Might be interesting to compare and contrast this with Mission Bay in San Francisco. I live elsewhere in the city and don't know the details of its history, but my impression is that at a high level it was similar: a large scale redevelopment project built around expensive municipal infrastructure (in our case the T-Third light rail line) and dominated by large-parcel institutional development.
The architecture is similarly bland and corporate. The walkability is decent-to-good by SF standards, aka terrific by US standards, but suffers from a lot of US-standard pathologies of urban design regulation that seem absent in Denmark (e.g. too-wide streets, parking minimums). It feels pretty livable and vibrant anyway thanks to very nice outdoor green spaces, which is partly a testament to SF's excellent parks department and partly a privilege of our mild climate.
Yes, I have photos from new buildings in Mission Bay that I sometimes use to explain why new developments feel so hostile compared to pre-war development.
A lot of it comes down to street width, building size, and parking garages.
So, yes, the new Danish neighborhood at least avoids that. But the large parcel buildings remain a problem.
Very interesting and spot on capturing the feeling. Exclusive, expensive and kind of neat but no soul. I wonder how cities can align infrastructure improvements with incremental granular development?
Great article. I think all of us can think of at least one newly designed neighborhood in our cities that's got all the people-friendly elements of design yet doesn't feel inviting to the people. There's a fundamental lack of understanding of what we as people really want. If top-down design and bottom-up design don't work, then what's the middle ground for design?
Terrific analysis. My sense is that the coarse-grained urbanism is probably inevitable in cases like this where a massive up-front expenditure on infrastructure is necessary to make the land developable. (Hudson Yards and Battery Park City were the first US examples that came to mind for me.) I appreciate that your perspective is "both-and" rather than a dogmatic insistence that everything has to be courtyard urbanism in every case.
Firstly, thanks for the great analysis. As a Danish urban planner, I very much appreciate your perspectives on the city. What I understand is that the core business case is opposed to a well-functioning everyday city. In that light, how do you suggest we attract investors if they're not allowed to do what they are doing in Nordhavn?
Might be interesting to compare and contrast this with Mission Bay in San Francisco. I live elsewhere in the city and don't know the details of its history, but my impression is that at a high level it was similar: a large scale redevelopment project built around expensive municipal infrastructure (in our case the T-Third light rail line) and dominated by large-parcel institutional development.
The architecture is similarly bland and corporate. The walkability is decent-to-good by SF standards, aka terrific by US standards, but suffers from a lot of US-standard pathologies of urban design regulation that seem absent in Denmark (e.g. too-wide streets, parking minimums). It feels pretty livable and vibrant anyway thanks to very nice outdoor green spaces, which is partly a testament to SF's excellent parks department and partly a privilege of our mild climate.
Yes, I have photos from new buildings in Mission Bay that I sometimes use to explain why new developments feel so hostile compared to pre-war development.
A lot of it comes down to street width, building size, and parking garages.
So, yes, the new Danish neighborhood at least avoids that. But the large parcel buildings remain a problem.
Very interesting and spot on capturing the feeling. Exclusive, expensive and kind of neat but no soul. I wonder how cities can align infrastructure improvements with incremental granular development?
Great article. I think all of us can think of at least one newly designed neighborhood in our cities that's got all the people-friendly elements of design yet doesn't feel inviting to the people. There's a fundamental lack of understanding of what we as people really want. If top-down design and bottom-up design don't work, then what's the middle ground for design?
Terrific analysis. My sense is that the coarse-grained urbanism is probably inevitable in cases like this where a massive up-front expenditure on infrastructure is necessary to make the land developable. (Hudson Yards and Battery Park City were the first US examples that came to mind for me.) I appreciate that your perspective is "both-and" rather than a dogmatic insistence that everything has to be courtyard urbanism in every case.
Firstly, thanks for the great analysis. As a Danish urban planner, I very much appreciate your perspectives on the city. What I understand is that the core business case is opposed to a well-functioning everyday city. In that light, how do you suggest we attract investors if they're not allowed to do what they are doing in Nordhavn?
Absolutely spot on. Synthetic rarely compares to organic.