Tall buildings in Copenhagen

Tall building TypologiesA study on tall buildings and their urban life in Copenhagen

Tall building TypologiesA study of urban life around tall buildings in Copenhagen

Morten Kent HansenStudent ID: [email protected]

Master Thesis: 30 etcs pointsLandscape Arcitecture and Urban DesignDepartment of Geoscience and Natural Resource ManaementUniversity of Copenhagen

Superviser: Gertrud JørgensenDepartment of Geoscience and Natural Resource Manaement

01/09/15

Tall building TypologiesA study of urban life around tall buildings in Copenhagen

This 30 ECTS point thesis marks the ending of my master studies in landscape archi-tecture with a specialization in Urban Design at the University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Science.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank my supervisor Gertrud Jørgensen for guiding me through the project and for her specific insight in showing me rel-evant literature and her inputs regarding model building to visualize my project.

I would also like to thank Niels Boje Groth for his alternative critical views on my ideas and helping me along the way.

Preface

As urbanization continues to rise in Denmark as well as globally, Tall buildings are increasingly being constructed in cities around the world to accommodate the population growth. Denmark saw the arrival of its first tall building following the World War II, with a particular inspiration from the modernist movement, CIAM (Congres International d’Architecture Moderne). Since then, different plan-ning periods have influenced the de-velopment of and against tall buildings in Copenhagen.

This thesis explores tall buildings and their urban life in and around Copenhagen. Different types of tall buildings are established through an investigation of the existing tall buildings in Copenhagen. Design proposals for selected tall buildings is developed in search of possible potentials to enhance the public space around them.

Urbanisering fortsætter med at stige i Danmark såvel som globalt. Dette betyder at højhuse i stigende grad bliver bygget i byer rundt om i verden for at imødekomme befolkningstilvæksten.Det første højhus projekt på dansk jord blev opført efter Anden Verdenskrig, med særlig inspiration fra den modernistiske bevægelse, CIAM (Congres International d’Architecture Moderne).Siden har forskellige planlægnings paradigmer påvirket udviklingen af og imod højhuse i København.

Denne afhandling udforsker højhuse og deres byliv i og omkring København.Forskellige typologier af højhuse er blevet konstateret igennem en analyse af de eksisterende højhuse i København.Design forslag med henblik på at undersøge mulige potentialer for at stimulere det offentlige liv i relation til

højhuse, er skabt ved udvalgte cases

Abstract Abstrakt

Table of content

Introduction p.8

Structure of thesis p.12

Chapter 1: Historic development of the tall building p.15

CIAM p.17

A techincal history of tall building p.18

Introducing the tall building to DK p.19

1970’s and 1980’s p.21

1990’s - Renaissance p.22

Avoiding urban sprawl p.24

Nature vs city p.26

Chapter 2: Theorizing the tall building p.29

Chapter 3: Analyzing tall building in Copenhagen p.37

Case summary p.42

Categorization of the tall buildings in Copenhagen p.45

Chapter 4: The urban life around 2 tall buildings cases p.55

Chapter 5: Discussion p.94

Conclusion p.98

Reference List p.99

Apendix p.101

8

The existing tallest structure in Copenhagen is the spire of the Danish parliament at 106m; second place the town house at 102m and then Vor frelsers church 91m high..

The highest structures in Copenhagen are political or religious symbols. This stands in contrast to the majority of other big cities around the world where tall buildings dominate the skyline. Inquisitiveness, eagerness to understand constantly hit me whenever I travel abroad through different metropolis of the world.

Copenhagen, in comparison even to smaller cities, seems to have a characteristically low skyline. This made me wonder why? Does it pertain to the local opinion regarding tall buildings? I have for as long as I can remember felt attracted to city life with its energy, hustle and bus-tle. Maybe, it is because I come from a sleepy town in Northern Zealand, where there is not much happening outside the local supermarket. I was eager to move to the capital of Denmark, by far the biggest city in the country. It has to be mentioned here that my

interest in cities and urban development drove me to become a member in a website www.Skyscrapercity.com where I take part in the discussion and news about the ever changing urban develop-ment with its construction sites, cranes, new spectacular buildings etc.

Furthermore this interest drove me to study urban planning and is the underly-

ing motivation behind this master’s thesis.

Introduction

9

The thesis focus on tall buildings in Copenhagen and the urban life around them.To start off this topic the thesis will presents some common assumedly

positive and negative aspects of the tall building:

Pros: Economics, Symbolic(company brand, city brand), sustainability... (CTBUH,2015).

&RQV��ODFN�RI�KXPDQ�VFDOH��ZLQG�WXUEXOHQFHV��VKDGRZV��DHVWKHWLFV��WUDIÀF�FRQJHVWLRQV��*HKO��

10

Regarding the topic of tall buildings the urban life is in focus as the tall building assumedly imposes a negative impact on the spaces around it. The tall buildings receive critics for block-ing sunlight, creating wind turbulence around them and seeming to be out of scale with their context(Gehl, 2013).

Hence the thesis wants to explore the urban life influenced by the tall buildings in Copenhagen.

The founding president of the council for Canadian urbanism, Brent Toderian, heard this sentence from a renowned architect, whom he do not reveal but associates with urbanists such as Jan Gehl and Leon Krier who are not in favor of building tall.

Jan Gehl an influencial urban planner in Denmark has with detailed observations described how buildings loose contact with the ground when going beyond the 6th floor. The building becomes isolated from the public life on the ground, hence residents leave less often for recreation and parents will not be able to keep an eye on their kid on the playground (Gehl, 2013).

Other studies on the tall building have concluded similar negative effect on the tall building such as the Danish building institution in 1969 (Planstyrelsen, 1991).

The tall building have thus suffered a poor reputation in Copenhagen.

To obtain the necessary square meters to accommodate the rising population growth in Copenhagen without expand-ing the city into rural land, an integration of tall buildings can be unavoidable, despite a risk of going to hell.

" There is a special level of Hell dedicated to architects who design buildings

over six stories." Brent Toderian, 2015

11

Objective The aim of this thesis is to explore the urban development around existing tall buildings, how do they contribute to their context. Considerable factors may be how tall buildings meet the ground, enliven the street and avoid casting shadows on key spots.

I will engage in this topic by understand-ing the Danish circumstances in the de-velopment of tall buildings, from the ideas of modernism up till today. Based on the above issues this thesis will aim at answering: To what extent can urban life be stimu-lated around tall buildings in Denmark?

This thesis is not a solution for the planning of tall buildings in the municipality of Co-penhagen, it only presents a small aspect of tall buildings, and should be seen as a possibility out of many and as an input to

a debate of the topic.

Method

First knowledge on the history of topic is gained through relevant literature. Simultaneous to the study of literature, field trip observations in Copenhagen were made.

I detected tall buildings by moving around in the city supported by published mate-rial about tall building in Copenhagen, by the municipality of Copenhagen (Municpality of Copenhagen, 2006). Attending a symposium for the inauguration of Council for Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH ,2015) and a presentation

by Anne Skovbroe, director of the Finance administration in the city of Copenhagen, also helped the selection of buildings. Based on this, the thesis looks into 16 cases of tall buildings in the greater Copenhagen area.

These 16 cases do not cover all the tall buildings in Copenhagen, but give an indication of what kind of tall buildings exist in the Copenhagen area. Analyzing each case has been done using relevant urban theory as well as interviews with urban experts, and field trips observations. This has shaped the creation of different typologies of tall buildings.

The proposals represent a physical solution to the potentials that derived from the analysis and stakeholder interviews. The design proposals are used as a tool to visualize the potentials around tall buildings.

There are a lot of aspects related to the constructions of tall buildings and it would probably have been relevant to cover many others aspects e.g. demographics or brick construction traditions in Denmark, but limited by time, the thesis will only look at a fractional aspect of the tall building development in Denmark.

12

Structure of thesis

A brief summary of the structure of this thesis. First chapter will run through the history of the tall building, from the birth of tall buildings in north America through to Europe where another version of the tall building seemed to be shaped by the CIAM movement.

Then the thesis will focus on the Danish circumstances that have influenced the development of tall buildings in Copenha-gen.

Second chapter, a guide through the chosen theory used to analyze the different tall buildings found in the Copenhagen area.

Third chapter contains summary of the 16 cases throughout greater Copenhagen. Based on the findings different types of tall buildings are categorized. This set the division of 3 tall building typologies.

Fourth chapter, a case study of the tall building typologies results in design pro-posals of possible potentials found in the public space around two existing tall buildings projects.

Fifth and last chapter presents the discussion and conclusion of the content in the thesis.

An appendix with the 16 cases of tall buildings in Copenhagen as well as a process of design drawings and model photos is made.

'HÀQLWLRQ�RI�D�WDOO�EXLOGLQJ�

Before the thesis explores the tall building development in Copenhagen an essential question must be answered, what is a tall building? No official definition of tall buildings exists internationally; but according to Emporis, a global provider of building data, a building of 12 floors or 35 meters and above is considered being tall (Emporis data standards, 2015).

The building can also be seen in relation to the context of the building ( see diagrams), e.g. in a low rise building area, a building of less than 35 meter could be considered a tall building. The same goes for the proportions. A building, not particularly high, can be slender enough to give the appearance of being a tall building. So buildings lower than 12 or 35 meter can be considered tall depending of their context and proportions.

The focus in the thesis is on tall buildings in and around Copenhagen, thus the official definition of tall buildings provided by the municipality of Copenhagen, being 35 meter or 12 floors and above with exceptions in relation to context and proportions, will serve as a guideline (mu-nicipal of Copenhagen, 2006).

13

Diagram 1: a building Less than 35 m can be considered to be a tall building

within a low context

Diagram 2: Same building will not be classified a tall buildingwithin a tall context

15

1. Historic development of the tall building

To understand the present situation of tall buildings in Copenhagen the thesis will have a run-through the history, from the birth of the tall building up till today.

Throughout this, the thesis will look at the modernstic influence tall building de-velopments, the tall building through a Danish technical point of view; the tall buildings arrival to Denmark post World War II following a period of no tall build-ings projects from the 1970’s till the new millennium; subsequently a renaissance from the millennium up till today with new tall building projects emerging.

The history of the tall building took off in North America, Chicago to be precise. It became possible to build tall buildings with a new constructing technology, a steel framework instead of load bearing masonries, discovered in 18th century. The invention was pushed by high population density and thereby high property prices in Chicago, which created new ways of thinking for making profit for landowners (Faber, 1962). The solution was to build high. After the technique was successfully implemented in Chicago, New York soon followed and

a big boom of constructing tall buildings took place. In the beginning of the 19th century, New York became the leading city in building tall (Faber, 1962).

Europe plagued by two wars, was still reluctant to build tall. It was only after World War II that, the construction of tall buildings found a foothold in Europe, as demonstrated in Copenhagen by the construction of Bellahøjhusene in 1950’s, the first tall buildings in Denmark

(Rasmussen, 1994).

16

Van Eesterens proposal for Rokin, a tall building, arguely forms an equilibrium between tall and low, old and

new.(Guarda, 2013)

17

CIAMHowever while tall buildings were not built in Europe as in North America, a highly influential european urban group was founded in Europe, the CIAM (Con-gres Internationaux d’Architecture Mod-erne) movement. The growth of the Euro-pean cities, as well as the problems that followed; such as urban unsanitary and overcrowded living condition associated with poverty, were recognized at the CIAM congress in Athens in 1933 and would later be included in the Athens Charter, a document for modern planning published by Le Corbusier

(Corbusier, 1943).

That document would turn out to be highly influential in European urban planning and tall building developments of the 19th century.Cornelius van Eesteren, an influential Dutch urban planner, became the chairman of the CIAM movement in the 1930’s (Guarda, 2013). He became inter-nationally known through his participation in international architectural competitions and his participation in the Dutch de Stilj group. His first entry (1925) was for the transformation of the canal street Rokin in Amsterdam (see photo below).

At that time, Amsterdam consisted, like Copenhagen of a building structure of predominately 4-5 floors. Eesteren argued for an interruption of the classic 4-5 floors buildings in the city of Amsterdam, with a “strong vertical component”(p.82 Guarda, 2013). This component should define the street aesthetically. The jury did not see the potential though and the project did not pass the first evaluation round.

One year later Van Eesteren won the first prize in Berlin in a project competition aiming at the transformation of Unter der Linden into a street of a modern metropolis. The entry called “equilibrium” was closely related to the Rokin entry. He thus tried to create “equilibrium” through contrasting; “The existing” tension between old and new, high and low, street surface and street façade”(p.85, Guarda 2013) The project emphasized the integration be-tween old and new. Radical elements at the time, such as tall buildings, are blend-ed with traditional closed blocks, and used for their aesthetic value rather than only their functional value. He saw the city as composed of arbitrary accumulation of needs, demanding new design methods. However despite the importance of aes-thetics, the driver for Eesteren seems to have been to radicalize urban planning into a functional system.

A system, later to become the modernistic principle, based on separation between: Living, working, recreation and transpor-tation. Hence Eesteren in his later years taught his student “to abstract urban form into design elements can only lead to a good result when the functional es-sence emerges” (p.90 Guarda). Eesteren had since his plan for Rokin evolved his interest for the aesthetic planning of the tall building to a more functional matter.

Van Eesteren, in association with the CIAM movement, would play a significant factor for the arrival of tall buildings in Denmark, as described in the following chapters.

18

To understand the development of tall buildings in Denmark it is important to look at how Danish legislation has treated tall buildings.

Buildings with a height above 4-5 floors were not allowed until 1939 due to fire risks and overpopulation (Rasmussen, 1994). The lift of the ban might have been caused by a better technology and security in building tall, but could also be a sign of political will for letting the CIAM ideology into Danish planning. During the 1940´s a number of architectural competitions in Copenhagen had selected projects which included taller buildings. That none of these towers, despite the intentions, was built was allegedly due to the poor economic situation in these war-torn years (Lindvald, 1987).

Even though no tall building was allowed, tall constructions had existed for centuries in Denmark. Tall building structures have been built in the form of religious structures and later juridical and parliamentary tall structures. These structures were much taller than the rest of the old towns and symbolized an ideological strength above the rest. The hierarchy of society seemed at the time symbolized in the height of struc-tures. This has been the unread rule to fol-low in the development of Copenhagen and as mentioned in the introduction still applies for the city today.

Ideological strength still seems to weight higher than the individual or any economical power in terms of building height, even though no law proscribes it today. This stands out as a unique feature for a big international metropolis in the world today.

Aditionnaly, the close distance to the air-port of Copenhagen has put a height restric-tion on buildings over a big part of the city of Copenhagen (Justesen, 2015). This restriction can be observed at the new district Ørestad City, as many buildings are planned at the same height around 80 meters, which is the height limit in that area.

A technical history of the tall building

50 meter

50 meter

100 meter150 meter

150 meter

Diagram showing the height restrictions over

Copenhagen due to proximity to the airport

(CTBUH, 2015)

19

As mentioned, the tall building did not make its entry to the Danish architectural scene in the period after the technological break-through to build high.

Tall buildings began to pop up in Copenhagen in the years post World War II. A shortage of housing accommodation and population and economic growth triggered the implementation of new building technologies, such as the tall building (Rødtnes, 2005). Prefabricated elements seemed to be the solution. Cheap, fast to put up and containing a lot of new apartments were plausible reasons for authorities to choose prefabricated tall buildings.

The ideas of the CIAM movement became noticeable when it came to tall buildings in Copenhagen. Indeed, the first wave of tall buildings that really made inroads in Denmark and Europe seemed not to be of American descent as the buildings in New York or Chicago, but on the contrary to a great extent a European invention , based on CIAM ideas(Rødtnes, 2005). The CIAM movement was the symbol of a dem-ocratically lift to the population by creat-ing habitations for the general population, lifting them away from the overcrowded urban areas into tall buildings consisting of apartments with fresh air and plenty of greenery around them. This stood in contrast to the American tower that seems more to symbolize the individual rise by economic wealth and power.

Integrating tall buildings into an already existing urban landscape, which for centuries

had evolved and as mentioned, affected by a governmental or religious hierarchy, could be highlighted as one of the reasons behind the difficulties in getting American rooted tall buildings to Denmark. This could also explain why a functional version of the tall building as embodied by the CIAM movement, placed in the outskirts of the cities, fitted better in an European hierarchy than the

American iconic building.

Introducing the tall building to Denmark

Example of CIAM inspired tall buildings in Copenhagen, Bellahøjhusene.

Example of american rooted tall building in Copen-

hagen (SAS hotel).

20

These CIAM rooted tall buildings have VLQFH� LQÁXHQFHG� (XURSHDQ�FLWLHV� IRU� EHWWHU�or perhaps more the worse. The experiences with modernism residential tall buildings can be mentioned among the possible reasons why tall buildings would later get such a poor reputation in Den-mark and Europe.

CIAM modernistic architecture did not live up to the intention and is by some critiques seen as almost synonymous with social problems and crime. Project leader at Akademisk Arkitektforening, Annette Holek believe that this kind of architecture does not attract people who can afford to choose. She believes that people, who can afford to choose, simply

disregard these areas. Thus you end up with the disadvantaged, who have no choice (Holek, A 2008).

Other types of tall buildings were also built at the period post World War II, such as the iconic Arne Jacobsen SAS Hotel. This tall building was built in a central spot in Copenhagen, in front of the central train station. It resembled the American towers, in proportion, materials and location more than prefabricated CIAM buildings. The construction of centrally placed towers were more the exception than the habit in Copenhagen since the vast majority of tall buildings getting build in the years after world war II was inspired by the CIAM movement.

Chicago, The birth place of the tall building as it is today. The buildings strive for height is symbolic of the

american rooted tall building (Skyscrapercity, retrieved 17/05/15)

21

A strong economic and urban growth oc-curred post World War II till it was interrupt-ed by the oil crisis in the 1970’s (Revsbech, 1987). The planning system was reformed because of this, while simultaneously the critiques of the modernistic CIAM tall buildings increased. As a result a new trend in the planning emerged, and the human scale and the environment were in focus with key words for a good urban environ-ment being low and dense.

A lot of the prefabricated construction that had happened in the past two decades received critics, nota-bly for a lack of life around the buildings. /RZ�GHQVLW\��D�ÁRRU�DUHD�UDWLR�)$5��QRW�H[-ceeding that of the single family houses ar-eas as e.g. tall buildings in Høje Gladsaxe, WUDIÀF� GLIIHUHQWLDWLRQ� EHWZHHQ� FDUV� DQG�pedestrians, huge open space between the buildings; this made areas around the tall building seem over dimensioned and empty (Copenhagen municipality 2006). Criticism of the prefabricated buildings (and especially the taller ones) culminated in 1969 when a report by the Danish Build-ing Research based on British and Swedish studies stated that the tall buildings were generally poorly suited for family homes as children thrive poorly in high buildings (Planstyrelsen, 1991). Apparently As Gehl have stated, the high-er you live up, the slimmer chance of you using the outdoor spaces on ground level. The report and the there from derived debate led to the decision of the PLQLVWU\�RI�KRXVLQJ� WR� VKXW�GRZQ�SXEOLF� À-nancing of large-scale prefabricated con-structions (Planstyrelsen, 1991).

Since then few residential tall buildings a la CIAM, have been built in Denmark. The tall building became instead a symbol of an urban unattractive brutality and the poor reputation of the tall building typology seemed established. Low houses and con-nectivity to earth and everyday life was much more appreciated than the “ugly” tall building from the 1970’s and forward.

The reform of the planning system resulted in a decentralization of power to some de-gree from state level to municipality level; the public now became involved in the planning process and actually had a say in the planning process (Revsbech, 1987). Since the feedback from the general pub-lic as well as expert reports did not see tall EXLOGLQJV�DV�D�EHQHÀW�IRU�WKH�FLW\��DQG�WKH�planning authority were distributed more horizontally, the climate for building tall be-

came very improbable.

The 1970’s and 1980’s

22

1990’s Renaissance

7KH�WKRXJKW�RI�WKH�WDOO�EXLOGLQJ�DV�D�EHQHÀW�for the city and a symbol of improvement had a renaissance from the late 1980’s and throughout the 1990’s. In Copenhagen this time around, global-ization and competition between cities to attract investors and wealthy taxpay-ing citizens, was the main driver (Bisgaard, 2010). The American concept of the tall building thus seemed to be the main inspiration. The tall building could be seen as a landmark, icon, and a signature of the position of the city. It was seen as a way of signaling success and hopefully attract high income citizens. However, even though a certain political will in favor of the tall building was return-ing, the breakthrough of tall buildings was long in coming. A lot of people remained skeptical, both local citizens and profes-sional. Architects were incentivized to cre-ate projects with taller buildings without their consensus(Hansen, 1994).

The lack of embracement from the pro-fessionals themselves is likely to have been one of the reasons why almost no tall build-ing got built in the 1990’s Copenhagen in spite of the political will to do so. The tall EXLOGLQJ�ÀQDOO\�PDGH� LWV�FRPHEDFN� LQ�&R-penhagen at the turn to the new millenni-um.Indeed, a favorable economic climate in the beginning of the 00’s saw a lot of new investment in Copenhagen. In 2005, May-or Ritt Bjerregård, wanted a debate about tall buildings to be on the political agenda (Bisgaard, 2010). She saw a strategy for tall buildings necessary in Copenhagen as a response number of

prestige projects had failed to be com-pleted. Prior to 2005, tall buildings could be built everywhere, pending a case by case

approval.

This created great uncertainty for investors, among other illustrated by the failure of the Norman Foster (Tivoli hotel), a tall build-ing project next to the town hall at Tivoli, cancelled due to public protest (Bisgaard, 2010). Upon this backdrop, a desire to make a thorough tall building strategy emerged, with the aim to highlight functions and neighborhoods of the city. No tall building strategy made it into leg-islation though. On the contrary, the pub-lic debate the mayor Bjerregård had initiated, ended with a bylaw prohibiting constructions of tall buildings in the inner city. Hence, outside the inner city of Co-penhagen, tall building projects are still as-sessed as on a case by case basis by the municipality

Tivoli hotel proposed by Norman foster, few meters

shorter than the town hall. (Skyskrapercity, retrieved

23/06/15)

23

A clear strategy for tall building projects that points forward is still missing in Copen-hagen, states Bisgaard in 2010. (Bisgaard, 2010) That being said, a limit on the footprint of tall buildings were adopted under Bjerre-gaard, and set considerably small, 800 square meters (By&Havn, 2015). Legislating regarding footprint ensures that only slim tall buildings will get built in the future. This leaves out any future classic CIAM tall buildings, since their footprint has a tendency to be bigger, and the propor-tion more cube shaped than slim. However, the small footprint policy also puts restraint on how tall the building can be since services such as elevators in-crease with the height, thereby making the useful square meters smaller. Hence legislative framework has been put up as barrier to the (CIAM) tall building in Copenhagen.

The urbanization of Denmark does not

seem to stop; thus the city is the future and for our futures sake it should aim at being as sustainable and pleasant to live in as possible as the municpal of Copenhagen has emphasized(municipal plan, 2011). A compact city can be a way towards sus-tainability, agues Poul Bæk Pedersen in the book a sustainable compact city; to achieve this, the tall building W\SRORJ\� PLJKW� SURYH� EHQHÀFLDO�� DV� WKH�thesis will look into in the following section.

24

Density is a factor for the urban life around tall buildings. A higher density can gen-erate a more active urban life. Another aspect of density is the possibility to limit the city’s physical growth into rural areas. Having a high population density with tall buildings is necessary to obtain a sustain-able city according to Mau, as: “Tall build-ings tend to require less transportation; fewer sewer lines, fewer power lines, fewer roads, and more tightly packed structures, which in and of themselves are more ener-J\�HIÀFLHQWµ��0DX��S��

Pedersen highlights the importance of den-sity in achieving a sustainable city, e.g. in UHJDUG�WR�SURÀWDEOH�SXEOLF�WUDQVSRUW�V\VWHP�(Pedersen, 2011). the Danish planning act has previously limited the allowed density to 110 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in new districts. This has recently been eased, but it has re-sulted in much lower densities allowed to be built compared to areas built prior to the planning acts implementation (Peders-en, 2011). As a result of this many projects built since the modernistic time have had a much lower density than in the livable dynamic urban areas in Denmark such as in the Vorstadt(brokvarter) around the old center of Copenhagen, developped prior to the planning acts density limit. This shows that tall building and density are far from equals in Copenhagen; e.g. The Vorstadt contain almost no tall building, with high FAR. And Høje Gladsaxe: Tall buildings, low FAR.Pedersen underpin that tall buildings should be placed in dense urban setting. But den-sity puts pressure on the free spaces for public use. It can be relevant to create the

public areas high up, as roof tops for in-stance, to achieve higher density of open spaces, the ground level gets to packed/narrow/crammed. This way, the tall build-ing becomes an active part of the city and can contribute to its aesthetic and func-tional character. This can also help inte-grate the building to its surroundings, and break down traditional barriers between the public and private space.

An example of seeking integration of the public vertically in tall buildings in Copen-hagen is seen in the LM project in Mar-mormolen, North habour. Here two tall buildings should stand on each dock with the oslo ferries going in between them. A bridge in 65 meter height (to allow the Oslo ferry to pass under) should connect the two tall buildings. The bridge would be open to the public with platform, a bike path and

elevators.

Avoiding Urban Sprawl – the sustainable city

Proposal for two tall buildings, with a public ac-

cessible bridge by Steven Hall (skyscrapercity,

retrived 22/08/15)

25

Public spacePublic space

Public space

Public space

Public space

Public space

Public space

Public space

As Rita Justensen head of planning and architecture in a big Danish develop-ment company By&Havn pointed out, The bridge is a creative idea, bringing the tall building under a distance of 600 meter to a public transport station, thereby allowing D�WDOO�RIÀFH�EXLOGLQJ�WR�EH�EXLOG�XQGHU�WKH�PXQLFSDOV�UHVWULFWLRQ�RQ�ODUJH�RIÀFH�EXLOG-ings proximity to stations (Justesen, 2015). So far despite being approved 5 years ago by the municipality the project is still not undergoing construction; perhaps a public access vertically is too ambitious and has frightened the investors. Pedersen states the importance of scale around tall buildings. They can create a

big scale in the spaces around and there-IRUH� WKH� UHODWLRQVKLS�EHWZHHQ� ORZHU� ÁRRUV�of the building and the public space is im-portant to soften the big scale (Pedersen, 2011).

According to Poul Bæk Pedersen the big-gest challenge to achieve a compact sus-tainable city in Denmark is the legislations and regulation regarding height limits for construction such as in the Danish plan-ning act and local plans. The authorities must have the courage to build dense and even tall he argues

Diagram showing integration of the public spaces vertically as to break down traditionnel barrieres between private and public

26

In Denmark, the city is to some extent seen as in opposition to nature. The Danish Planning Act clearly divides between ru-ral zones and urban zones where Sweden have a looser division between the city and nature, given their larger country maybe. The Coastal Protective Directorate limits the city expansion as well as the visual im-pact along the coast; in a 3km distance to WKH�FRDVW�D� MXVWLÀHG�FDXVH� VKRXOG�EH�JLY-en to get the authorization to build there. (Danish coastal authority, 2015). The restriction to build along the coastline has made many Danish cities grow into the land instead of along the coast even though it might have been more econom-ic desirable, with attractive sea view plots. This shows strong pro-nature arguments in danish urban planning.

“Tall buildings are a machine that makes the land pay”

(CTBUH)The international pro tall building organiza-

tion (CTBUH), recently held a conference IRU� WKH� ÀUVW� WLPH� LQ� &RSHQKDJHQ� DERXW�how to integrate taller buildings in a Nor-dic context. Tall buildings are to a large ex-tent market driven claims Julian Chen The chairman of CTBUH in Denmark, (CTBUH, 2015). The resistance to build in places that might have an impact on the landscape and nature etc., even though it would be economically desirable, highlights that construction, tall or not, should not only be economically sustainable but contribute with more than just being “a machine that makes the land pay” (CTBUH, 2015). These demands for constructions should, RQH�RXJKW�WR�WKLQN��EH�EHQHÀFLDO�IRU�WKH�XU-ban life around the tall.

The public debate has shaped some tall buildings projects, as the thesis will de-

scribe in the following section.

Nature Vs City – A Danish view

As mentioned above, climate, historical developments and legislative frameworks KDYH�EHHQ� LQÁXHQWLDO� LQ� WKH�GHYHORSPHQW�of or against the tall building and their ur-ban spaces in Copenhagen.

In parallel to the above reasons, the per-ception of nature also plays a big part in shaping the de toward tall buildings in Denmark.

Summing up

27

A tall building project made by Tivoli, start-ed an organization, called Tivolis venner (Tivoli’s friends), who in spite of the name were against the plans made by Tivoli (Tivolisvenner.dk, 2015). The project was a 100 meter slim hotel next to the town hall. The protest resulted in a cancellation; as did a 55 meter tall project on Krøyers plads made by Ege Van Eegeraat. A survey made by Rambøll in 2006 found that 1/3 of the citizens of Copenhagen would not like to live close to a tall building. (analy-sis institution Rambøll in Berlingske Tidende 29.11.2006). One of the leitmotivs in the arguments used against tall buildings in Copenhagen seems to be that they will destroy the sky-line of old spires from the towers of the city. This was also a main argument to ban all tall buildings inside the old town of Copen-hagen in 2005 (By&havn, 2015 ). The public protests may have protected the city for further harm in the shape of over dimen-sioned urban and wind turbulent spaces or it may have haltered progress to a typolo-gy that can be a tool to obtain a sustain-

able city.

Building high as a form of inferi-or city complexMany tall building projects can be seen as a way for a city to cope with an inferior complex. Julian Chen chairman of CTBUH in Denmark makes the comparison to a man buying a Porche just to prove to the world that he is a success (CTBUH, 2015). Malmø saw the need to boost the city with an iconic landmark that being Turning Tor-so 190m high. This could be a way of com-ing out of the shadow of Copenhagen and advertizing the city in a global city com-petitionBut Julian Chen, who grew up in tall build-ing in Hong Kong, argues the tall building can be more than advertizing; there can also be livable in tall buildings areas. The idea that tall building is bad does not seem to exist in Hong Kong, as it is the foundation

of its dense city structure.

In the following chapter the thesis will look at what have been built in Copenhagen and what the issues is around these build-ings.First, an introduction to the aspects used to analyze and understand the tall buildings are outlined and explained. These aspects serve to form a general categorization of the tall building in Copenhagen into 3 ty-pologies; a CIAM related tall building, an American rooted tall building and a group

of slim tall buildings.

A public debate

29

2. Theorizing the tall building – tools for analysis

” The prominent visual features of the city are

its landmarks.”

Kevin Lynch, 1960

Based on societal and architectural design aspects chosen by the author, the tall

buildings and their urban life are analyzed. Some of the aspects are based on con-

crete theory on the subject, others are based on observation and research on the

site.

The aspects of the tall buildings are:

• FAR (Floor Area Ratio)

• Relation to other buildings

• Free outdoor spaces

• Function (monotoni)

• Lower floors relation to street level

• Position of building relating to the street

• Visibility (Far vs. Local)

• Sunlight

• Traffic

• Façade

• Wind

30

These aspects are used to analyze tall building projects in the Copenhagen area. The aspects are of equal importance. fur-ther details are described below:

FAR (Floor ratio area):The density of buildings in the area is by Poul Bæk Pedersen highlighted as a cru-cial factor for the livability of an area (Pedersen 2011). In that aspect, a high FAR is desirable for a tall building area if it should obtain a dynamic public life. Tall building is not equivalent with a high FAR; tall buildings areas can have the same FAR as a single family house area if only a cor-ner or small part of the plot have been built but tall and big green areas take up the rest, as seen in some projects inspired by the CIAM movement. A high FAR is a great opportunity to achieve a good urban life but on the other hand it can put pressure

on the local green spaces available.

Relation to other buildings: To determine the theoretical ambition behind the tall building it is interesting to see if the building is part of a plan, a unity that is far bigger than the individual build-ing, as e.g. Corbusier has highlighted in his thoughts of the modern city (Corbisier, 1943). Building vertically is described in the Athens charter by Corbusier as a tool to al-low huge green spaces accessible for ev-eryone. Hence tall buildings are construc-tions with big distances between them to allow areas of recreation. This aspect focus on how the building relate and contribute to the existing city; Is it standing alone or is it a cluster of tall buildings or in a mix of typologies? The thoughts of Van Eesterens, that the tall building should interact with

the surroundings through harmony and rhythm between the high and low, old and new, could be interesting to look for. Are the tall buildings used for their aesthetic - as well as their functional value?Leon Krier argues for a strict separation of the city and the countryside in opposition to Corbusier. Larger budgets have result-ed in larger building blocks he says. These large structures destroy the city because they lack a human scale. Building typolo-gies should in Kriers opinion “be as small in length as in width as in typologically via-ble” (leon Krier 1984) and they should form DV�PDQ\�ZHOO� GHÀQHG� VWUHHWV�DQG� VTXDUHV�as possible. This can create an intimate

character of the city. Rem Koolhaus is against conventional ar-chitecture and want the urban dwellers to look forward with new sensational build-ings. This attempts to wow the consumer in and built an environment with an ever-wild-er provocative architecture and urbanism. +HUH�WKH�EXLOGLQJ�LV�WKH�ÁDJVKLS�DQG�LW�FRXOG�be seen with few references to its surround-ings (Koolhaus, 1994). So is the tall building modernistic a la Corbusier, single standing wowing to admiration or a group of tall buildings in a dense urban setting, forming

squares and smaller streets?

31

Free outdoor spaces: Open space is understood as the non-build-ing part of the site, regardless of usage. Pedersen states that 30% of open space ensures adequate open spaces in even a dense urban residential setting (Pedersen 2011). The function of the urban spaces around the tall buildings; does it stimulate a possible use of the space? Are recreational elements a central structure of the area? Does the public space consist of semi pri-vate small spaces or large coherent open spaces? Are the open spaces in a human scale which Jan Gehl point out is essential for providing good city spaces for pedestri-ans? Secondly he says that good walking opportunities are a prerequisite for a live-ly, safe, sustainable and healthy city(Gehl 2013). Look at possibilities for resting, stay-ing and conversing the scale of the place

The importance of the relation between the building and its open space and vice versa ; the buildings position can be in a clear relationship to its opens spaces Some buildings can be placed on strategic signif-icant places, to give a desired expression of the city landscape(Andersson, 1988). Sven-Ingvar Anderson determine that a general consensus for or against the posi-tion of a building in the landscape is based on our ability to identify with the building. Basic human functions to feel secure and to make an impact are important. If the buildings landscape can express these needs we can identify with it (Anderson 1988). As e.g. Kronborg is in a powerful po-sition in front of the Øresund passage while having land in is back to give it security.

Bellahøjhusene, being positioned on top of the hill, interpret and highlight the land-

scape it is placed in.� � 3ODFHV� WKDW� DUH� FRQVLGHUHG� DV� D� VLJQLÀ-cant landscape is equivalent to what Kev-in lynch regard as a Landmark( Andersson

1988)

Function (Monotoni):

Building can shape the identity or the func-tion of an area Is it monotonous or sticking out? Does the building help the orienta-tion? Orientation is based on the natural structures we can identify. If we can’t make an image of the system we feel lost (Lynch, 1960).

Lynch criticizes projects with repetitive structures and lack of human scale that leaves the human without a sense of be-longing. Projects inspired by the CIAM movement can be seen as more based on the function of the place than creating an identity.

32

Lower floors relation to street level:

The importance of the relation between the VWUHHW�DQG�WKH� ORZHU�ÁRRUV� LQ�EXLOGLQJV�KDV�been emphasized by many urban schol-ars. As Pedersen writes tall buildings create a big scale in the spaces around and it’s therefore crucial to have a relationship be-WZHHQ�WKH�VWUHHW�OHYHO�DQG�WKH�ORZHU�ÁRRUV�to reduce the big inhuman scale. Integration of a tall building to it’s urban context is dependent on its relation to the street (Pedersen 2008).Gehl further empha-size this, “Physical and visual trans¬paren-cy is crucial to how much and what kind of activity is generated alongside a building just as scale and details play an impor¬tant role in how a building and its effect on the public space is perceived”(Gehl P:20 The brewery site, 2006). Jane Jacobs high-lights the streets (sidewalks) as being the lifeblood of the city, and important public spaces, for social interaction, hence the im-portance of interaction with buildings and street. Multifunctional neighborhoods with dense street oriented residential buildings and small-scale local commercial shops create a sidewalk life and social contact, resulting in trust and safety (Jacobs, 1964).$UH� WKH� ORZHU� ÁRRUV� FORVHG�� DV� H�J�� WKH�shopping mall Fields in Copenhagen; the façades become monotonous with few entrances and no contact between inside and outside. The lower building level can have a varied façade, with many entranc-es and transparence between inside and outside as in the tall building complex from Vancouver, see photo.

Example of a tall building from Vancouver. The

meeting with the ground has public functions and

transparence, with lower building shaping the street

in a human scale, (Toderian, 2015)

33

Position in relation to the street: This aspect is, as relation between lower ÁRRUV�DQG� WKH� VWUHHW�� HTXDOO\� LPSRUWDQW� IRU�the meeting between the building and the public space. Does the building follow the street or does it stand out of the street grid. It can be an enclosed building as a block structure or in an open park landscape.A tall building can be set back from a lower street bound base, to lessen the impact of the tall scale on the street. This is what Ees-teren argued for doing in his project Under Der lInen, Photo. A lot of top

ÁRRUV� LQ� EORFN� VWUXFWXUHV� LQ� 'HQPDUN� DOVR�have a setback, notably Vesterbro in Ål-borg (Photo). Siegfried Giedions, a member of the CIAM movement, conceptual form of Bauhaus (Giedion 1973) could be seen as opposition to the street bound building. Here the build-ing can create a public place for interac-tion as a square in front of the building.

Van Eesteren project Under Der LInden, with Set

back to a tall building, (Guarda, 2013)

Ålborg, Vesterbro, example of setback on the top

floors (skyscrapercity, 2015)

Diagram showing buildings in and away

from the street grid

34

Visibility (far vs local): The building can function as a landmark as Kevin Lynch puts it(Lynch, 1960); an iden-WLÀHU�IRU�DQ�DUHD��+RZ�DUH�WKH�DSSHDUDQFH�and effect up close different from a far distance? It might be less visible from the street up close, hidden behind other build-ings. From a distance it is much higher than others (e.g. Rigshospitalet, Photo).Can the building relate in a regional scale, e.g. through visibility, infrastructure connec-tion or functions (e.g. regional shopping centers) and relate in its local environment though squares and buildings next door?

Sunlight:Plenty of sun exposure has been highlighted by Gehl as a major factor for creating recre-ational attractive urban places in Denmark. How are the buildings affecting the public space with shadows around the building? New York had already in the 1920’s imple-mented a regulation that ensures sun light to the street by making the high-rises slim-mest at the top.(Pedersen 2011) The thoughts of the modern city by Cor-busier are based on the notion that every-body will receive sunlight. The modernistic tall buildings indeed tend to have larger

spaces between them allocating plenty of sunlight to reach in the public areas around them.

Traffic:How do the tall building project DFFRPPRGDWH� IRU� WKH� WUDIÀF� LQ� WKH� DUHD��Corbusier saw the car as the main form of transportation and would accommodate the need of the car by constructing wide highways/boulevards between each tall building. The sidewalks should, according to Corbusier/CIAM be separated from the VWUHHW�� -DQH� -DFREV� RSSRVHG� WKH� WUDIÀF�differentiation. She saw empty and unat-tractive sidewalks because of the modern-LVWLF�WUDIÀF�V\VWHP��To obtain a sustainable city, the public transportation system should be encour-aged (Pedersen, 2011); this could be done by building dense around public transport stations. What form of transport is prioritized to and from the areas.

The tall building of Rigshospitalet is hidden behind its

smaller neighbor building seen from the street

35

Façade: Steen Rasmussen states, to experience ar-chitecture one must be aware of all the el-ements and their effects, such as hardness or softness of a building (Rasmussen 1959). The façade has a great impact on the ex-perience of buildings. It can be simple or have a characteristic expression; it can appear heavy or light.

The tall building in Ørestad has a dark and heavy façade but appears rather elegant because of the open context it is placed in. The façade can have a classic tecton-ic principle where some parts are carry-ing the building, as seen in the tradition-al block structures; or the façade can be ÁRDWLQJ�EXLOGLQJ�RQ�WRS�RI�D�EDVH�EXLOGLQJ�like the SAS Hotel. The façade can be re-

ÁHFWLQJ�RU�DEVRUELQJ�WKH�OLJKW.

Wind:Dense urban areas provide shelters from mean winds thus the wind in cities is nor-

mally less strong than in rural areas (Jen-sen, 2014). But wind turbulence can still oc-cur more frequently around tall buildings than in other areas, as the tall buildings sticks out and captures a lot wind. Making small scale shifts or set backs to a wider base building can prevent some wind tur-bulence at the bottom of the building; ad-ditionally an aero dynamic design of the tall building can prevent/reduce the ef-fect of wind turbulence. This can be done by rounding the building(Jensen, 2014).

Ferring Ørestad City,dark heavy facade, in an open

context. (skyscrapercity, retrieved 22/06/15 2015)

Diagram showing a tight tall buildings structure

can shelter smaller spaces and buildings from

the wind

37

3. Analyzing tall buildings in Copenhagen

”Tall buildings must be environmentally sustainable and architecturally unique.

They should be placed with an eye for the city and its qualities and support urban life, the local environment and promote the use of

public transport”The municpal plan of Copenhagen 2011

38

This chapter will apply the previously out-lined aspects to selected tall buildings in Copenhagen and aim at categorizing them. The cases have been selected due to their location and height. The height KDV�WR�OLYH�XS�WR�WKH�GHÀQLWLRQ�E\�WKH�PX-nicipality of Copenhagen on tall buildings. The location is sought around Copen-

hagen from the suburbs to more central places. This selection do not cover all tall buildings but gives an indication of the ex-isting types of tall buildings in the Copen-hagen area.

39

Map over the location of the cases in Greater Copenhagen

40

Timeline of tall buildings

A gap is seen from the 1970’s to the millennium.

1950 1960 19801970

Domus Vista

1969

Brøndby strand

1973

Lundtofte

1969

Rigshospitalet

1970

Høje gladsaxe

1960

Sas Hotel

1959

Sorgenfrivang

1957

Radisson

1970

Bella Høj

1951

41

1990 2000 20202010

Panum

2015

Sølvkysten Amager

2014 -

Turning Torso

2001

Bella Sky

2011

Amerika plads

2002-08

Islands Brygge

2014 -

Ørestaden

2002 -

42

See appendix for the analysis of the cases throughout Copenhagen.

Each case has been analyzed and has been FODVVLÀHG�E\�WKH�DXWKRU�DV�IROORZ�

7 tall building projects with strong associa-tions to CIAM have been found

BellahøjSorgenfrivangHøjegladsaxeLundtofteBrøndby strandDomus vistaRigshospitalet

5 single standing tall building project with strong resemblance to the American rooted tall building have been found.

Sas HotelRadisson HotelTurning TorsoBella SkyPanum

4 tall building projects consisting of an en-semble/group of slim tall buildings have been found.

Amerika PladsØrestad Islands BryggeEast Amger (sølvkysten)

Case Summary

43

Summary

Building on the cases analyzed, a divi-sion between the tall buildings has been made by the author. A clear association is observed between tall buildings built after modernistic principles. Single stand-ing tall buildings seeking attention, as the American version of the tall building is as well found in several cases. Finally an en-semble, a cluster of slim tall buildings, is found at several contemporary projects in Copenhagen; thus creating 3 types of tall buildings: A CIAM tall building, American rooted tall building and a group of slim tall buildings. A further distinction can also be made be-tween projects that are placed outside existing urban areas and projects that are transforming existing urban areas or in a close proximity to existing urban areas. This is most relevant in modernistic CIAM inspired tall buildings where e.g. Lund-toftegade is tall buildings built in an urban context, while e.g. Høje Gladsaxe is built in a more open context. Both have clear bonds to the modernistic principles.In the following section the thesis will look more into the 3 tall building typologies.

45

Categorization of tall buildings After exploring the cases, 3 typologies of tall buildings have been found in Copen-hagen. The CIAM inspired tall building, tall building with roots in America and the en-semble/group of slim tall buildings.

The CIAM inspired tall building:An outline of the CIAM inspired tall buildi-nand its urban life:The CIAM inspired tall buildings are usually residential buildings placed in the suburbs of a city. The tall buildings is part of a plan, an unity that is far bigger than the individu-al building, as e.g. Corbusier has highlight-ed in his thoughts on the modern city (Cor-busier, 1943).

Building vertically is a tool to allow huge green spaces accessible for everyone; therefore the tall buildings are placed with big distances between them to allow ar-eas of recreation.The proportion of the buildings are to some extent horizontal, making them seem more massive or big rather than just tall, as a “ship in the ocean” (Corbusier, 1943).Indeed the open spaces are usually large coherent public spaces, thus the ocean.

The buildings’ meeting with the ground is mostly anonymous and enclosed, without any lower base building.

Projects inspired by the CIAM movement are foremost intended to shape the func-tion of the place more than the identity. The buildings are mostly placed in an open landscape, away from the street grid. The visibility of the tall buildings is great from a far distance, but they often do not function as a landmark up close because of an anonym repetitive structure.The thoughts of the modern city by Corbus-ier are based on the notion that everybody

will receive sunlight. Indeed, while the mod-ernistic tall buildings tend to be bigger and wider than the American towers, thereby casting more shadow, they have larger spaces between them allocating plenty of sunlight receiving areas to the area. The car was planned to be the main form of transportation. This is why many projects have accommodated the need of the car by constructing wide parking areas into the plans. Additionally, sidewalks are often VHSDUDWHG�IURP�YHKLFOH�WUDIÀF�

Photo of Brøndby strand, wtall buildings meeting

with the ground

Tall Buildings in parc landscape, Bellahøj

46

Photo of parking lots at Brøndby strand

The car was planned to be the main form of transportation. This is why many projects have accommodated the need of the car by constructing wide parking areas into the plans. Additionally, sidewalks are often VHSDUDWHG�IURP�YHKLFOH�WUDIÀF�

7KH�ÁRRU�DUHD�UDWLR��)$5��WHQG�WR�EH�ORZ�LQ�

CIAM tall building areas, because the plan incorporates big open spaces into it. Hence building tall is not a tool to increase density but to free up space around the buildings LQVWHDG� RI� EXLOGLQJ� ORZ� DQG� ÀOOLQJ� XS� WKH�space. This being said, high density is also seen by many scholars as necessary to ob-tain a sustainable city. Adequate density supports different form of transportation as Pedersen has highlighted (Pedersen, 2011).

The façade and materials are often plain light repetitive materials that make each EXLOGLQJ�GLIÀFXOW�WR�GLVWLQJXLVK�EHWZHHQ�WKH�other. The light façade materials can help the massive cluster of tall buildings to ap-pear less heavy though.

Wind turbulence tends to occur more fre-quently around tall buildings, and especial-ly if these are placed far apart from each other. These wide open areas leave no shelter for prohibiting the wind in creating wind turbulences near the bottom of the tall buildings in the CIAM inspired tall build-ing.

photo from Høje Gladsaxe. Large green spaces keep the FAR low on the plot

47

Photo from Brøndby strand Windy at the bottom of

the buildings,

Defense of this typology:A democratically lift to the population. The CIAM buildings provided for bigger apart-ments with extensive amounts of sunlight, integrated open green spaces within the FLW\� DQG� WKH� LQWHJUDWLRQ� RI� WUDIÀF� LQWR� WKH�city. They allow for the average Joe to be lifted up and out of unsanitary, overcrowd-ed urban conditions into bright roomy housing. Also, a number of sun-lit areas are made available to the general public.

Critique:The big open spaces created in between the buildings create a public realm that do not seem to have any intimacy and feels uncomfortable. Che¬ap building materi-als results in damaged apartments and the cars – not the people – have taken over the landscape.Wind turbulences are heavy around the freestanding CIAM tall buildings. These are unpleasant in a cold climate like the one in Copenhagen. The projects have vast open

spaces resulting in a low building density, FAR and closed meeting with the ground with no connection to street; This generates a dimensioned, unpleasant and uninviting environment.

Conclusion:The CIAM inspired tall buildings had good intention by providing better habitations for the urban dweller. But public realm around the tall buildings seems to suffer. Over di-mensioned outdoor spaces with no inti-macy spaces, permanent wind turbulenc-es and a repetitive structure that give no sense of belonging to local residents are some issues reigning in these areas. The placement of the buildings, faced away from the street, do not contribute to the street life around it. The parking often in between the buildings and street seems to further distance the buildings from any public life around them.

48

The American rooted tall building:The American rooted tall building is usually not residential and is located inside or in proximity to the city center. The build-ings from this typology seem slimmer in pro-portion compared to the CIAM version. It appears to be striving for height with its proportionality. This building typology tra-ditionally symbolizes individual econom-ic strength and relates to the quote from CTBUH, “ a machine that makes the land pay”(CTBUH, 2015).

This building typology consists of individ-ual buildings. These buildings are seeking attention and admiration by making a big impact on the city skyline with sensational architecture. Often, the American rooted tower can even seem to disregard its con-text, appearing out of scale compared to its surroundings. The open spaces, as a recreational public space, are often not planned for in single tower projects even though some

contemporary projects make an effort to integrate the public realm. Normally, a large share of the open space is made of parking functions. The American rooted tower can be meet-ing the ground with a transparency and public function but this is usually not the case. Instead as seen in recent construc-tions such as Bella Sky, the façade limits the transparence of the building thus it is not connected to the urban life around it.

A landmark from a distance, Turning Torso and

Radisson; both striving vertically.

49

The building is shaping the identity of the surrounding area by standing out. It func-WLRQV�DV�DQ�LGHQWLÀHU�IRU�WKH�DUHD��´D�ODQG-mark” as lynch puts it (Lynch, 1960). It can help with orientation in the city, though usually the building does not relate to its local environment with plazas/squares nor the buildings next door. Hence, its function is better from a distance rather than up close. This type of tall building is often po-sitioned in strategic important areas of the city, such as harbor fronts so as to increase visibility and highlight the city’s expression.

The slimness of the tower usually prevents or reduces its shadowing. The big scale shitfs of the towers compared to the adjuvant buildings let a lot wind to be captured by the tall façade and whirled around (Jen-sen, 2014).

The FAR is normally not greater than in a typical block structure in Copenhagen, as the tall building has a smaller footprint with D�SRVVLEOH�ORZ�EDVH�ÀOOLQJ�RXW�WR�WKH�VWUHHW�

grid. The façade is crucial to the experience RI� WKH�EXLOGLQJ�� ,W� RIWHQ�KDV�D� ÁRDWLQJ� WDOO�building over a lower base. The building is often seen in Copenhagen with a lighter top and a darker base, a way to create a lighter atmosphere into the townscape and prolong the seasons. The limited light LQ� 'HQPDUN� ZLOO� UHÁHFW� RQ� WKH� WDOO� SDUW� RI�the building, while the darker base will ab-sorb the heat and create an urban heat island.

A lot of wind turbulence around the single towers,

Radisson base building, Floating tall building on a lower base building, Sas

Hotel

50

Defense of this topology:The American rooted tall building puts the area on the map. It has great visibility and an iconic factor which creates a mental association to the neighborhood, a brand so to speak that shapes the identity of the area.

Criticism:The American rooted tall building often FRQWDLQV� RIÀFHV� RU� SULYDWH� IXQFWLRQV� DQG�does not really contribute to the public realm around it after hours. It can seem to be disconnected to the urban life and the neighboring buildings, thereby making it a monolith in the city. It often contains big parking lots around it which further re-inforce the lack of human connection to the building.The sharp height difference attracts a lot of wind and creates wind turbulence around the tower, which makes it unpleasant for any stay at the bottom.

Conclusion:The single standing American tall building is a highly noticeable element in Copen-hagen. It creates a new dynamic in the city but it tends to be like a disintegrated fragment, not relating to its context. The lack of interaction between the building and its local context can give an oppres-sive expression for people in it, a lack of human scale. Parking lots and unpleasant winds are other negative factors.The slim proportion of the tower makes it more suitable for the climate in Denmark than the wider CIAM tall building, because of the reduced shadowing. It can even SURYH�EHQHÀFLDO� LQ�D�FROG�FOLPDWH� LI�GRQH�with a dark base and a light top.

Group of slim tall buildings:This tall building typology has emerged after a renaissance of building tall in the beginning of the 00’s in Copenhagen. This typology however is yet to be seen in fully completed projects, thus a conclusion on its outcome might prove immature The ensemble/ Group of slim tall building (GSTB) often consist, of a blend of different scales, a mixture of row houses, a trans-formation of the Block structure and slim towers in large coherent projects. The pro-portion of these tall buildings have more in common with the American rooted tower than with CIAM, but the large size of the projects is more like the CIAM examples which exist in the Copenhagen suburb. Their function varies from residential only, WR�RIÀFHV�RU�D�PL[�RI�XVHV�

51

Mix of typologies - East Amager Mix of typologies - Islands Brygge

GSTB, as the name indicates, involves more than an individual building, yet each build-ing has its own expression. The relationship between the slim tall buildings and the oth-er buildings is often done with a scale tran-sition in steps from the tall buildings down WR�D� IHZ�ÁRRUV� LQ� WKH� VDPH�PDWHULDOV�DQG�facades. At the same time the multiple tall buildings relate to each other thereby creating a dynamic rhythm in the contrast between tall and low as Eesteren has described.

The building blocks are much smaller than found in many CIAM project. This allows for more pedestrian friendly streets and plazas to be incorporated to the area, something ZKLFK�H�J�� .ULHU� VDZ�DV�EHQHÀFLDO� IRU� WKH�local citizens. Squares or smaller public spaces are often created in relation to the tall buildings. The slim towers’ meeting with the ground comes in a lot of varieties. A lack of trans-parency still seems to be the rule rather than the exception.

Intimate public spaces found in a Group of slim tall building area, East Amager

52

The GSTB are mostly placed near major public transport elements. This ensures that a great part of the population in the area use sustainable ways of transport. This is in line with the policy of the municipality of Copenhagen which aims for sustainable ways of transportation (Municipal plan of Copenhagen, 2011).The FAR is relatively high in GSTB areas, as great as in the block areas of Copenha-gen. This dense urban fabric puts pressure on the local open public spaces but are a great opportunity for a great urban life. Hence the possibilities to integrate the open public spaces, vertically could be a solution as Pedersen points out (Pedersen

2011). The façade tend to have unique features in each tall building though having com-mon traits. This could be of materials, col-ors, the shape of windows/balconies etc.Wind turbulence can be prevented or re-duced in dense urban areas, if planned carefully. With integration of lower buildings next to the slim tall building and/or letting bigger buildings shelter others, wind turbu-lence at the bottom will be less strong. A high density with small scale steps can help shelter for the wind by letting the wind pass over the buildings (Jensen, 2014). This is seen implemented to some extent in GSTB projects.

Lower building next to the tall building in - Ørestad City

53

Defense of this typology:The GSTB seeks to create a bridge between the tall and the low. In the dynamic mix of building typology the otherwise sharp con-WUDVW�EHWZHHQ�WDOO�EXLOGLQJV�DQG�WKH�ÁDW�XU-ban landscape can be softened with this typology. GSTB have a dense building structure with small blocks that creates a dynamic of squares, small public places and pedes-trian friendly paths which according to several scholars is good for stimulating the public life. The dense building structure can also help shelter against the wind.

Criticism:The GSTB typology can have far reaching negative consequences if the tall buildings do not land well as they are large sized. The landmark effect of each tall building FDQ�EHFRPH� OHVV� VLJQLÀFDQW� LQ� WKHVH�SURM-ects. The tall buildings become a trivial/or-dinary building typology that does not give an identity to the area because it exists all over.GSTB has high density and highly dense built areas can put strains on open public spaces. The amount of sun receiving pub-lic spaces could be pressured if the public realm is not integrated vertically which still lacks to be seen to a large extent in the GSTB projects in Copenhagen. The GSTB has the goal of attracting wealthy taxpaying citizens. This could create an ex-clusive homogenization of the area for only one social class, thus reducing the diversity and possibly the public life in the area.

Conclusion:The GSTB given their large size is built over several years, even decades; this can be a quality as so feedback during the pro-cess can modify the project according to

the responses. The GSTB seems to improve some conditions around the tall buildings that other tall building typologies, have been negativly affected by. The slimmer building blocks forms more intimate spac-es around the tall building, thus stimulating more public life around them. The mix of tall, low, old and new create a dynamic setting, as something Eesteren would de-scribe to be in a harmonious rhythm. The interaction of the tall buildings can make them seem less intimidating in the public space. The GSTB area can seem to work great as unity although the external connections to the neighboring areas can seem to be missing. Measures to integrate and soften the boundaries of the projects must be tak-en. The tall buildings can seem to lack a trans-SDUHQFH� LQ� WKH� JURXQG� ÁRRU� WKHUHE\� QRW�opening the area up to the public.The GSTB are dense urban fabrics, where the open spaces might be pressured. +HQFH�WKH�RSHQ�VSDFHV�ZLOO�EH�EHQHÀWHG�by a vertical integration into the plot; this stills lack to be accurately implemented in the Copenhagen projects.

Tall building projects today, without being ÁDZOHVV��GR�VHHP�WR�KDYH�LPSURYHG�FRQGL-tions for urban life around them better than the tall building projects from yesterday; although it might be too early to judge. Existing tall buildings and their urban life, has issues that have been found. In the fol-lowing chapter the thesis will look at cases of 2 different tall buildings typologies. The found improvements will be implemented in a design proposal.

55

4. The urban life around 2 tall build-ing typology cases

Høje Gladsaxe for the CIAM inspired tall

building and Radisson for the American

rooted tower typology will be evaluated.

As projects of the Group of slim tall build-

ings is yet to be seen fully completed no

design proposal are illustrated for this ty-

pology.

DESIGN CONCEPT

HØJE GLADSAXE

56

Through regis trat ions and inter v iews on si te, a foundation for a design con-

cept in Høje Gladsaxe has been developed

Issues found relat ing to the urban l i fe: wind turbulences, lack of int imac y, a

repeti t ive plain s truc ture and no v is ib le connec tion bet ween front and back

of the tal l bui ldings.

A v is ib le connec tion bet ween the wide open spaces and the other bui lding

s ide towards the s treet, is desired; Fur thermore int imate spaces, s t imulat-

ing a sense of ownership for the local residents as wel l as a protec t ion from

the wind are l ikewise ways desired.

Many tal l bui ldings projec ts of the t ypolog y, CIAM inspired tal l bui ldings

contain a lot of s imilar issues to their urban l i fe. Hence this projec t can

ser ve as an inspirat ion or guidel ine to other cases whi le being aware of spe-

ci f ic condit ions on each si te.

The garages and their s truc tured spaces in bet ween the ta l l bui ldings are found

to have potent ia ls . From local s takeholders i t became ev ident that the func t ion of

car garages is not desired to be changed, but that an ac t iv i t y in combinat ion with

the ex is t ing could be a possib i l i t y.

The case

57

Registrations on the site

HØJE GLADSAXE

To understand the area, I have made field tr ip registrations of the area. Here photos of building and the visual character of the site

58

Interview - selected quotes

Inter v iew with Ivan Kjær Andersen (manager of maintenance in Høje Gladsaxe)

14.0 6.15 - Made on s i te

Flow registrations

Flow regis trat ion, Walk ing people - Made on s i te

26.05.15 14.0 0 -17.0 0

1 “ Wind is a major problem, i t is a lways b lowing ”

2 “ The resident s are pleased about their park ing garages and do not want them to

be removed ”

3 “A lot of new ac t iv i t ies have been made, but people do not use them much. I f

the publ ic space had a smal ler ”

4 “Scale that might change. At the squared bui lding b lock, lower bui lding forming

a more c losed bui lding ”

5 “ Typolog y nex t to the tal l bui ld ings, there are more people using the area, such

as urban farming ”

6 “Cover ing or protec t ion f rom the wind in outdoor spaces wi l l ben ef i t the area”

FLOW REGISTRATIONS

59

IN THE CITYSurrounded by nature

MOODBOARDQuality in the area and atmosphere

I have established the issues on the site as e.g. the lack of public spaces in a smaller scale. This moodboard highlights some of the qualities on the site that i want to incoporate in my design

60

SITUATION PLAN1:1500

Høje gladsaxe

The area in focus is the existing car garages. The squared form contain a poten-tial for a more intimate room for the locals, as well as being a l ink between the front and back of the tal l buildings

61

Road course

Høje gladsaxe main build-ings

Storage buildings

Green areas 1

Green areas 2

FOCUS AREA

Info overview

62

CONCEPT SKETCHING

I have in my sketch work, tested a lot of ideas, that al l had the issues relating to the site as starting points. I worked with the idea of the stair and the rooftop being a central element for stay and causal meetings. While working further the garage structures, turned out to be great as a dynamic l ink between the back and the front of the buildings.

63

“It is more and more important to make the cities inviting, so we can meet our fellow citizens face to face and experience directly through our senses. Public life in good quality public spaces is an important part of a

democratic life and a full life.”

- Jan Gehl

64

MOODBOARD Roof garden

Form and materials for inspiration to the development of a roof top

65

MOODBOARD Stai rcase

Form and materials for inspiration to the development of a stair case

66

MOODBOARD Yard activity

Form and materials for inspiration to the development of a yard

67

3D SKETCHING

3d sketching -Mater ial/color exper iment

3d sketching -volum/scale exper iment

Based on the registrations, sketches and work developing the design concept, the design concept is progessing

68

LIGHT REGISTRATION20 Apr i l

11.00 - 19.00

20 Apr i l 11.00

20 Apr i l 13.00

20 Apr i l 15.00

20 Apr i l 17.00

20 Apr i l 19.00

Based on the l ight reg-istration it is clear that the yards are situated on the north side of the buildings; but because of the gap between the buildings there wil l be sunll ight in parts of the yard all day

69

PERSPECTIVEHøje gladsaxe

70

DESIGN PROPOSALPLAN AND SECTION1:15000

Høje gladsaxe

72

DETAILED PLAN 1:3000.0 Groundfloor - Cour tyard

0.1 4 m Hight - Green rooftop

0.0

0.1

73

CONCEPT 1Grass

CONCEPT 2Stone

Design solution

Break down the repetit ive structure of the area; 4 dif ferent yards, the

same design concept, but 4 dif ferent expressions and functions.

74

CONCEPT 3Water

CONCEPT 4Trees

PLAN DRAWING1:500

75

3 D V I S UA L I Z AT I O N

Il lustration of the rooftop, a place for recreation, sheltered by a transpar-

ent wal l f rom the wind.

I l lustration of the stai rs in f ront of the cour tyard, a possible meeting place

in between neighbors

76

I l lustration of cour tyard with water landscape, using harvested rainwater

f rom the sour rounding rooftops

The design concept constitute a rooftop embedding a yard, a publ ic

space in a human scale st imulating neigbor ing interactions. Fur thermore

the rooftop functions as a l ink between the bui ldings front and back.

The 4 dif ferent designs of the yards wi l l create a dif ferent expression to

the area that can reduce the monotonous feel ing at the site; the publ ic

space wi l l be protected from the wind have places and reinforce a sense

of ownership for the local residents.

DESIGN KONCEPT

RADISSON HOTEL

77

Based on registrations and interviews, a design concept for Radisson is developped. The Large park ing lots and the tal l st ructure have an oppresive feel ing on the vis itor, making or ientation and the sense of belonging dif f icult. The wind is also dominating the area.Radisson do not have any urban l i fe or any connection to its local context despite its central location.

Many tal l bui ldings projects of the typology, Amer ican rooted tal l bui ldings contain a lot of s imi lar i ssues to thei r urban l i fe. Hence this project can serve as an inspiration or guideline to other cases while being aware of specif ic conditions on each s ite.

A connection to the sour rounding city is desi red. Creating an invit ing area, that gives the publ ic l i fe oppor tunity for stay with an sense of safety and belonging of the s ite.

The case

78

Registrations on the site

RADISSON HOTEL

To understand the area, I have made field tr ip registrations of the area. Here photos of build-ing and the visual character of the site

79

Interview - selected quotes

Flow registrations

Question 1:Most of the people interviewed was associated to the hotel, either tour ist or working. 2 out of 16 intervied were not going to or from the hotel. This shows that few from outside use the area,

Question 2 :Mainly to walk to or from the hotel intrance. Stay near the bottom for (smoke) break or wait for taxi or others.

Question 3 : summary of the answers: Change the tal l bui lding (facade), it is ugly. Change the parking lots, get r id of them. Give the space more green or more stay op-portunities.

Summer dry day, not par ticulary windy.few use the area for stay, only near the hotel entrance 5 -10 min. The rest use the area as transit

Question 1 - Do you stay or work at the hotel?

Question 2 - Are you using the outdoor areas?

Question 3 - What to change?

80

MOODBOARDQuality in the area and atmosphere

I have established that one of the issues in the area is the lack of integration with its context. This moodboard highlights some of the qualities on the site that i want to incoporate in my design

81

“A good environmental image gives its possessor an important sense

of emotional security. He can establish an harmonious relationship

between himself and the outside world. This is the obverse of the fear

that comes with disorientation.”

- Kevin Lynch

83

SITUATION PLAN1:1500

Radisson Hotel

Road course

Radisson main building

Gas station

Parking

Green areas

FOCUS AREA

Info overview

The focus area is the southern part of the plot. The area is character ized by parking lots and a gas station. The tall building visually dominates the area without any sense of belonging for the observer

84

CO N C E P T S K E TC H I N G

I have in my sketch work, tested a lot of ideas, that al l had the issues relating to the site as starting point. I have as e.g. worked with the idea of a furniture with sai ls to protect against the wind. I discovered though that I had to work with a design that grabs the whole area south of Radisson with its parking lots. Thus an idea to work with a parking house as green hi l l, that both offer a l ively public space as well as solving the parking issue.

85

MOODBOARD Activ hi l l

Shape and material for inspiration to the development of the hi l l

86

MOODBOARD Parking faci l ity

Shape and material for inspiration to the development of a parking house

87

D E V E LO P I N G D E S I G N CO N C E P T

18

Q4 = L: 39m H 12m Q3 = L: 39m H 12m Q2 = L: 39m H 12m Q1 = L: 39m H 12m

Hi l l increase model The model shows an average increase of 18 degrees, with four quotas, as examples of the conditions that displays.

Based on my registrations, sketches and work developing the design concept, the design concept is taking shape

88

3 D S K E TC H I N G

89

Situation plan; showing the recreational connection from the Radisson plot to neighboring recreational areas1.2000

S I T UAT I O N P L A N

90

Plan and section1.1500

WO R K D R AW I N G S

91

Plan and section1.1000

WO R K D R AW I N G S

92

Il lustration showing the gas station integrated into the new parking house with small greenery in front.

I l lustration, view from the hotel entrance, the hi l l and a public path in front generating a public flow through the plot

3 D V I S UA L I Z AT I O N

93

I l lustration showing the roof of the park ing house with possibi l it ies for stay

and long sightl ines

A “protected” niche is created where the public will want to stay, Radisson hill.

The existing parking lots are replaced by a parking house that wil l be street bound and embed the gas station; but more importantly the parking house

wil l break down the larged scale imposed on the visitor. Lifted up overground, the public wil l have a secure overview of the plot. The

impact of the tal l building can be observed as well as sightl ines to Amagernaturepark and the fortif ication of Copenhagen. The hi l l wil l have references to the sourrounding landscape, the fortifcation of Copenhagen

with its hi l ls as well as connecting existing recreational areas to it.

95

5. Discussion

96

Tall buildings projects are evolving in Co-penhagen as shown with the typology group/ensemble of slim tall buildings. The ensemble tries to adapt and improve is-sues tall buildings in 20th century have ex-SHULHQFHG��WKRXJK�IDU�IURP�EHLQJ�ÁDZOHVV��While the urbanization continues and Co-penhagen’s population increases current tall building projects today must prove that they can increase density without compromising the urban life around it; or HOVH�WKH�WDOO�EXLOGLQJ�ZLOO�EH�GLIÀFXOW�WR�VHH�ÀW�IRU�IXWXUH�SODQQHUV�RI�WKH�FLW\�

Future of tall buildings:Today examples of all imaginable types of tall buildings can be seen; buildings not es-pecially striving vertically to obtain height as traditional American rooted tower, but

with a wide/big sensational design seeking admiration as Rem Koolhaus’s building in Shanghai.

The tall building, designed by Koolhaus, in China shows a possible very distant fu-ture type of tall building in Copenhagen. In Oslo, an architectural competition for a new parliament had 4 out of the 7 archi-WHFW�ÀUPV�SURSRVLQJ�D�WDOO�EXLOGLQJ�� ,Q��RI�those, the buildings were not aiming verti-cally as the American rooted tall building e.g. Bjarke Ingels Group’s (BIG) proposal was a massive pyramid shaped tall build-ings, as to honor the fjeld landscape of Norway. (Aftenposten, 2015)

Rem Koolhaus’s version of a tall building in Shanghai (www.skyscrapercity.com, retrieved 12/04/15)

97

Proposal by BIG, for the new parlement in Oslo (Af-

tenposten, retrieved 12/05/15)

Future view from the public platform at Bormester-

vangen, Nørrebro

Despite tall building projects are met with protests, many new tall buildings projects are popping up in Copenhagen in recent years. In the city center right across the main entrance to Tivoli and thereby in the VSKHUH� RI� LQÁXHQFH� RI� 7LYROLV� 9HQQHU�� RQH�ought to think, an evidence is found.

The construction of 5 round shaped build-ings, the highest being 61 meters, Axel tow-ers, are planned to have a public square DQG� FDIpV� DW� WKH� JURXQG� ÁRRUV� PDNLQJ�promises of an active urban life around it.

Bormestervangen another tall building project approved near Nørrebro station, 100 meter high. This project has an import-ant factor, highlighted by Pedersen, incor-porated in its proposal: the public space is LQWHJUDWHG�YHUWLFDOO\��ZLWK� WKH� WRS� ÁRRU�RI�the building being a publicly accessible platform at a 100m height.

These new projects seem to indicate a more public acceptance on tall buildings in Copenhagen, or a less horizontal plan-ning.

98

Summary of existing conditions: The research on tall building started with the notion that the urban life around tall EXLOGLQJV� ZDV� QHJDWLYHO\� LQÁXHQFHG�� 7KLV�SURYHG� VLJQLÀFDQWO\� SURQRXQFHG� LQ� PDQ\�CIAM and American rooted tall buildings. The study only highlights a fraction of the existing tall building and also of the aspects regarding the urban life around tall build-ing. Further and more comprehensive stud-LHV�RQ� WKH�DVSHFWV�DQG�RWKHU� IDFWRUV� LQÁX-encing the urban life around tall buildings and tall building development in general DUH�QHHGHG�WR�IXOÀOO�WKH�LPDJH��Nevertheless based on shown issues of the urban life in cases and with the help from local residents and stakeholders, programs to enhance the areas have been pro-posed. Many tall building projects in the same typology face similar issues hence the proposals can serve as a guideline for the tall building typology, while taking the VSHFLÀF� FRQGLWLRQV� RQ� HDFK� VLWH� LQWR� DF-count.

99

Conclusion:I have learnt as Toderian puts it:

“It’s more about how tall buildings, any buildings really, contribute to the

urban design of the city. It’s about how a tower design ”lands” and

about the design of the community it lands in – how it

strengthens or weakens the street, block, neighborhood – the essential urban quality of any urban place”

(Toderian, 2015).

The thesis has worked with issues relating to the urban life around tall buildings in Co-penhagen. This had led to an exploration of the history of the planning paradigms, the public debate and other factors that have shaped the tall building development and its urban life in Copenhagen. As a result of case analyzes, 3 different tall building ty-pologies have been created, The CIAM tall building, the American rooted tall build-ing and the ensemble of tall slim buildings. A further investigation on the CIAM and American rooted tall building has led to 2 case studies with design proposals. The proposals can serve as a tool to tackle sim-ilar issues of other tall building projects es-pecially within the same typologies. The tall buildings have often, even in con-temporary projects, a negative on the ur-ban life around them; in Copenhagen es-pecially wind, scale and lack of coherence with context are pronounced. In order to stimulate these areas, measures can be

taken to create a sense of intimacy, shel-ter against the wind or connect the public better to the building and its site.However each tall building project in Co-penhagen is unique and the generaliza-tions are merely a guideline for plausible challenges for the urban life around tall

buildings

100

Reference list:

Aften posten, 2015 - ”En mulighet til å markere regjeringsmakten” www.aftenposten.no (Retrieved 12/05/ 2015)

Andersson, S., 1988. ” Bygninger og landskab : spredte tanker om at ligge smukt i landskabet” Kunstakademiets Arkitektskole.

Andersson, S. I et al. ”Parkpolitik – boligområderne, byerne og det åbne land”, Dansk Byplanlaboratoriums skriftserie nr. 29, 1984.

Bisgaard, H,. 2010. “ Københavns Genrejsning 1990-2010”, Bolværket.

CTBUH, 2015. Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. Symposium at Henning Larsen HQ, Copenhagen, 26 may 2015.

Danish coastal authority, Kystdirektoratet, ministry of environment (2015), http://www.kyst.dk/ (17.04.2015)

Emporis (global provider of building data) www.emporis.com (retrieved 12/03/15)

Faber, T., 1962.“Rum, form og funktion”. Berlingske forlag København.

Howard, E., 1902. “Garden Cities of To-Morrow”, London: S. Sonnenschein & Co.

Gehl, j & Svarre, B., 2013. “ Bylivsstudier – studier af samspillet mellem byen for og byens liv”. Bogværket

Gehl. J, 2006 ” The Brevery site – catalogue of ideas” Gehl Architects – urban quality consultants, Copenhagen 2006.

Guarda, S., 2013. “Cornelis Van Eesteren - Meeting The Avant-garde 1914-1929”. Thoth.

Holek, A et al., 2008. ”Arkitekter der forandrer: Fra ghetto til velfungerende område”, Gads Forlag.

JACOBS, J. 1961. “The Use of Sidewalks: Contact”. In Larice, M. & E. Macdonald (2013) (eds.) The Urban

Design Reader. London: Routledge, pp. 139-151

Jensen, M., 2014; Lecture “Urban Climate and Green Infrastructure”. Course, Urban Ecosystems; Structures, Functions

and designs, Faculty of Science, Copenhagen University, Sep. 22, 2014.

KOOLHAAS, R. 1994 “The Generic City”. In Larice, M. & E. Macdonald (2013) (eds.) The urban design reader. London

KRIER, L. (1984) ”Critiques and Urban Components”. In Larice, M. & E. Macdonald (2007) (eds.) The Urban Design Reader. London

Le Corbusier, 1943 “The Athens charter”, Grossman publishers.

Linvald, S. 1987.”Gammelholm and Frederiksholm”. Volume 2 of ”Copenhagen then and now – and never”, Forlaget Palle Fogtdal A/S.

LYNCH, K. 1960. “The Image of the Environment” and “The City Image and Its Elements”. In Larice, M. & E. Macdonald

(2013) (eds.) The Urban Design Reader. London

Mau, B., 2004. “Massive change”. Phaidon Press limited, London.

Municipal of Copenhagen, 2006. ”Højhuse i København: Strategi for byens profil – oplæg til debat”.

Municipal plan 2011, City of Copenhagen - www.kk.dk/kp11

101

*LHGLRQ��6��µVSDFH��WLPH�DQG�$UFKLWHFWXUHµ�²�7KH�JURZWK�RI�D�QHZ�WUDGLWLRQ��ÀIWK�HGLWLRQ��+DUYDUG�XQLYHU-

sity press

Pedersen, P., 2011.” Sustainable Compact city”( Bæredygtig kompakt by), Arkitektskolens forlag

3 edition 2011

Planstyrelsen, 2011. Miljøministeriet rapport, ministry of environment: ”Højhuse og byarkitek-

tur”.

Rasmussen, S., E., 1994. “København – Et bysamfunds særpræg og udvikling gennem tiderne”. G E C GADS forlag

Rasmussen, S., E., 1949. ”Byer og Bygninger”, Fremad København. 1949

Rasmussen,S., E., 1959. ” experiencing architecture” 1959

Rasmussen, S., E., 1951. ”Københavnsegnens planlægning : status 1950”

Revsbech, K., 1987. ”Reform af dansk planlovgivning – en vurdering”, Århus universitet.

Rødtnes, M et al., 2005. ”Højhushåndbog – Et grundlag for planlægning vurdering og 3D-visualisering af høje huse”.

Århus Kommune.

Skyscrapercity, 2015 - internet forum with news and discussions on urban developments around the world.

www.skyscrapercity.com (Photos retrieved, April - June 2015)

Toderian, B., 2015. “Tall Tower Debates Could Use Less Dogma, Better Design”. http://www.planetizen. node/69073

(Retrieved 12/06/2015)

Local plans and city plan regulations obtained from the municipalities of -

Copenhagen:

- -East amager. Lokalplan nr. 425 ”Krimsvej” (2009)(Retrieved 30/03/15)

- Ørestad. Lokalplan nr. 309 ” Ørestad city nord”(2000) (Retrieved 28/3/15)

- SAS hotel. Servitude protocol XIII nr. 134 (1952) (Retrieved 31/3/15)

- Radisson Scandinavia Hotel. city plan regulation Retrived 12/04/15

- Bellahøjhusene. Servitude protocoæ XIII nr. 152 (1953) (Retrived 31/3/15)

- Rigshospital. Lokalplan nr. 493 “Rigshospitalet III (2012) (Retrived 25/3/15)

- Panum. Lokalplan nr. 469 ”Panum II” (2012) (retrieved 05/04/15)

- Bella Sky. lokalplan nr. 342 ”Bella Center II” (Retrieved 05/04/15

- Islands brygge South Lokalplan nr. 410 ”Artellerivej syd” (2013) (retrieved 02/04/15)

- Amerika plads. Lokalplan nr. 347 (2001) (retrived 07/04/15)

Brøndby:

- Brøndby Strand. Byplanvedtægt nr.12 (1969)

Gladsaxe:

- Høje gladsaxe. Partiel byplanvedtægt nr. 23 (1962) : Lunde- og Hyldegården

Frederiksberg:

- Domus Vista. Byplanvedtægt nr. 10A, (1964).

102

Appendix

103

Høje Gladsaxe (50 m, 1963-1966):

FAR: low

Relation to other buildings: not relatable

Free outdoor spaces: plenty

Lower floors relation to street level: closed

Function (monotony): Function

Position of building relation to the street: Away

Visibility: high

Sunlight: Good

Traffic: Car

Façade: simple

Wind: Highly windy

DRAWING INFORMATION

A DRAWING: Plan

B DRAWING: Section

Scale: 1:4000

No: 1 and 2

DRAWING A

NORTH

1-2 floors

3-8 floors

Above 8 floors

Parking area

Concise summary of aspects

DRAWING B

104

City plan regulation: This plan allows the construction of 5 build-

LQJV� LQ�� ÁRRUV�DQG� � ORZ�ULVHV� LQ� IURQW�RI� WKHP�

shaped like a block structure. There is a possibil-

ity of building a shopping center and an eight

VWRUH\�RIÀFH�EXLOGLQJ�QH[W�WR�WKH�ÀYH�WDOO��&RP-

mon areas and semi public functions can be

installed for the residents of the buildings. The

wide open green area is protected (Gladsaxe

Byplanvedtægt 23).

Describsen:As the name indicates (Høje=tall) this buildings

DUH� VLJQLÀFDQWO\� WDOO�� ,W� ZDV� EXLOG� ZKHQ� WKHUH�

was a big population growth in the municipali-

W\��+¡MH�*ODGVD[H�FRQVLVWV�RI�ÀYH��ÁRRUV�EXLOG-

ings, with some low-rise buildings and a huge

green area in front. It is built with a prefabrica-

tion technique, which just began to get used in

Denmark at the time of construction. The proj-

ect is built at the same time as another huge

housing project in Copenhagen, Alberstlund

North. This last mentioned, however, consists

of low rises and is seen as a direct opposition

to the urban planning of Høje Gladsaxe. These

two projects in comparison seem in retrospec-

tive decisive for many large housing projects

in Copenhagen afterwards. Høje Gladsaxe re-

ceived a lot of criticism for being empty and

lacking human scale for people and therefore

not pleasant to live in. Hence big funded build-

ing projects shifted towards low rises as seen

in Albertslund North in the decades after Høje

Gladsaxe got built (Planstyrelsen 1991).

Høje Gladsaxe is built away from the street with

parking lots in front of it and huge green areas

EHKLQG��7KH�WRWDO�ÁRRU�DUHD�UDWLR�LV��ZKLFK�LV�

equivalent to a detached housing area.

• FAR: 30% in the total plot with big open green areas as well as parking. As low or lower than many

single family house area.

• Relation to other buildings: Part of høje gladsaxe consist of lower buildings.The low rises seem

separated in context with the tall buildings, although they are part of the Høje gladsaxe plan. The

lower building are more enclosed and resemble the block structure. North of the tall buildings, the

football stadium of Gladsaxe relate in width to some extent to the tall buildings. South of the tall

buildings a vast park area descends until Tingbjerg, that have one tall building as a marker of that

area. There is a social relationship with Tingbjerg, that is also visually connected across the highway

south of Høje Gladsaxe Tingbjerg is as Høje Gladsaxe a large scale project of social housing

• Free outdoor spaces: Huge wide open area south of the buildings and parking lots on the other side

towards the street. There is plenty of open space available for the public.

• Lower floors relation to street level: A center in the eastern part of the towers, which was planned as

serving everyday needs for the buildings. But no connection between the buildings lower floor and

the streetscape as parking lots dominate.

• Function (Monotonies): The dominance of single houses in the suburbs is interrupted by 5, in context,

monumental buildings. These buildings are creating the function for the area and with their size, total

length approximately 600 meters, give a monotonous expression of the area from within.

• Position in relation to the street: Buildings placed away from the street with wide open spaces in front

and behind. It does not relate to the street.

• Visibility(far vs. local): Standing on top of a topography which slopes down towards a major high

way, theses towers have significant impact on the image of the area and far beyond. Locally the tall

buildings do not seem to function as any landmark but are seem as a plain repetitive structure.

• Sunlight: To the south are huge open lower green areas, which allow a lot of sun intake to visitors as

well as the buildings. The parking side is primary shaded with a gap between the tall buildings to let

some light in.

105

Summary:Høje Gladsaxe, have 5 very massive tall build-

ings that in proportion just seem more big than

high, despite their height of 50 meters. The

spaces around the repetitive buildings and

plain facades are not stimulating for the public

life. The open spaces is over dimen

sioned and do not shelter from an

apparent permanent wind turbulence. Stand-

ing on top of a hill looking over the Copenha-

gen region these tall buildings are icons for the

area they stand in, Gladsaxe, and also for the

PRGHUQLVWLF�HUD�RI�WDOO�EXLOGLQJV�ZLWK�LWV�ÁDZV�LQ�

Copenhagen.

• Traffic. Highway running nearby. A lot of parking places dominating the spaces in front of the tall

buildings as so the area seems planned for the car. A bus service is connecting downtown Copenha

gen and Høje Gladsaxe.

• Façade: Plain monotonous façade.

• Wind condition: No real feeling of intimacy or shelter from the wind, only a few trees in the wide

open green area near the towers create some shelter for the wind.

106

Bella Højhuse (30-38m; 1951-56)

FAR: Low

Relation to other buildings: Not relatable

Free outdoor spaces: Plenty

Lower floors relation to street level: Closed



Visibility: High

Sunlight: Plenty

Traffic: Car

Façade: Simple

Wind: Highly windy


1-2 floors

3-8 floors

Above 8 floors

Parking area

DRAWING INFORMATION

A DRAWING: Plan

B DRAWING: Section

Scale: 1:2000

No: 3 and 4

NORTH

107

DRAWING B

Summary:The placement and adaption to the terrain is particular for the area, with height differences the build-

ings in between. However Bellahøj has a lot of characteristic in common with other modernistic tall

buildings. It has a monotonous

facades and anonymous meeting with the ground. A seemingly over dimensioned park area embeds

DOO�RI�WKH�EXLOGLQJV�DQG�KDV�D�ORW�RI�VXQ�UHFHLYLQJ�DUHDV��DQG�ÀQDOO\�DOO�WDOO�EXLOGLQJV�DUH�SODFHG�DQG�

faced away from the main street.

City plan regulation: 7KH�SODQ�DOORZV�WKH�EXLOGLQJV�RI��DQG��ÁRRUV�WR�EH�EXLOG�WKHUH��SXEOLF�VWRUHV�FDQ�EH�EXLOW�RQ�

WKH�SORW��7RWDO�RI�UHVLGHQWLDO�ÁRRUV�LV��P��7RWDO�VWRUH�VSDFH�LV��P��$Q�XQGHUJURXQG�SDUNLQJ�IRU�

2650m2 must be built there ( aprox 70 cars).

Description: First mover in Denmark when it comes to prefabricated techniques. It was built in the

1950’s with a great need for housing in the capital. The height of the building is on the edge of the

GHÀQLWLRQ�RI�WDOO�EXLOGLQJV��EXW�VLQFH�WKH\�DUH�SODFHG�RQ�WRS�RI�D�KLOO�ZLWK�HQFLUFOHG�E\�ORZ�EXLOGLQJV�

WKH\�DUH�FODVVLÀHG�DV�WDOO�EXLOGLQJV��DV�WKHLU�QDPH�DOVR�LQGLFDWH��+¡MKXVH� �WDOO�EXLOGLQJV��

• FAR: 108%

• Relation to other buildings: The buildings stand in symbioses with each other. They only relate to them selves and not surrounding neighborhoods.

• Free outdoor spaces: The towers are placed inside a parc. You literately seem to walk into the park from the doorstep of the building.

• Lower floors relation to street level: The buildings follows the topography and play into the environment

• Monotonies: The building are repetitive and can be perceived anonymous when in-between them.

• Visibilities: standing on the top of a topographic elevation, they constitute a highly noticeable part of the Copenhagen skyline. As a navigation point for the area.

• Sunlight: The buildings are placed to each other to allow a maximum of light in fall. A lot of open areas with high sun intake is also available.

�� 3RVLWLRQ�LQ�UHODWLRQ�WR�WKH�VWUHHW��$OO�WDOO�EXLOGLQJV�D�UHFHGLQJ�IURP�WKH�PDLQ�WUDIÀF�road. Towers in a parc.

�� 7UDIÀF��1R�FDU�WUDIÀF�WKRXJK�WKH�DUHD��2QO\�SHGHVWULDQ�DQG�ELF\FOHV��7UDIÀF�GLIIHUHQWLDWLRQ��

• Wind condition: a lot of wind around the area. Trees seems to reduce to some degree the amount of wind turbulences.

108

Brøndby strand (46m; 1969-1973)

DRAWING A

DRAWING B

1-2 floors

3-8 floors

Above 8 floors

Parking area

FAR: Low


Free outdoor spaces: Average




Visibility: Medium

Sunlight: Plenty

Traffic: Car

Façade: Simple

Wind: Windy

DRAWING INFORMATION

A DRAWING: Plan

B DRAWING: Section

Scale: 1:4000

No: 5 and 6


NORTH

109

City plan regulation: 5HVLGHQWLDO�EXLOGLQJV��DOORZHG�WR�EH�EXLOG�LQ��WR��ÁRRU��DQG�DGGLWLRQDOO\��ÁRRUV�URZ�KRXVHV��$�GLV-

tance of building restriction in proximity to a highway, 150 m, has to be complied according to man-

agement or roads in Denmark. Inside the area in question there is the option to construct common

areas for the inhabitants. No personal material must affect the façade of the buildings. (Brøndby

strand City plan regulation)

Description:

Brøndby strand is a large scale area in the suburbs of Copenhagen, built in beginning of the 1970’s.

The area blends tall buildings with smaller building typologies as the row houses and block structure.

This pattern is repeated for a 2km in a approximately 200 wide strip. Prefabrication technique, named

“sausage town”, since everywhere you cut it, you’ll get the same piece.. It is in alliance with the

modernistic thoughts about a zoning city. It consists of high building blocks build with a distance so

• FAR= 77%

• Relation to other buildings: The towers stand in a row and relate to each other. Lower buildings are placed in between and create smaller, more intimate public rooms.

• Free outdoor spaces: A green corridor (50 meter wide approximately) runs along the row of tall buildings, for recreational use.

• Lower floors relation to street level: Anonymous meeting with the ground. The building lands directly with no base building.

• Monotonies: Highly monotonous and repetitive structure. The tall buildings have got their façade painted in different colors, an effort to better distinguish between them. Still the area seems anonymous and clearly shapes the function rather than the identity.

• Visibilities: The buildings stand as noticeable elements close to an international highway in the west suburban areas of Copenhagen, but within the area the buildings do not help your orientation.

• Sunlight: The parking spaces next to the tall buildings receive plenty of light, and the green recreational corridor south of the towers as well.

• Position in relation to the street: Buildings placed away from the street. A large parking space in the front of the buildings

• Traffic: Following the modernistic principle on traffic differentiation. Pedestrian bridges or tunnels over/under car roads. S-train station near the area.

• Wind condition: The areas around the tall buildings a highly exposed to wind, even on not particularly windy days.

Summary:Despite the blend of typologies and an effort to paint the façades in different colors, a strong repet-

itive structure in the large area becomes monotonous. The area seems to follow to a great extent

the modernistic system of dividing living recreation, transportation and work. Almost only residential

EXLOGLQJV�DUH� LQ�WKH�DUHD�DQG�D�VWURQJ�WUDIÀF�GLIIHUHQWLDWLRQ� LV�REYLRXV�� 7KH�WDOO�EXLOGLQJV�DUH�DZD\�

from the street with parking lots in between and no connection between the streets and the ground

ÁRRU�RI�WKH�WDOO�EXLOGLQJV�H[LVWV�

110

Lundtoftegade (45m;1965-1970)

FAR: Medium

Relation to other buildings: Semi relatable




Position of building relation to the street: partially away

Visibility: Medium

Sunlight: Average

Traffic: Car and bike

Façade: Simple

Wind: fairly windy

DRAWING INFORMATION

A DRAWING: Plan

B DRAWING: Sektion

Scale: 1:2000

No: 7 and 8


1-2 floors

3-8 floors

Above 8 floors

Parking area

DRAWING A

NORTH

DRAWING B

111

Description: ,W�FRQVLVWV�RI�� WDOO�EXLOGLQJ��P�KHLJKW��ÀQLVKHG� LQ��/XQGWRIWHJDGH�ZDV� OLVWHG�DV�D�SURWRW\SH�

settlement for the modern family in 1970. Large bright apartments with sun receiving balconies, tall

buildings with views as far as the eye could see, low rises with retirement homes, institutions between

the tall buildings, located in attractive town with a small stream as its nearest neighbor.

But hardly had the residents moved in before the stream next door was laid in pipes, and a semi high-

ZD\�QRZ�OHDGV�SDVW�WKH�EORFNV�LQ�D��VW�ÁRRU�KHLJKW�

• FAR: 180%

• Relation to other buildings: The tall buildings are embedded by block structures that dominates the area context south and east of the area. There is another tall building though, the TDC tower, nearby. It can seem like a prolongation of the 4 tall buildings.

• Free outdoor spaces: Semi public spaces in-between the buildings with different activities. Few people seen using them though, on a sunny summer afternoon in June.

• Lower floors relation to street level: The meeting with the ground is without any public function and seems anonymous.

• Monotonies: The building are repetitive and can be perceived anonymous when in-between them. Different activities in each “yard” between the buildings, creates a more nuanced expression of the area.

• Visibilities: Next to a major infrastructure, it seems highly visible, but is somehow overshadowed by the TDC Tower from far away.

• Sunlight: The buildings are placed to each other to allow a maximum of light in fall. A lot of open areas with high sun intake is also available.

• Position in relation to the street: The tall buildings stand and face away from the street. Lower, 6 floors buildings, follow the street grid and embed the street scape, and connect the buildings to street.

• Traffic. The Car seems to dominate the area with large parking in between the buildings, even though not at the extent seen in other projects, and with a 6 lanes motor road going right next to the buildings in a 1 floor height.

• Facades: Facades with little detail, a monotonous expression with some trans parency.

• Wind condition: The dense urban fabric seems to reduce the dominance of the wind compared to more open tall building areas.

Summary:Lundtoftegade is a tall building area with 4 proportionnaly wide tall buildings and smaller blocks

following the street. It is placed in a central and dense urban context. The open spaces have resem-

blance to courtyards found in block structures in Copenhagen, without being enclosed completely.

Despite of this the relation to the CIAM tall buildings is evident. The tall buildings are meeting the

ground away from the street and do not contain any transparence or open function at ground level.

7KH�EXLOGLQJ�VWUXFWXUH�DQG�WKH�IDFDGHV�KDYH�D�UHSHWLWLYH�H[SUHVVLRQ�ZLWK�OLWWOH�GHWDLO��DQG�ÀQDOO\�WKH�

wide proportions of the tall buildings, all point toward a CIAM inspiration.

112

1-2 floors

3-8 floors

Above 8 floors

Parking area

DRAWING INFORMATION

A DRAWING: Plan

B DRAWING: Section

Scale: 1:2000

No: 7 and 8

Sorgenfrivang (40m; 1952-1957)

FAR: medium


Free outdoor spaces: few

Lower floors relation to street level: Semi transparent



Visibility: medium

Sunlight: Good

Traffic: Car

Façade: Simple

Wind: windy


DRAWING A

DRAWING B

NORTH

113

Description: The 3 tall buildings were like many tall building project at the time, seen as a modern and futuristic

way of living. The project was a vision of the city inside a building complex. Many functions were

planned to be inside the tall building complex, such as a posthouse, groceries stores and other com-

mon functions, as laundry rooms etc. It consists of 3 tall buildings connected together through a one

ÁRRU�EXLOGLQJ�FRQWDLQLQJ�FRPPRQ�IXQFWLRQV��7KH�EXLOGLQJV�OLH�FORVH�WR�V�WUDLQ�VWDWLRQ�DQG�LV�FRQQHFWHG�

to inner Copenhagen through it.

• FAR: 130%

• Relation to other buildings: The 3 tall slim but long buildings clearly stand out in a predominately single house as well as low building block area. The plot is narrow, set between rail road and street, hence the tall buildings seem squished inside a low building area creating a momentous scale gap from the tall buildings to its context of low buildings.

• Free outdoor spaces: Parking dominates the outdoor spaces in front of the tall buildings, with pockets of playground and recreation.

�� /RZHU�ÁRRUV�UHODWLRQ�WR�VWUHHW�OHYHO��$�ORW�RI�FRPPXQLW\�IXQFWLRQV�LQ�WKH�ORZHU�ÁRRU�IRU�� the local residence as well as public functions as post house give an open impression of the building complex from the ground.

• Monotonies(function): The tall buildings stand out in the urban context of single family houses or row houses, but the buildings themselves are monotonous. Intended to be apartments without kitchen and having all common facilities inside the building complex.

�� 9LVLELOLW\�IDU�YV�ORFDO��7KH�WDOO�EXLOGLQJV�DUH�FOHDUO\�VLJQLÀFDQW�LQ�WKH�ÁDW�XUEDQ�ODQG� � scape around them. The repetitive structure lessens the landmark effect up close.

• Sunlight: The tall buildings have good light in fall, but some areas in between them are often affected by the shadows they create.

• Position in relation to the street. Set away from the street with a strip of parking lots in between the buildings and the street.

�� 7UDIÀF��7KH�FDU�VHHPV�OLNH�D�PDMRU�IRUP�RI�WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ�LQ�WKH�DUHD�DV�ZHOO�DV�WKH�WUDLQ�� with a station close by.

• Façade: The facades are currently undergoing a renovation. It had until now a plain repetitive façade and that do not seem to change, according to the drawings put up at the site. The different functions form some variation and transparence at the ground facade.

• Wind condition: The tall scale gap from the tall buildings to the rest seems to create significant wind turbulence at the bottom of the buildings.

Summary:Sorgenfrivang seems to be built on purely economical basis with disregard to its surroundings. No

harmony or connection between the tall building plot and the other building areas. Despite public

functions, the functions in the buildings seem mostly addressed to the citizens of Sorgenfrivang rather

than people from exterior.

The long proportions of the tall buildings, the position in relation to the street as well as the monot-

onous facades gives the area resemblance to modernistic planning ideas as the CIAM movement.

114

Domus vista (102m; 1969)

1-2 floors

3-8 floors

Above 8 floors

Parking area

DRAWING INFORMATION

A DRAWING: Plan

B DRAWING: Section

Scale: 1:4000

No: 9 and 10

FAR: High


Free outdoor spaces: Few




Visibility: Medium

Sunlight: Average

Traffic: Car

Façade: Simple

Wind: windy


DRAWING A

DRAWING B

NORTH

115

City plan regulation: 7KH� WDOO�EXLOGLQJ� VKRXOG�EH�EHWZHHQ��²�� ÁRRUV��*URXQG�ÁRRU� LI�QHFHVVDU\�D�ÁRRU�DERYH�JURXQG�

VKRXOG�EH�XVHG�IRU�SDUNLQJ��$GGLWLRQDOO\��ÁRRUV�ORZ�EDVH�EXLOGLQJ�VKRXOG�EH�LQWHJUDWHG�LQWR�WKH�WDOO�

building and contain restaurants, banquet facilities and others. As the plan argues, the apartments in

the building will be small and target young couples without children, thus a need for such functions.

Description: When built in 1969 it was the tallest residence complex in Europe. It was the symbol of the

PRGHUQ�&RSHQKDJHQ��,W�KDV�D�FHQWHU�LQ�LWV�ERWWRP�ÁRRUV�DQG�UHFHQWO\�JRW�D�VNDWH�SDUN�DGGHG�WR�WKH�

area in front of the building.

• FAR: 225%

• Relation to other buildings: based on its height (102m) it is far out of reach for the surrounding buildings. No real coherence with any other structure but a cluster of tall buildings is nearby, NAME.

• Free outdoor spaces. Few recreational options as parking lots dominates the area. An skate arena have been integrated into the parking lot.

�� /RZHU�ÁRRUV�UHODWLRQ�WR�VWUHHW�OHYHO��$�FHQWHU�ZLWK�JURFHULHV�DQG�RWKHU�DFFRPPRGDWLRQ�� are situated at the lower block in connection to the tall building. The tall building meets the ground inside the center, where a public interior square is.

• Function (Monotony): Being a radical tall element the building gives an identity to the area. Additionally the building shapes the function of the area with a shopping center and providing a large number of apartments for the common public.

• Visibility: Laying behind at the bottom of a hill, its impact on the skyline seems lessen. But because of its height of 102m it is one of the most visible buildings south west of the city center. Up close the building seems as a massive plain element that do not give much back to its context.

• Sunlight: The tall massive building creates a big shadow, but mainly on the parking lot.

• Position in relation to the street: The tall building is set back from a big lower base building. Large parking space is in-between the building and the street.

�� 7UDIÀF��7KH�FDU�LV�YHU\�GRPLQDQW�LQ�WKH�DUHD�ZLWK�ODUJH�SDUNLQJ�ORWV�DURXQG�WKH�EXLOGLQJ�

• Facades: Plain monotonous facade.

• Wind condition: Turbulent wind condition at the street level on both sides.

Summary:Domus Vista does not seem to scream for attention despite being a single standing above 100 meter

tall building. The wide proportions of the building do not appears to strive for height and its location

behind Valby Bakke away from the city center gives it a more discrete impact on the city’s skyline. It

has a plain façade and it is encircled by anonymous parking lots. The residential tall building does not

seem to open up towards its context and meet the ground with an interior square, in a semi private

space inside the lower base building.

116

Rigshospitalet (75m, 1970)

FAR: medium

Relation to other buildings: semi relatable

Free outdoor spaces: average


Function (monotony): Function and identity


Visibility: high

Sunlight: average

Traffic: Car

Façade: Simple

Wind: windy

DRAWING INFORMATION

A DRAWING: Plan

B DRAWING: Section

Scale: 1:2000

No: 11 and 12


1-2 floors

3-8 floors

Above 8 floors

Parking area

DRAWING A

NORTH

117

Description: the tallest building of Rigshospitalet are built in 1970 under a renovation of the original buildings from

the 19th century. A new plan has been made to demolish some of the oldest building in the area

DQG�FRQVWUXFW�QHZ�RQHV��7KH�FXUUHQW�PRGLÀFDWLRQ�VKRXOG�EH�GRQH�ZLWKLQ�WKH�SK\VLFDO�IUDPHZRUN�RI�

the existing national hospital area, and do not change the tallest buildings, as the central complex.

7KH�FHQWUDO�FRPSOH[�ZDV�EXLOW�LQ�WKH�PLGGOH�RI�WKH�ÀHOG�KRVSLWDO��ZLWK�D�JUHHQ�FRXUW\DUG��EHWZHHQ�LW�

DQ�VRPH�RI�WKH�VPDOOHU�EXLOGLQJV��7KH�FXUUHQW�SODQ�ZLOO�LQFUHDVH�WKH�ÁRRU�UDWLR�DUHD�IURP�WKH�H[LVWLQJ�

174% to 234%.(local plan, Rigshospitalet)

• FAR: 174%

• Relation to other buildings: The whole area stands by itself and do have little relation to the surroundings, but the tall building of Riget, is countered by the new Panum tower to the west in height and Parken Stadium to the east in massivness.

• Free outdoor spaces: The hospital area is encircled by parks, Fælledparken a huge recreational park behind and Amorparken in front of the buildings. In between the buildings there is a recreational area with many smaller intimate spaces in it.

• Lower floors relation to street level: Few efforts have been made into integrating the building’s lower floors outward to the public.

• Function: The tall building complex shapes an identity for the whole hospital area outwards. The recent addition of a helicopter pad reinforces that image, as well as the function is made more visible.

• Visibility: The tallest building of Riget is one of the most prominent features of the Copenhagen skyline, especially because of its large width. Up close it seems hidden away and do not function as a landmark as from far away.

• Sunlight: The sunlight receiving areas seem sparse near the tall building, but the neighboring park contain a lot New plan greatly increase the public space around the building and will create a square with the most intake of sunlight.

• Position in relation to the street: The buildings stand away from the main streets with the tallest, furthest away.

• Traffic: major traffic roads go nearby the hospital area. The car seemed to be a main form of transportation despite the central location.

• Façade : Plain monotonous façade with a heavy/dark expression.

• Wind condition: Wind turbulence occurs frequently in the area. The courtyard area next to the tallest building seems to some extent protected from the wind.

DRAWING B

118

Summary: Rigshospitalet is unique for its combination of

proportionally wide tall building placed central-

ly in the city; this makes it one of the most visible

features in the Copenhagen skyline. The build-

ing area is surrounded by parks but the green

landscape is mostly left out of the space in be-

tween the buildings. The large building blocks,

the plain facades, the proportion, the meeting

with the ground and the position away from the

streets have much resemblance to the modern-

istic tall buildings.

119

Radisson Scandinavia hotel (86m, 1973)

FAR: medium


Free outdoor spaces: few


Function (monotony): Identity


Visibility: high

Sunlight: Good

Traffic: Car

Façade: characteristic

Wind: windy


1-2 floors

3-8 floors

Above 8 floors

Parking area

DRAWING INFORMATION

A DRAWING: Plan

B DRAWING: Section

Scale: 1:2000

No: 13 and 14

NORTH

DRAWING A

DRAWING B

120

City plan regulation: 7KH�SODQ�DOORZV�D��ÁRRUV�ORZ�ULVH�ZLWK�DQ�DERYH�SRVLWLRQHG�WDOO�EXLOGLQJ�RI��ÁRRUV��$�QXFOHDU�VHFXUH�

URRP�KDV�WR�EH�LQVWDOOHG�LQ�WKH�EDVHPHQW�RI�WKH�ORZ�ULVH�ZLWK�D�FDSDFLW\�IRU��SHRSOH��7KLV�WHVWLÀHV�

to the era of the construction, during the cold war. The project behind the permission of the plan

argues for strong elementary contrast between low and high. The tall building should be light and

precise, while the low rise should be heavy and dark with strong dramatic facade relief. (Radisson

city plan regulation)

Description: Built in 1973, 86m high. It was built on a former military ground. A lot of protest met the project,

because of the height and location, but the municipality insisted since the city needed more hotel

capacity (Rasmussen, 1994).

7KH�KRWHO� LV�FORVH�WR�WKH�IRUWLÀFDWLRQ�RI�&RSHQKDJHQ�DQG� LV� VLWXDWHG� LQ�EHWZHHQ�VHYHUDO�QHLJKERU-

hoods, Christianshavn, islands Brygge and Amagerbro, without being part of neither one of them. It

has a huge visibility in Copenhagen as it stands alone with no interaction at all with other buildings.

It is placed away from the street in the middle of the plot, with parking lots all around it.

• Floor ratio area: 150%

• Relation to other buildings: None. It stands alone as a monolith between Isandsbrygge, Christianshavn and Amagerbro. Waiting for new buildings to come. It is a fragment of the city and does not interact with any of its neighboring areas.

• Free outdoor spaces : Parking spaces dominate the open space between the street and the building.

• Lower floors relation to street level: The lower base building consist of public functions, casino and fitness ect. Monotonies: erupting in the monotony of 4-5 floors Karrebebyggelse that exist in the other neighborhoods.

• Sunlight: A lot of sunlight into the parking lots south of the tall building.

• Visibility(far vs. local): A big visible structure from the inner city as well as most of amager. It works as aiming point on the road from Rådhuspladsen and other major roads. When you’re close to it, it is not that relevant, have to bend you neck to see it.

• Position in relation to the street: placed away from the street with a set back on lower base building.

• Traffic: major traffic roads of Copenhagen passing next to it.

• Façade: Light façade on the top building, with slim vertical windows. Dark/ heavy base building. • Wind condition: Wind turbulence seem to occur frequently even in day without much wind.

Summary:5DGLVVRQ�KDV�D�FHQWUDO�SRVLWLRQ�ULJKW�QH[W�WR�WKH�ROG�IRUWLÀFDWLRQ�RI�&RSHQKDJHQ��1H[W�WR�WKH�FLW\�FHQ-

ter and a 6 lane road it is a highly visible element of the city. But it has no relation to other buildings

in its context; it seems to be screaming out in the void, “look at me”. The slim form and the vertical

façade seems to emphasize the buildings strive for height. The building is away from the street and

set back on a lower base building that has public functions but seems; however its public functions

and facades are not transparent and do seem uninviting. The open space around the buildings seem

unpleasant with a dominating windblown parking lot and no places for stay.

121

1-2 floors

3-8 floors

Above 8 floors

Parking area

DRAWING INFORMATION

A DRAWING: Plan

B DRAWING: Section

Scale: 1:2000

No: 15 and 16

DRAWING A

Panum science tarn (75m; 2015)

FAR: High



Lower floors relation to street level: Transparent


Position of building relation to the street: Partially Away

Visibility: High

Sunlight: Average

Traffic: Bike

Façade: Characteristic

Wind: -


NORTH

122

Summary:This single standing tower aims to be a landmark for the city of Copenhagen. It has great potential

with efforts to interact with the public life in this central location. It will have a new bike path through

WKH�DUHD��RSHQ�SXEOLF�VSDFHV�LQ�IURQW�RI�WKH�EXLOGLQJ�DV�ZHOO�DV�WUDQVSDUHQFH�WR�WKH�JURXQG�ÁRRUV�LQ�

the building. In addition the building pays attention to its impact in the context, as scaled to relate

well and not dominate Sankt Hans Church from the square Sankt Hans.

Local plan:Panum is created through an architectural competition. This has according to the plan ensured a

broad grounding and consensus of the plans architectural qualities. The ambition of this plan is to

make a landmark not only for the neighborhood but the science research globally. Optimal inte-

gration to the surrounding areas was highly prioritized in the architectural demands for the plan. The

building shall consist of material as such it does not take the attention away from Sankt Johannes

church which should still appear tallest seen from Sankt Hans square. Free space in the area should

be minimum 15 % of the ground area, and it should invite for stay and recreational activity. (local

plan, Panum)

• FAR: 210%

• Relation to other buildings: Relates in height to the church on St Hans square and to Rigshospitalet on the other side.

�� )UHH�RXWGRRU�VSDFHV��:KHQ�ÀQLVKHG�LW�ZLOO�FRQWDLQ�D�SXEOLF�ELF\FOH�SDWK�JRLQJ�� through the area generating a new public life to the site. Other open space is planned to consist of grass and squares

• Lower floors relation to street level: Public spaces will be formed by the building that aims for transparence.

• Monotonies: it interrupts the monotony of the tedious existing Panum buildings. It will give the area a new identity.

• Visibility(far vs. local):. Locally it relates to the existing Panum building and the church Sankt Hans. It will be an iconic building on Nørrebro and the rest of the city with a huge visibility.

• Sunlight: The slimness of the tower prevents wide shadowing. It is also estimated that the shadow of the tall building mainly will be on the existing Panum building, thus not disturbing any key recreational areas.

• Position in relation to the street. Away from the street, with branches of the lower building going out to the street.

• Traffic: close to major roads, but in a dense area in central Copenhagen, with a new bike lane going by, the bike seems to be the prioritized as transport form.

• Façade: A characteristic warm red colour with a light open expression.• Wind: - (Yet to be experience cause of the construction)

DRAWING B

123

Turning torso (190m; 2005)

FAR: High






Visibility: High

Sunlight: Average

Traffic: Car


Wind: Highly windy

DRAWING INFORMATION

A DRAWING: Plan

B DRAWING: Sektion

Scale: 1:4000

No. 17 and 18

1-2 floors

3-8 floors

Above 8 floors

Parking area


NORTH

DRAWING A

DRAWING B

124

Description:Turning Torso is the single most noticeable element in the region. It has, as Koolhaus requests, a sen-

sational wow effect to it, partially because no buildings near this height existed or exist in the region

and because of the buildings structure as the name indicates, imitates the movement of a human

torso turning around. It is visible placed in Malmø Västra Hamnen area near the coast, across the sea

towards Copenhagen. Built in the era of competition for attention in between cities, Malmø sought to

brand itself through a tall building, a “skyscraper” of 190 meters in. Originally a similar skyscraper was

planned in Copenhagen but the city decided against it.

• Floor ratio area:225%

• Relation to other buildings: The building do seem to relate more to the sky than the other buildings in the area that consist of lower building of 4- 6 floors. No connection seems to be made.

• Free outdoor spaces: Recreational areas exist in the area, as along a canal close by, though not relating to the building.

• Lower floors relation to street level: Private and not inviting. Small water pond around, seems almost to function like a small fortification.

• Function (Monotony): The building clearly shapes the identity of the area

• Sunlight: The tall building stands alone in casting shadows. It is rather slim which reduces the shadow.

• Visibility: The tallest building in the region, placed at the coastline. The single most visible building. Intended to be a symbol of a lighthouse.

• Position in relation to the street: Set back from the street and not relating.

• Traffic: Many parking lots dominating the area

• Façade: It has a characteristic white façade turning around into the sky.

• Wind condition: wind turbulence does seem to occur more frequently near the bottom of the building.

Summary:

An icon; this single standing tower strives for

height and admiration. It is placed strategical-

O\� QHDU� WKH� FRDVWOLQH�� PDNLQJ� D� VLJQLÀFDQW� LP-

pact of the city’s expression outwards. From the

ground level it is surrounded by water and has

no public life or approachability , thus Turning

Torso seems to be Turning away from its local

context, and rather seeking fame in the global-

ized world.

125

Bella Sky (76,5m; 2011)

FAR: Low





Position of building relation to the street: Partially away

Visibility: High

Sunlight: Plenty

Traffic: Public transport


Wind: Highly windy

DRAWING INFORMATION

A DRAWING: Plan

B DRAWING: Section

Scale: 1:2000

No: 19 and 20


1-2 floors

3-8 floors

Above 8 floors

Parking area

NORTHDRAWING A

DRAWING B

126

Local plan: The purpose of the plan is the construction and de-

sign of a hotel, formed as 2 sculpturally shaped tow-

HUV�ZLWK�XS�WR��ÁRRUV��7KH�EXLOGLQJV�PXVW�OLYH�XS�WR�

function as a landmark for the entire neighborhood

and create functional and architectural context

with Bella Center congress facilities and entrance

facade. The two towers should be no less than 70

meters and not higher than 76m. They should be built

with an added glass façade over the common base,

with a level of detail to ensure that they are each

perceived as an individual tall building from all an-

JOHV��7KH�ORZHU�ÁRRUV�ZLOO�IRUP�D�MRLQW�EDVH��7KLV�ORZHU�

building may not be bigger than 750m2. Open free

VSDFHV�VKRXOG�WDNH�XS��RI�WKH�ÁRRU�VSDFH��LQ�WKDW�

is included, roads, sidewalks etc.

Description: Finished in 2011, consist of two towers of 77m, the

maximum height due to airport restrictions. The tow-

ers are leaning away from each other from the same

EDVH�EXLOGLQJ�RI��ÁRRUV�DQG�FRQQHFWHG� WKURXJK�D�

EULGJH�RQ� WKH� WRS��ÁRRU��$URXQG� WKH�EXLOGLQJ�DUH�

huge parking areas and the congress center, Bella

center which consist of a massive low rise building

complex. The towers are visible from far distances

and it can be seen as a strategy for the congress

center to increase its visibility by the tower and signal

its success to the world.


• Relation to other buildings: It responds to the tall buildings at the same height in Ørestad City 1 km south from it. Not any other relation in the area; the area is planned to be developed in the future.

• Free outdoor spaces: The free spaces are dominated by parking lots.

• Lower floors relation to street level: Lower base building forming the base of the 2 towers, containing a reception that do not seem transparent from outside.

• Monotonies: standing out as an iconic building, forming the identity of the area.

• Visibility(far vs. local): great visibility in most of amager and from some parts of the city center too

• Sunlight: The shadows are towards the large scale parking lot, where there is still plenty of sun receiving parking areas.

• Position in relation to the street: the two tall buildings form a portal and are street bound, as a street is going through the building complex;. Parking lots encircle the rest of the building complex from the main streets. • Traffic: Proximity to metro, but the oversized parking lots make it seem built for the car.

• Facades. Characteristic V shaped windows adding a wow factor to the expression of the building.

• Wind condition: Windy area.

Summary:7KH�DWWHQWLRQ�WR�%HOOD�FRQJUHVV�FHQWHU�KDV�EHHQ�HVWDEOLVKHG�ZLWK�WKLV�VLJQLÀFDQW�WDOO�EXLOGLQJ��,W�LV�DQ�LFRQ��YLVLEOH�

from all over Copenhagen with a different expression from each angle. It does not contribute much to its local

context though. The fancy façade seems to enclose it instead of opening it up. The meeting with the ground

is not contributing to the large scaled parking lots.

127

Sas hotellet (70 m; 1959)

FAR: Medium



Lower floors relation to street level: Semi closed


Position of building relation to the street: Streetbound

Visibility: High

Sunlight: Low

Traffic: Bike


Wind: Windy

1-2 floors

3-8 floors

Above 8 floors

Parking area

DRAWING A

DRAWING B

DRAWING INFORMATION

A DRAWING: Plan

B DRAWING: Section

Scale: 1:2000

No: 21 and 22

NORTH

128

Summary:This is clearly an inspiration from the American in this tall building. The SAS hotel has with its slim pro-

portion, location and elegant façade have certain characteristics from American tall buildings. The

setback of the tall building make it seem less intimidating on the street and more in harmony with the

RWKHU�ORZHU�EXLOGLQJV��7KH�ÁRDWLQJ�OLJKW�IDoDGH�DOVR�KHOS�LW�VHHP�OHVV�GRPLQDWLQJ�GHVSLWH�LWV�KHLJKW�

City plan regulation: The site is 540m2 big. The total amount of buildable square meters is 2160m2. The visibility of the build-

ing must not stand out negatively in the townscape.

Description: Arne Jacobsen built this 70 meter tall building in the 1950’s. It was built in the modernist

era of tall buildings in Denmark. That being said, it is very distinct to the other tall buildings built at

that time. It is located in the city center, not the suburbs. Its function was intended to be business, not

residence.

The tall building has a set back on a lower street bound building, such as preached by C van Eesteren

in his project Under Linen. To date, it is the only tall building built near the city center, though Axel

towers of 61m are currently under construction.

• Floor ratio area: 150% about the same as in a karrebebyggelse of 4-5 floors.

• Relation to other buildings: Street bound the building becomes part of an unity in the city. The Panoptikon building next to the Sas building, a 12 floor bears some resemblance in facade with the SAS hotel. The ongoing construction of Axel Towers will create a new relationship as well.

• Free outdoor spaces: The backyard of the building is mainly used for parking. Located In dense urban context, not a lot of open spaces. Axel square is nearby, and lively sidewalks.

• Lower floors relation to street level: Function as a Hotel with public functions as restaurants and other.

• Monotonies: Standing out as a modernistic building in the center of the city. No other building of that height in the city center.

• Visibility (far vs. local): Clearly visible as an iconic building in the city center. It has local connection with buildings with the same expression.( see plan no. 12). At a regional scale it is situated near the main train station and it is thereby connected beyond the capital.

• Sunlight: The slimness limits the shadow of the building to be mainly in the backyard parking area.

• Position in relation to the street: The tall building is set back from the street with a lower block of two floors following the street grid.

�� 7UDIÀF��%XLOW�DERYH�WUDLQ�WUDFNV�ULJKW�QH[W�WR�WKH�PDLQ�WUDLQ�VWDWLRQ��0DLQ�WUDIÀF�URDG�QHDUE\�

• Façade: Tall building is floating on top of the darker lower base. The façade seems light and elegant.

• Wind condition: Wind turbulence can occur more frequently at the area despite a dense urban context.

129

FAR: High



Lower floors relation to street level: Semi Closed



Visibility: Medium

Sunlight: Average

Traffic: Bike


Wind: Windy

DRAWING B

Amerika plads (62m and 48m; 2004-07)

DRAWING INFORMATION

A DRAWING: Plan

B DRAWING: Section

Scale: 1:4000

No: 23 and 24

1-2 floors

3-8 floors

Above 8 floors

Parking area

NORTH

DRAWING A

Local plan: The plan emphasizes a mixed use of urban areas of high architectonic quality that takes advantage

of the attractive location near the harbor front. Old warehouse must be preserved and can be ex-

SDQGHG�E\�RQH�ÁRRU��

130

A tall building of 60 m can be built if architectural reasoned. Another tall building, 45m high, can

HTXDOO\�EH�EXLOW�LI�DUFKLWHFWXUDOO\�MXVWLÀHG��7KH�VHFRQG�WDOO�EXLOGLQJ�PXVW�DSSHDU�VOLP�DQG�WRZHU�OLNH��DQG�

be in respect with the dimensions and height assessed in the other tall building so as to achieve an

acceptable skyline of this part of the town. The two tall buildings should express coherence with each

other and can be given a façade material and colors to highlights this.

Description:

In the beginning of the 00’s this area was renewed, at the old harbor where the big ships left to

cross the Atlantic ocean, hence the name “American Square”. The area is 500 meter in length. It was

planned to contain at least one icon building and this became Kobbertårnet, 62 m. After it was built

another tall building was planned at the other end of development area to counter the existing tall

EXLOGLQJ��)\UWnUQHW��P��7KH�ÀUVW�WDOO�EXLOGLQJ�LV�DQ�RIÀFH�EXLOGLQJ�ZKLOH�WKH�VHFRQG�LV�UHVLGHQWLDO��$�WKLUG�

tall building has been approved and is planned to be next to Kobbertårnet on the last empty plot in

WKH�DUHD��,W�VKRXOG�EH�D�UHVLGHQWLDO�EXLOGLQJ��$Q�ROG�VWDWLRQ�EXLOGLQJ�LV�D�À[�SRLQW�LQ�D�FHQWUDO�VTXDUH�LQ�

the area. The planning of this area near the harbor can be seen in the light of the globalized competi-

tion between cities, as a way of attracting businesses and attractive apartments. A means of showing

the world that the city is successful. A lot of the historic buildings in the area have been preserved and

integrated into new functions.

• FAR: 235%

• Relation to other buildings: Some old warehouse has been transformed. The two tall buildings relate in height to each other and form a contrast between high and low. Other tall buildings near the harbor are relatable but the area seems to connect best with itself.

• Free outdoor spaces: Outdoor spaces have been created, but not much life observed, even with the high FAR.

• Lower floors relation to street level: Plesner seems closed off with little transparency. Fyrtårnet adding recreation and more transparency to the area, through an elevated open courtyard area.

• Monotonies: The two taller buildings stand out in height compared to the rest of the warehouse buildings, shaping the identity of the area.

• Visibility(far vs. local): Seen as iconic building close to the harbor front, and it has wide ranging con nection with the Oslo Ferry. But Amerika plads seems like an island in the ocean, cut off from the rest of the city by train rails. Visually the two tall buildings connect outside of the area. Inside the area it feels like a cohesive structure of building that relate to each other.

• Sunlight: The dense urban setting cannot prevent shadowing to occur, but efforts made to let a lot of sun into public key spots

• Position in relation to the street: Plesner, the tallest building has a setback on a low building. They are both away from the street, with Fyrtårnet adding recreation and transparence to the area, through an elevated open courtyard area.

�� 7UDIÀF��7KH�DUHD�GRHV�QRW�VHHP�WKDW�ZHOO�LQWHJUDWHG�LQWR�WKH�UHVW�RI�WKH�FLW\��&XW�RII�E\�WKH�UDLOZD\�WUDFNV

• Façade: Plesner have a Heavy expression. Fyrtårnet is lighter, with a particular balcony pattern and roof terraces.

• Wind condition: A windy area close to the harbor, though the dense urban setting shelter some wind off.

Summary:7ZR�,FRQLF�WDOO�EXLOGLQJV�DW�WKLV�KDUERU�DUHD�ZLWK�D�WKLUG�XQGHUZD\��7KH�WZR�EXLOGLQJV�ÀW�ZHOO�WR�HDFK�

other in height and position across the plot. Ideas from Eesteren can be seen in the area with a con-

trast between high and low as well as between old and new. The tall buildings shape the identity of the

DUHD��DQG�KDYH�D�VLJQLÀFDQW�LPSDFW�RI�WKH�FLW\·V�XUEDQ�H[SUHVVLRQ�WRZDUGV�WKH�KDUERU��

131

East Amager, Krimsvej (35-70m; 2013)

FAR: Medium

Relation to other buildings: Relatable


Lower floors relation to street level: Semi Transparent



Visibility: high

Sunlight: Average

Traffic: Public transport


Wind: Windy

DRAWING INFORMATION

A DRAWING: Plan

B DRAWING: Section

Scale: 1:4000

No: 25 and 26


1-2 floors

3-8 floors

Above 8 floors

Parking area

NORTHDRAWING B

DRAWING A

City plan regulation: �� WDOO� EXLOGLQJV�FDQ�EH�EXLOW� LQ� WKH�DUHD��ZLWK� YDU\LQJ�KHLJKW�� IURP�� ÁRRUV�� 7KHVH� WDOO� EXLOGLQJV�

should be slim and have a iconic value. Business function vs residential is at 20% vs 80% of the total

square meters being built in the area. Free public spaces should be at 10% in business areas and 43%

in residential areas.

7KH�WDOO�EXLOGLQJV�VKRXOG�FRQWDLQ�RSHQ�SXEOLF�IXQFWLRQ�DW�WKH�ERWWRP�ÁRRU��,W�LV�VWDWHG�WKDW�HDFK�WDOO�

building should have its own architectural expression, though some familiarities e.g. balcony patterns

would be encouraged. For diversity purposes, each area in the plan should have its own character-

istic, with one or two tall building relating to a square or open area.

132

Description: ��QHZO\�ÀQLVKHG�KLJK�ULVHV�ZLWK�RQH�PRUH�EHLQJ�XQGHU�FRQVWUXFWLRQ��7KH�ÁRRU�DUHD�UDWLR�IRU�WKH�.ULPVYHM�

area is 130%. Located just next to a new and the biggest beach in the capital area, this area is de-

veloped to create attractive apartments with a sea view close to the city center. The area is built in

the era of city competition, with the intention of attracting “good” taxpaying citizens.

• Floor ratio area: 125% total area, with variations from 15-200% on each building plot.

• Relation to other buildings: As a cluster of tall buildings the buildings relate to each other. a variety of different building typology and scale creates a dynamic setting, contrasting between tall and low.

• Free outdoor spaces: Dominating by parking spaces, but effort made to create a varied outdoor public space, with small squares, semi private courtyards and small streets.

• Lower floors relation to street level: A lot scale shifts, from 2 floors till 5 and up till the tall building, gives a different streetscape, with a human scale around the tall building.

• Monotonies: a variety of different building typology create a dynamic setting between tall and low.

• Visibility: The cluster of tall buildings forms a landmark on the east coast of Copenhagen. Independently each tall building can also function as a landmark in a small scale with different materials and expression. • Sunlight: buildings placed as to let the most sunlight in to the areas. The slimness of the towers do as little shadowing as possible on key public areas.

• Position in relation to the street. Away from streets with smaller blocks going all the way out, making them less intimidating.

�� 7UDIÀF��0HWUR�QH[W�GRRU�VKRXOG�LV�SODQQHG�WR�VHUYH�DV�PDLQ�IRUP�RI�WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ�� Parking lots often hidden underground.

• Façade: Each tall building has its own characteristics.

• Wind condition. Wind turbulence can occur more frequently near especially near the squared tallest building, close to the metro.

Summary:7KH�FRQWUDVW�EHWZHHQ�KLJK�DQG�ORZ�LQ�WKLV�DUHD�FDQ�EH�UHODWHG�WR�(HVWHUHQ·V�LGHD�RI�ÀQGLQJ�WKH�HTXL-

librium. An effort to get different scales mixed in a harmonious rhythm between lower and higher

buildings. The area has a lot of small open spaces and blocks. Each tall building has its own expres-

VLRQ�DQG�LGHQWLW\�WR�WKH�DUHD��0DQ\�RI�WKH�RSHQ�VSDFHV�DUH�ÀOOHG�XS�ZLWK�SDUNLQJ�ORWV��VWLOO�WKLV�PLJKW�

change as the projects matures. The attraction of amager strandpark is close by and it seems to suck

a lot of life out of the area; thus not much life around the buildings. Some tall buildings have public

function at ground level, other a carefully scaled down with lower buildings in same materials extend-

ed from the tall building (see photo). A way to integrate the tall building with a smaller scale building

and making it seems less intimidating. There has been established semi private courtyards and mate-

rial that traditionally have been use in Danish construction. Towards the neighboring residential areas

WKH�EXLOGLQJ�VFDOH�LV�UHGXFHG�WR��ÁRRUV��KHQFH�LW�VHHPV�PRUH�KDUPRQLRXV�ZLWK�LWV�VXUURXQGLQJV��,Q�EH-

tween the buildings on Krimsvej, the building scale often feels humane and many of the tall buildings

do not feel oppressing on the landscape next to them. A group of slim towers.

133

DRAWING INFORMATION

A DRAWING: Plan

B DRAWING: Section

Scale: 1:4000

No: 27 and 28


Islandsbrygge syd (35-56m; 2014 - )

FAR: Medium






Visibility: Medium

Sunlight: Average

Traffic: Car and Bike


Wind: Partially windy

1-2 floors

3-8 floors

Above 8 floors

Parking area

NORTH

DRAWING B

DRAWING A

134

City plan regulation:

The plan sets the overall structuring elements such as to mark the transition between harbor / city and

nature landscape. There may be buildings in a height of 25-45 m. The tall buildings are solitary, individ-

ually shaped and appear with great variation in material effect. They are characterized by lightness

and transparency. Conceptually, they should be perceived as vertical streets with carved balconies,

greenhouses and common areas. The design of the buildings should be respectively 2-4 storey con-

nected buildings, bounding streets, and 25-45 m tall, solitary buildings on open seats to form the basis

for a varied and contrasting architecture that will become the landmark of the neighborhood.

Description: The area is in an old industrial part of the harbor. It is bordered by the biggest nature park

area in Copenhagen, and the harbor. It is still ongoing construction, but 3 tall buildings, named the

VLVWHUV�DUH�ÀQLVKHG��$QRWKHU�WDOO�EXLOGLQJ�IXUWKHU�DZD\�KDV�WRSSHG�RXW�XQGHU�FRQVWUXFWLRQ�DQG�RWKHUV�

are on the drawing board.

• FAR: 125%

• Relation to other buildings: The three sisters(the towers) forms together a clus ter of tall buildings. At the moment the three and another have a height that relate to each other. Old Nokken lies south of the area and seem to be in another scale completely as do the smaller row houses build in the area. Across the harbor lies big H.C.Ørsted plant and is in a completely different expression.

• Free outdoor spaces: The outdoor spaces are compressed in-between the tall buildings. But still to see the finalization of the lagoon – a recreation area in the making. Large recreational area close by, amager naturpark.

• Lower floors relation to street level: Private space at the bottom floor of the buildings, with a margin of bushes set the premise that outsiders are not invited near the tall buildings.

• Monotonies: A variety of different scales in the neighboring buildings and the different heights of the tall buildings create a dynamic typology of buildings in the area. The project shapes the identity of the area.

• Visibility: Icons of the southern parth of Copenhagen harbor. Visible from Amag er naturepark and the southern part of the harbor.

• Sunlight: Poor sun intake in between the 3 tall buildings and their park.

• Position in relation to the street: The buildings are placed away from the street and placed into small greenery that glues them together, facing away from the street.

• Traffic: Proximity to major infrastructure roads, the car seems prioritized as well as the bike with bike lanes.

• Façade: Rather heavy facades, but with a characteristic round shaped buildings and fancy balconies.

• Wind condition: The tall buildings are shaped round, aerodynamically, which to some extent could reduce the wind turbulence normally created by tall buildings.

Summary:7KH�VFDOH�JDS�EHWZHHQ�WKH�WDOO�EXLOGLQJV�DQG�WKH��ÁRRUV�URZ�KRXVHV�VHHPV�H[WHQVLYH��7KH�WDOO�EXLOG-

ings are rather massive in proportions and do not seem to be connecting with the lower small scaled

buildings. The tall buildings are placed in an open landscape encircled by smaller buildings; it all

seems to point inwards, rather uninviting. Walking around in snorkeling paths between the buildings

JLYHV�D�VXSHUÀFLDO� LPSUHVVLRQ�RI�FRKHUHQFH�EHWZHHQ�WKH�WDOO�DQG�VPDOOHU�EXLOGLQJV��1R�SXEOLF� OLIH� LV�

enhanced, all monofunctional. The lack of transparence in the area can be excused or explained

by the fact that the huge recreational wonderland amager naturepark lies just next to it; and/or that

the area is a more expensive residential part of Copenhagen and simply seeks exclusivity rather than

inclusivity.

135

DRAWING INFORMATION

A DRAWING: Plan

B DRAWING: Section

Scale: 1:4000

No: 29 and 30


FAR: Medium





Position of building relation to the street: Partially streetbound

Visibility: High

Sunlight: Average

Traffic: Public transport and car


Wind: Windy

Ørestad city (75 – 85m; 2001 - )

1-2 floors

3-8 floors

Above 8 floors

Parking area

NORTH

DRAWING B

DRAWING A

136

Local plan: The area should be an attractive and diverse place with wide range of activities for the public and

buildings of high aesthetic value. 6 tall buildings are allowed to be built near the highway. The area’s

prominent character should be emphasized by distinctive building complexes in the form of tall build-

ings. The tall buildings act as structuring components of the area itself. The tall buildings should not be

lower than 75m high and not higher than 85 m due to airport restrictions.

Description: It consists of large building blocks with slimmer tall buildings. The vision of this place was

that 6 tall buildings of similar height should stand next to the highway forming a portal to Copenhagen

from the øresunds bridge. The portal vision seems part of a city competition to attract attention seek-

ing investors and growth to the city. Today only 3 high-rises have been completed at that spot, and

WKH�UHVW�VHHPV�FXUUHQWO\�QRW�WR�EH�RQ�VFKHGXOH��)HUULQJ��ÀUVW�WDOO�EXLOGLQJ�WR�EH�EXLOG�IURP��VHHQ�DQ�

H[SDQVLRQ�ZLWK�D�ORZHU�EXLOGLQJ��D��ÁRRUV�EXLOGLQJ�LQ�VDPH�IDoDGH�DQG�PDWHULDO�DV�WKH�WDOO�EXLOGLQJ�

JRLQJ�GRZQ�WR��ÁRRUV��7KLV�PD\�KDYH�JLYHQ�D�OHVV�LQWLPLGDWLQJ�H[SUHVVLRQ�


• Relation to other buildings: Single family house area bordering the site on one side, the other completely open green area. The houses scale down towards the single houses to 4 floors and go up till 80 meters high

• Free outdoor spaces: A large park area is available as well as smaller squares in front of the tall buildings and more intimate spaces along a canal.

�� /RZHU�ÁRRUV�UHODWLRQ�WR�VWUHHW�OHYHO��7KH�WDOO�EXLOGLQJV�GR�QRW�FRQWULEXWH�ZLWK�D�ORW�RI�� activities or transparence to the street level. The area seems privatized and not inviting.

• Monotonies: Big residential blocks going from 4 floors to 12 and somewhere 80 meters create a different scale. The slim tall buildings lift the area up and give it identity

• Position in relation to the street: Mostly street bound or forming smaller squares in front of them. Scaling down toward the streets except towards the highway.

�� 9LVLELOLW\��6LWXDWHG�LQ�D�WUDIÀF�KRWVSRW��WKH�WDOO�EXLOGLQJV�DUH�OLNH�UHJLRQDO�ODQGPDUNV�� The plan of the area has been to create and portal of tall buildings next to the highway.

• Sunlight: Large green areas available with a lot of sun intake.

• Traffic: Major highway, metro and train connection. A traffic hub

• Wind condition: Seems very windy with the wide open area west of the area and no shelter or intimate spaces to counter the strong western winds.

Summary:Scale and strong winds seems to be problematic in this area. This group of slim tall buildings lifts the

DUHD�XS�DQG�JLYHV�LW�LGHQWLW\�QH[W�WR�WKH�EXVLHVW�KLJKZD\�LQ�'HQPDUN��7KH\�GR�QRW�EHQHÀW�WKH�VFDOH�

or contribute to an urban life in the area though. The effort by building smaller buildings next to the

tall buildings can help the scale from some angles but the wind turbulences in Ørestad is still strong

because of wide gap between the buildings. This place has no protection against the western wind

coming over the vast Amager naturepark and with a giant closed mall as neighbor; the urban life on

the sidewalks is vacuumed inside.

137

Interview:Interviews conducted by the author of the thesis.

Justensen, Rita (Head of planning and architecture in By&Havn). Interview. 29 May 2015 (Recorded on au-

diotape)

Andersen, Ivan Kjær (Manager at maintenance in Høje Gladsaxe). Interview. 14 June 2015 (Recorded on

audiotape)

Quotes from interview with Rita Justesen at By&Havn HQ in Copenhagen 29/05/15:

“Problems with tall buildings often relate to the effects on the microclimate in Denmark, such as sun and

wind”.

“The context of the tall building is of great significance”.

“The close proximity of the airport of Copenhagen to the city center put strict regulation on building height

limits in Copenhagen”.

I”n the municipality of Copenhagen a limit on the footprint of tall buildings has been set on 800 m2. This set

technical limit to build high also”.

Quotes from interview with Ivan Kjær Andersen,the manager for the maintenance in the residential building

complex Høje Høje Gladsaxe:

At Høje Gladsaxe 14/06/15:

”Wind is a major problem, it is always blowing”

”The residents are pleased about their parking garages and do not want them to be removed”

A lot of new activities have been made, but people do not use them much. If the public space had a small-

er scale that might change. At the squared building block, lower building forming a more closed building

typology next to the tall buildings, there are more people using the area, such as urban farming.

Covering or protection from the wind in outdoor spaces will benefit the area.

138

Model pictures

Tall buildings in Copenhagen

Documents

Transcript of Tall buildings in Copenhagen