island. The area is noticeably more structured and suggests waterfront conditions more common in urban settings. Straight secondary paths divide the grass lawns into equal widths, making them more appropriate for games and sports. Families usually find this area more suitable, because an absence of dunes and a narrower beach allow parents to keep an eye on their children. Skating enthusiasts enjoy the wide, paved paths that divide this part of the island, because there is enough space for people to meander and skate side-by-side (Figure 7). At the point where the two island halves meet, a long dock juts out into the sea for small boats.

Figure 8 | Harbor Bath, Copenhagen, Denmark.

COPENHAGEN HARBOR BATH In the last decade additional recreational bathing facilities have been built along the waterfront of Copenhagen to supplement a lack of beaches inside the city. Although these structures generally extend urban activity into the water, each project demonstrates a different attitude about connection to the mainland. For example, the Kastrup Sea Bath (Figure 9) was built away from the natural shore and connects to the mainland with a narrow bridge, much like the island of Amager Beach. Another example, the Maritime Youth House (Figure 10) provides access to the water for the purpose of boating but remains completely onshore. The popular Copenhagen Harbor Bath is arguably the most successful of these projects in terms of landscaping, because it provides an almost seamless transition from urban landscape into the water and makes a formal statement at the same time. For this reason and its location in the main part of the city, the Copenhagen Harbor Bath will serve as a primary case study for analysis. Since the late twentieth century, the harbor of Copenhagen has changed from an industrial district into a center for culture, with the construction of the

Figure 9 | Kastrup Sea Bath.

Figure 10 | Maritime Youth House.

Copenhagen Opera House and Royal Danish Playhouse, and for leisure and recreation, with the completion of the Harbor Park (Havneparken) and the Copenhagen Harbor Bath (Islands Brygge Harbour Bath). As industry moved away from the harbor in the late 1970’s, grassroots groups sought to transform the underused waterfront into urban green space. The result was Harbor Park, founded in 1984 and later expanded in 1995. The 3.8-hectare linear waterfront park became so popular that a temporary harbor bath was constructed in 2002 and replaced the following year by the larger Copenhagen Harbor Bath (Havneparken). The terraced Harbor Bath performs as a mediating surface between the waterfront park and the actual water and allows safe access for everyone through inclusion of ramps and surfaces that slope into the pools for the mobility impaired and handrails for the visually impaired. The timber surface frames three swimming pools of different sizes. These shapes are partly informed by sight lines from the lifeguard stand for added safety. At one end a wooden cliff (Figure 11) towers over the largest pool so capable people can jump into the water. The Copenhagen Harbor Bath means to imitate the varied landscape of an actual beach or island, but in a decidedly more

Figure 11 | Cliff at Copenhagen Harbor Bath.

architectural way so it matches appropriately with its urban surroundings. The project has become popular in the summertime because it allows metropolitans to experience the water without leaving the city center or using indoor pools (Saieh). COMPARISONS Investigation of these projects first requires consideration of the structures within the context of Landscape Architecture. For the purpose of this examination, Landscape Architecture will be defined as the development of altered, recreational environments that achieve desired conditions otherwise absent in a situation. While Amager Beach Park and the Copenhagen Harbor Bath are hardly parks or gardens in the usual sense, these projects represent a species of Landscape Architecture, as both projects are constructed landscapes that resolve an absence of public, recreational space within urban contexts. The projects demonstrate how landscaping projects can be considerably different in terms of materiality and appearance and nonetheless achieve the same desired results. The Amager Beach Island and Copenhagen Harbor Bath compliment existing conditions in their physical

contexts, primarily through referential material decisions and by extending the organizing structure of these contexts. The constructed island at Amager Beach Park continues the language of natural and organic materials, established in the original beach, and mimics the transition from hard to soft surfaces present on the mainland (Figure 12). The axes of streets running perpendicularly to the original beach now extend across the lagoon as pedestrian bridges that connect the island to the mainland (Figure 13). Similarly, the diagonal lines that divide grass lawns in the Harbor Park extend over the water and give the Copenhagen Harbor Bath its bounding edges (Figure 14). Sight lines radiating from the lifeguard stand inform the shapes of pools within the Bath, which consequently enhances the language of diagonal lines in the site (Figure 15).

Figure 12 | Continuation of Material Patterns.

These projects are not only respectful of their physical contexts, but also their historical contexts. Copenhagen has a long history of constructing manmade islands, beginning in the early seventeenth century, when King Christian IV commissioned the construction of a large island called Christianshavn as a residential district for immigrants (Christianshavn). There are also several recent examples of constructed islands in the city, including eight small islands composing the Sluseholmen Canal District (Sluseholmen). Hence the island at Amager Beach Park represents a simple variation in a design trend already present in Copenhagen. Since the history of harbor baths is considerably shorter, the Copenhagen Harbor Bath instead references the history of Copenhagen Harbor by featuring a timber construction that imitates the boating docks present throughout the harbor, symbols of the maritime history of the area and the city. These projects represent just a couple examples of an emerging frontier in landscape architecture. JDS Architects, formerly half of the architecture firm PLOT that designed the Harbor Bath, has become a forerunner in the design of harbor baths elsewhere, including the Faaborg Harbor Bath, Aalborg Harbor Bath and Open Air Bath in Dublin. Additionally the firm has proposed a design for the Trondheim Fjordpark, an artificial island similar to the one at Amager Beach Park (Projects). Growing interest in these typologies demonstrates an eagerness for a smart manner of expansion that does not require sacrifice of urban quality. By developing public space on the water, Copenhagen can preserve existing outdoor spaces, maintain a comfortable human scale, maximize views of the sky and foster recreation.

Figure 13 | Extension of Existing Axes.

Figure 14 | Extension of Existing Axes.

Figure 15 | Lines Radiating from Lifeguard Stand.

SOURCES "Chinampa." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2012. Web. 20 Mar. 2012. . "Christianshavn – History, Traditions, Culture in Denmark's Capital." ZheJiang Cultural Net. 18 July 2011. Web. 10 Mar. 2012. . Desfor, Gene, and John Jørgenson. "Flexible Urban Governance. The Case of Copenhagen’s Recent Waterfront Development." European Planning Studies 12.4 (2004): 479-96. Print. Halliday, Stephen. The Great Stink of London: Sir Joseph Bazalgette and the Cleansing of the Victorian Metropolis. Stroud: Sutton, 2001. Print. "Havneparken - Facts/History." Københavns Kommune. 3 June 2010. Web. 18 Mar. 2012. . "History of Amager Beach." Amager Strandpark I/S. Amager Strandpark I/S, 18 Oct. 2007. Web. 15 Mar. 2012. . "Projects | JDS Architects." JDS Architects. Web. 20 Mar. 2012. . Saieh, Nico. "Copenhagen Harbour Bath / PLOT." ArchDaily. 5 Jan. 2009. Web. 15 Mar. 2012. . "Sluseholmen - Canal Community with 1,000 Dwellings." Arkitema Architects. Web. 25 Mar. 2012. . Stevens, Quentin. "Artificial Waterfronts." Urban Design International 14.1 (2009): 3-21. Print. "Welcome to Amager Beach." Amager Strandpark I/S. Amager Strandpark I/S, 23 Jan. 2009. Web. 15 Mar. 2012. .