What Ghettos Have The Architecture To Do Cultural Studies Essay


Imagine that housing blocks in Gellerupparken at Aarhus was razed and replaced by kareer of town houses with shops on the ground floor, a separate entrance for each family, sidewalks, a small city center and the ability to park outside the home.

Imagine the most famous Danish architect Jørn Utzon and Henning Larsen competed to build the most beautiful and spectacular residential complex as a landmark for Vollsmose in Odense.

Imagine that Copenhagen City Council took the city's most run-down and inflamed boligkarre in Northwest - one block, which was used as a regular cannabis plantation of drug dealers - and gave it away free of charge to people with building desire and economy, which were allowed to transform the building completely .

Then imagine that the changes do Gellerupparken, Vollsmose and Northwest neighborhood in Copenhagen in attractive neighborhoods with the side benefit that middle class resourceful citizens wanted to move there.

The three examples are not plucked out of the air. They are a reality in the Chicago, Madrid and Rotterdam. And they are only three examples from the book here on how far-reaching changes of the physical environment can be a mainstay also change the social and economic conditions in the neighborhoods, we in Denmark call deprived neighborhoods.

In this book described a number of strategies abroad used to combat ghetto formation through alterations of buildings, urban plans and exterior spaces. These examples are taken from the United States, France, England, Holland and Spain, where for a few decades is completed many projects which rethinks the relationship between the physical and the social, between the environment and humans. The foreign strategies moving in many different directions - and many of them are surprising - but common to them is that they are much more radical surgery than we have tried in Denmark.

The conclusion of the foreign experience is that it makes a difference in disadvantaged areas to change the architecture. The physical intervention can help to regenerate a neighborhood and give it life. And although it is important to emphasize that the physical intervention can not stand alone, but must be linked to social initiatives, it is equally important to say that without thorough physical efforts have social initiatives only limited effect. In other words: There must be cut in the concrete and bricks of life that is lived around them, can really change. But it can also happen.


In Denmark, we actually know that there are close connections between the built environment and the social environment, we just have not taken the consequences of it yet. Ministry of Social Affairs 2006 report on "The social housing sector's future" states that there is a correlation between the accumulation of social problems, and certain types of construction, namely storey building. 79% of ghetto areas and 97% of the ghetto-like branches in Denmark, multi-storey buildings. Virtually none of ghetto areas are in low buildings.

Also in the "Program Board strategy against ghettoisation" of 2005 describes the relationship between the deprived neighborhoods with heavy social problems and certain types of buildings:

"The Dutch architectural firm MVRDV is focusing on making housing playful and exciting, the building Park Rand in Amsterdam in the Netherlands, they have furnished outdoor space in their apartment building with huge potted plant: and chandeliers. The building is described in detail in Chapter 13 Photo: Bryan Noiwood.

"It is characteristic that virtually all these areas, housing areas, or at least strongly influenced by non-profit housing included in the period between ca. 1960 and 1980 as industrialized construction of the first generation. Areas have in general good and well-equipped homes and often considerable open space, but the architecture is generally characterized by the industrialized building methods ".

On a larger scale, the physical environment of great importance for how a field works in relation to the rest of the city. Are buildings and roads planned to connect the area with the rest of the city, or close the building as a wall around an area without roads to invite the surrounding world? Is the area planned for people from other neighborhoods have a purpose or an interest in coming to the area, or the area is isolated and consists only of housing?

Simultaneously, the physical environment also play an important role in determining whether particular groups concentrating or become concentrated in certain neighborhoods. Inviting area many different groups to live side by side, the area offers such. several different types of housing and housing design, an attractive outdoor spaces and different functions?

"The program board's strategy against the ghetto-isation" turns the exposed residential real that: "The areas consist almost exclusively of homes, mostly only social housing, and is typically in outlying or without the central, densely built-up urban areas, often little secluded with significant transport problems and lack of opportunities for local trade and services. "

GHETTO, ghettos and social SUSTAINABILITY

According to foreign book the word "ghetto" was originally the word "isolation", and it is also how we use the term today. The government's strategy against Ghet-toisering states: "Ghettoisation involves the development of areas that are physically, socially, culturally and economically segregated from the rest of society". Ghetto is, according to the government, a problem "when resource groups are increasingly concentrated in areas where there are already many people live who are outside the labor market, have substance abuse problems, etc. (...) Relocation of disadvantaged groups and disposing of resourceful is the core of the ghettoization ". According to Program Board (Programme Board set up by the government to follow the development of disadvantaged areas and ghettostrategiens implementation) is "social sustainability point of view" central to the discussion of ghettoization and deprived neighborhoods. Sustainability point of view is related to the discussion of "Tipping Point", which is the time when changes in a district demographics leads to an acceleration in the development of a negative spiral. Program Board finds that social sustainability, among other things requires that at least half of the adults in the labor market is also in employment. As should also be sought appropriate diversification of non-Danish groups across urban society. Ministry of Social Welfare shall prepare an annual list of deprived neighborhoods in Denmark, where the municipality has the opportunity to impose a moratorium on renters, who for a long time bar received cash assistance, booster or introduction. The stop should help to create a mixed residents and thus combat ghettoisation.

On the list for 2008 is a total of 20 residential areas. The Ministry defines three types of neighborhoods are vulnerable: Physical coherent general wards where

- At least SO pet. of residents aged 18 and above in at least one of the departments in the area are inactive

- Who live at least 5,000 residents in the departments together, and at least 30 per cent. of residents aged 18 and over in the departments together are inactive.

-Who live at least 1,200 residents in the departments together, and at least 40 per cent. of residents aged 18 and over in the departments together are inactive.


Originally, the purpose of urban renewal in Denmark to renew worn and forslummede homes in older urban areas. From the early 1980s until the mid-1990s urban renewal focused first and foremost on the renewal of housing and apartment blocks in order to ensure healthy homes. Urban renewal was calculated on a thorough restoration and renewal of quite run-down residential properties. From the mid-1990s, many of the most rundown neighborhoods and buildings have been renewed. At the same time, the developments in the cities shown an increasing need for action on broader urban problems. Many cities had physical and structural problems in key urban areas and in former industrial areas of great importance to urban physical and economic development. In urban areas, from the inter-war period and from 1960-75 was experiencing a number of problems with its attrition and partly with social burden. It led to the creation of Quarter loft program. 11994 was district ceiling introduced as an experiment. The introduction of neighborhood ceiling was based on a recognition that there were so big social problems in some parts of the Danish cities - the so-called socially deprived neighborhoods - to a more holistic approach was needed, rather than just a physical renovation. A holistic approach means partly that neighborhoods were perceived as a whole, and to focus therefore went from traditional physical improvements to include non-physical conditions. First, the problems perceived as coherent, and that individual action can not be seen in isolation from each other. 11997 was the first 7 urban regeneration projects launched as a pilot. Pentagon in Northwest Copenhagen were already elected in 1994 as a pilot project before the official introduction of the idea of ​​urban regeneration. The remaining six projects were selected in 199E and was Holmblad quarter of Copenhagen, Kgs Enghave also in Copenhagen, Avedøre Stationsby, Aalborg Ost, Tøjhushaven in Randers and Southwest district of Kolding. The areas all had in common that they were relatively small - under 16,000 inhabitants, and that they had various problems of social problems, unemployment, many disadvantaged residents, high emigration rates, dilapidated housing and traffic problems, etc..

These urban regeneration projects had a project period from 1997 to 2001.11998 was the new urban renewal adopted, which was based on 'Comprehensive Regeneration', which was the idea behind the regeneration program integrated and interdisciplinary approach to urban renewal. 12001 was further five urban regeneration processes initiated: Brøndby beach, west of the city of Horsens, Vollsmose in Odense, Nørrebro Park and Northwest neighborhood. The comprehensive urban renewal continued after the change of government in Danish urban renewal and urban development from 2004 with the new name "neighborhood renewal". Area Renewal is about support for initiatives such as social, cultural and traffic improvements, while LAVENS second element "Building Renewal" is about supporting the improvement of housing and open space. The new law has a broader focus, which also involves the development of older industrial and port areas alongside the traditional urban areas.

Accumulations of SOCIAL PROBLEMS IN CERTAIN TYPES OF settlements

The problematic neighborhoods in Denmark are basically two different types of construction, older city neighborhoods in major cities and public buildings from the 1960s and 1970s.

One type is problematic neighborhoods are typically older and worn working-class neighborhoods, which consists of mixed construction and a mixture of forms of ownership, and with a high density of development.

Some of these areas in recent decades been renewed. This applies for example Vesterbro in Copenhagen. Urban renewal projects is the area within deprived neighborhoods in Denmark, which has made the most profound physical changes of buildings and neighborhoods based on a combination of physical and social challenges. For example, in the context of urban renewal of Vesterbro in Copenhagen removed back buildings, landscaped courtyards, beaten down walls between the apartments, so the individual units have become larger, brought bathroom and kitchen and processed outdoor spaces, so the neighborhood today is fundamentally changed. Vesterbro has evolved from a partially forslummet town to a central neighborhood in Copenhagen that attracts people with money and resources.

Just attracting resourceful citizens is a powerful tool to soften the concentration of social problems in disadvantaged neighborhoods. There is talk of a "tipping point" where an area enters a downward spiral when the area's problems reaches a certain size. In the discussion of how the social and economic problems arise, and the negative impact it has on residents and the community, identifies often, the problems are concentrated and isolated in special residential areas. The point is that the problem is amplified and has greater impact when they are concentrated and isolated in specific areas. A widely used example from elementary school to illustrate this mechanism: Learn a foreign language children is not a problem for the level of instruction in a school, but the concentration of many foreign-speaking children in school have implications for the classroom. In other words, it is imperative to repeal the concentration of social problems, and as the example of urban renewal of Vesterbro shows, major physical changes lead to that manage to attract more resourceful citizens to the area, thus reducing the concentration of problems. It is a formulated desire by the government to use this strategy in the disadvantaged areas in general.

GOVERNMENT STRATEGY against ghettoisation

Government presented in May 2004 a strategy against ghettoisation, which aims to reverse the negative trend spiral in disadvantaged neighborhoods in Denmark. The strategy contains three key instruments:

• A new model for assigning public housing, among other things, allows local authorities to reject property seekers cash benefits, if the allocation of housing will increase the load in the housing department.

• Establishment of a program board consisting of representatives from the social housing sector, businesses ng municipalities. Program Board shall monitor developments in the fields and its implementation, and must also continuously assess the need for waivers, trial and new initiatives.

• A number of specific integration initiatives on a special effort activities, homework help, voluntary work, etc. in the most deprived neighborhoods. In addition, increased focus on the positive experience of schools in the affected areas.


A ghetto is not always a bad place to stay. It can provide its residents safety and social support in a society that is new and foreign. In Denmark, there has only been around ethnic ghettos in a very short time, and therefore we have a very limited knowledge of the ghetto effect. But the U.S. has a much longer experience, and this research shows that a ghetto can have a positive effect on its residents for the first 15-25 years, it exists. Then the ghetto to a solid social, cultural and economic structure that maintains its residents and prevents their opportunities for social mobility and integration into society. Ghetto could then develop one for permanent segregation of society or the concentration of different social classes and ethnic groups in specific neighborhoods. Of the five most segregated cities in 1890 in the United States, three of them are still among the most segregated cities 100 years later. One of these cities is Chicago, which is discussed later in this book. The research also shows that segregation has a positive effect on resource-rich groups, while resource weak opportunities for socio-economic mobility decreases. A low-skilled immigrant who lives with a majority of other low-skilled immigrants are statistically less likely to get an education and a higher income than the population average. AK

THE public housing and idealistic ARCHITECTURE

The second type of settlements that characterize vulnerable residential areas, the public housing that was built as total levels of housing in the 1960s and 1970s.

An interesting statistic from the aforementioned report from the Ministry of Social Affairs says that around 85% of the homes in vulnerable listed within a 1 5-year period from 1965-1979. This begs the question, what was special about the building from this period.

The year after the end of World War II housing shortage in Denmark amounted to 50,000. At the same time there was a shortage of materials and craftsmen, especially masons. And so did the rest of the Western world. At the same time industrialization led to new opportunities for construction, and in 1947 was in Denmark adopted a provision that resulted in financial support for the building, which was built for new construction methods and new construc-

materials. Within a few years, there was a revolution in the building industry. Ready Made modulbyggen became the norm, first tested in construction Bellahøj, built in 1950-57, and then in more comprehensive plans as Ballerup plan, South plan and Albertslund plan, all of which were based on the so-called "Assembly Circular" from 1960, which calls for industrialized construction was further fleshed out.

Construction was now made without masons and the new material concrete, as there was no shortage of. Concrete blocks could be stacked on top of each other in rows, which created blocks, and within a few years was building converted from being a single building, which was designed by architects and built by masons to be large neighborhoods of apartment buildings, designed by engineers (and individual architects) and built by crane operators.

The big housing projects from the 1960s and 1970s were all built by basically the same principles: Apartment buildings were placed in a landscape, typically in parallel rows and separated by expanses of grass, and separate zones for parking and possibly purchase. Of the 20 deprived neighborhoods, we have in Denmark, 17 of them listed by these construction principles. And we look beyond the country's borders, you get an eye on that large ghettos in eg France, USA, Holland and England are listed in the same style. It seems obvious that there is a deep connection.


In 1933, a series of principles for urban formulated, which has had more influence on architecture and urban planning than any other writing and has shaped cities around the world. It was the fourth annual congress of modern architecture, Congrés International d'Architecture Moderne (CIAM), which took place on a ship from Marseilles to Athens. CIAM-sam-menslutningen was formed four years ago out of a desire to make architecture and urban planning small to matter of taste and more tools for economic and social policy. It was the modern ideas of rationality and systematization of the industrial age, as this was reflected in the architecture.

On the ship from Marseilles to Athens, the task was to formulate some lasting principles for urban development starting point was the analysis of 34 European cities, which appeared more or less chaotic. European cities was at this time stocky and contained slums, poverty and disease. There were clearing up, and the communities committed modernists saw it as problems, you could plan out of: There was light, air and grass between the buildings, and all should have equal access to good housing. Upon arrival in Athens, the architects had formulated 95 principles of the new ideal of the "functional city". The city was divided into four zones based on the four basic functions of life: living, working, recreation and circulation. The principles were about to divide the different functions in different zones, which were separated by green belts, so you drove and parked in some areas, lived in the other and worked in others.

The Charter was first printed in 1942 by the Swiss-French architect Le Corbusier, who was both a founding member of CIAM and one of the main proponents of the functional city.

There was soon criticism of the principles which other architects and planners were not durable. But throughout the 1960s drowned the critical voices in a roar of excitement about the quantities and the speed that could be built with, and also the enthusiasm of the housing blocks with CIAM's Athens Charter was hailed as democratic, good and healthy housing, not only for the individual but for society.

Housing block Unité d'Habitation - residential unit - was Completion Year in Marseille and was completed in 1952. The architect behind vai Le Corbusier, who was also one of the driving forces in the development of the modern city, where homes, shops and business were separated into zones separately. Photo: Nick Stewart (overst left), Kazumasa Omshi (other three).

FROM modernist PEARLS FOR CRANE TRACK ARCHITECTURE When the modernist residential areas, which is inspired by CIAM principles, criticized, it can be easily overlooked that there actually are large differences between the individual settlements. There is a big difference in how good or bad the buildings are, from miserable stacked modular building, which was built at intervals after crane 'trajectories, and to settlements that contains lots of details and is carefully processed by architects and planners.

In the worst building controls only kvantitetens and common sense principles, and there is no - or hardly any - of form processing, either by mounting elements, the location of them or of the landscape between them. At the other end of the spectrum is residential housing appears with strong, recurring ideas and a personal and individual expression. The last case, for example buildings The Brunswick in London, designed by Patrick Hodgkinson, and Park Hill, which was designed by Jack Lynn and Ivor Smith. Both buildings have undergone extensive restorations, which successfully leads the strong modernist ideas through to a whole new level. Both examples unfold in this book. The most famous modernist gem is Le Corbusier's Unité d'block habitation, which is in Marseille. The building is rich pi detail and formally worked to accommodate many different types of housing, as well as many sensory experiences. Up to 1600 people living in the vertical city, complete with a shopping street halfway up the building and recreational space for residents, among other things, with swimming

pool and terrace on the roof. The building is listed in raw concrete but contains a through use of wood, and there is implemented gradient.

The walls between the apartments are indulgent, thick and provides sound insulation between dwellings. In addition, they, the facade can be free, why there are large expanses of glass. The apartments are bright and spacious, and the proportions are developed for human body scale. There are 15 different types of apartments in the building. Many of the industry developed apartment buildings that were built in the decades after Unité d'habitation, may at a first glance look like Le Corbusier building. Overall shape is basically the same: a detached residential block, where apartments are stacked on top of and next to each other. But the industry built apartment buildings houses typically not the detail of the structure, care of materials, care in proportions and colors that make Le Corbusier building a functioning house. In Denmark, one of the most famous examples of arkitektsty already modernist housing estates Steen Ejler Rasmussen Tingbjerg-building on the outskirts of Copenhagen. Tingbjerg is currently in a poor condition - a residential area, which is characterized by heavy social problems. But Steen Ejler Rasmussen was one of our most celebrated architects of the 20th century, and therefore heard often that so far is nothing wrong with the buildings themselves. It's a nice modernistic building, with very different qualities than the crane track architecture. NB


The building looks the same in deprived neighborhoods in many parts of the world, due to a combination of two historical factors: One was the development of the industrialized building after the war. The second was the spread of a particular ideological practices in the architectural profession

The new modular buildings were not trying adapted the classic city's appearance and structure. Many places were city centers at this time to-

slum granted, and workers and poor people living in poor housing, which caused disease epidemics and generally poor conditions. In 1930 there were created movements among communities engaged architects and urban planners, who saw it as punching its task to change the urban poor conditions and create healthy, light housing for workers. In the U.S., Levittown in the late 1940s, the first mass-produced town. Located outside New York made it a sought-after buildings, and demand was high in the small single-family homes. But in Europe was the answer to the housing shortage is not transformed into lots of individual houses but instead of stacks of modular-built apartments in apartment buildings.

Historically, this difference can be traced back to a single, crucial congress, held in association CIAM, a group of European architects and urban planners, who became more significant than any other group in the building industry ever had.

In 1933, CIAM architects formulated a program for the functional city. The Swiss-French architect Le Corbusier was one of the founders of CIAM and also one of the central figures in the work to formulate, to the modern city was built according to rational principles, where cities were divided into zones depending on features. There were areas to work and traffic zones for parking and areas for housing.

Congressional ideas were enshrined in the Athens Charter, which became a modernist utopia of a healthy housing outside the city where people could live far from the city noise and unhealthy, narrow streets. Habitat would be leisure and freedom, and housing blocks were perfect to create a level playing field for all: access to light and air were the most important, and between blocks: grass to romp on.

Historically, the Charter on a real time, just as the development of industrialized building methods took off. And when the war was over, came the Athens Charter to shape the mind in all the major housing programs in the 1950s-1970s, also the Danish. A definite need for many affordable housing found a solution in the Athens Charter vision. You could kill two birds with one stone: Industrialized materials and methods made many new affordable housing within short time. And also solved a social problem by moving people out of tilslummede bymid-ing to airy, healthy homes. Urban planners were idealists who saw urban planning as a tool to build a better world. The large apartment buildings located in formations over large areas began as an idealistic and utopian architecture and urban planning.

There was just something else than planners had expected. The life they imagined would take place in the new era architecture was not. Instead, as already after a few years that were beginning to surface concentrations of social problems. And everywhere showed the same pattern itself: Unemployment and crime was higher in those neighborhoods than in the surrounding community. In large CIAM-inspired buildings like Park Hill in Sheffield, England and Bijlmermeer in Amsterdam had unemployment, social problems and crime in the mid-1980s reached such a level that it scared ordinary people away from neighborhoods, and only people who had not economic ability to move, remained. In France broke out in the late 1980s, violent unrest in the huge residential Vaulx-en-informed outside Lyon. At the same time, the violent crime escalated to such a scale in Cabrini Green in Chicago, the police would not go into the area.

"The French architect Édouard Franqois has built apartment block Tower Flower in Paris, where the main thrust is that the façade consists of huge pots with bamboo. Fran <; ois has taken inspiration from his observation that Parisians filling their balconies with plants and on each occasion has left an empty jar which residents can plant to with what they want. The building is described in detail in Chapter 13 Photo: Paul Raftery / VIEW.

In Denmark, a number of mayors from the western Copenhagen in the early 1990s to draw attention to the fact that the housing areas were magnets for social problems. And also elsewhere in the country, the concentration of social problems so intense that districts at least from a media assessment looked dangerous zones where gangs of mainly boys and young men behaved in ways that bother other residents.

Another thing was that concrete elements in many places turned out to be of such poor quality that after a few years had carried out extensive renovations. The idealistic architectural form did not work as intended. And today is the biggest challenge in Denmark, the most problematic neighborhoods were built on the very principles that were formulated in the Athens Charter. Should they become well-functioning neighborhoods, there is good reason to conclude - as they do in the United States, France and the Netherlands - to the scheduling principles in most places have been shown to function poorly. Few people have the freedom to choose where they want to live, want to stay in CIAM-inspired architecture.


In Denmark, during the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s spent huge sums of money to renovate areas Ishøj plan, Vollsmose and many other settlements around the country. But as senior researcher at the Danish Building Research Claus Bech-Danielsen writes in this book, many of renovation had not really taken hold of the real architectural and town-planning problems in buildings. We have renovated the concrete damage and thermally insulated, and we have connected with farvelægninger in less or more fortunate designs and possibly glasindpak-ing balconies. But prior to renovation efforts have not been thorough architectural analysis of how regions actually works. And the big question remains unanswered: Why do social problems that accumulate in a specific type of architecture?

In May 2008, invited Architects Association a number of foreign architects in the country, which has worked to transform disadvantaged areas in countries such as France, Holland, England and the United States. The architects were carried out in three deprived neighborhoods in Denmark and asked, together with Danish colleagues to analyze the regions problems. The results are reproduced in this book, and they unfolded in Chapter 8 But it is interesting to note that the first foreign architects startled about was how much money we actually spend on renovations that do not interfere with the fundamental architectural problems and solve them.

The reason is a lack of thorough analysis of what the architectural problems with the fields. If areas were thoroughly analyzed first, you could put in with much more precise and effective solutions. The invitation from the foreign architects to more thoroughly analyze problems, is consistent with the conclusion from the Danish Building Research Institute evaluations of renovation of public housing: Too often carried out renovations without adequate prior research, and renovation turns out not to solve physical problems satisfactorily.

In the chapter "The dream of a place" in this book writes anthropologist Mark Vacher about what the Danes want from their home and their neighborhood. He has conducted field studies in different types

of residential areas in Denmark, and he finds that Danish dreams of the good life is far from Le Corbusier's idea of ​​how the good life should be. The dream, the architects had to men when they formulated the Athens Charter, is not matched by the actual needs and wants, as most people have as part of their lives. This is one reason why people with free choice of residence rarely choose to stay in the CIAM-inspired buildings. Bluntly put, we can say that people do not want to stay that architects would like that


In connection with the research for this book, we encountered two elements that separates the Danish initiatives for vulnerable residential areas from the steps to do abroad. One is, as described above, we have prioritized the physical stakes. The second is that we in turn has set in with much wider social interventions in disadvantaged areas than is the case in many other countries. Roughly may be said that we in Denmark have tried to solve ghetto problems of social action seeks abroad to solve them with bricks. Neither is sustainable in the long term only. On the other hand batter it seriously when combining the two approaches.

Since the challenge from a Danish perspective lies in learning more about what physical changes may mean in an exposed residential area, explores the book here two key questions: • What is wrong with architecture and urban planning in the disadvantaged areas? ■ And what do you do with similar problems in other countries, as in Denmark we could learn from?

It is important to mention here that the book is not the result of scientific research. It is the result of research conducted by the Architects Association in 2007 and 2008 and among other things of traveling to Holland, USA, France, England and Spain. The results are based on interviews with architects, planners, builders, municipalities and officials who work with issues locally. All the places we have visited, there has been great interest in hearing what they do elsewhere. The need for experience is obviously huge, and this book can be seen as a first release, which cut across national boundaries and looking at what strategies into use around the world. The starting point is that we can observe the same types of problems across national borders, and that the problems accumulated in the same types of neighborhoods. So the interesting question is of course whether on the basis of such general problems can be found a panacea.

It's that simple, of course not. There is not one solution that fits into any exposed residential area. A place can attract resourceful residents to build a spectacular residential complex of a well-known architect, but elsewhere the solution may be to work to introduce traditional urban fabric, so the neighborhood opened that life can flow better through it and create dynamic side effects .

On another level is, however, a universal answer, at the methodological level: There should always be a thorough architectural analysis of how the concrete residential work. In the light of specific local conditions, the city's size, cultural and geographical quirks and be

byggelsens form can then arrive at the solution that will work best for exactly that area.


Several examples from abroad, as the book describes, can not simply be transferred to Denmark. Although many of the strategies have proven to be effective tools to precisely achieve that which is the goal of the Danish ghetto strategy - to make the disadvantaged neighborhoods so attractive that they can attract more resourceful residents - can not be used in Denmark, because the law does not currently allow.

One example is that the money for the renovation of public housing comes from the National Building Fund, and the Fund may only pay out money for repairs to building technical damage. The money in the fund may be, as it is today, not used to implement the actual rebuilding and restructuring of buildings and neighborhoods based on pure architectural objectives.

Another example is that there can often be sharp boundaries between the areas of the city, which is local, and the fields are private or owned by housing associations. It borders on a daily basis are invisible to people who are moving around the city, but that means something to the decisions made. If we are to resolve the major structural problems in areas, so it vulnerable residential area better integrated into the surrounding city, we need to establish collaborations across these boundaries.

Another condition that has been crucial to the foreign projects have been implemented, cooperation between the public and private sector in the financing of major projects. The conclusion of all the countries we have visited, is that the physical interventions must be up to a certain scale before they have an effect, and it requires very large investments. Therefore, it has been established governmental organizations and programs that partly channeling public funds into the development of deprived neighborhoods, but simultaneously to a large extent using public funds to attract private funds for the projects. In the UK these are English Partnership, in France on ANRU and in the U.S. on Hope VI program.


The book is basically structured in two parts. After a chapter of Tom Nielsen, who introduces Danish urban development historically, the book's first part based on the Danish reality and describes in detail the problems in the Danish settlements. Here is each chapter of a separate section in the Danish reality of deprived neighborhoods, written by professionals who have worked in the field for many years.

Bo Grönlund writes about the connections between the built environment and people's feelings of safety and security. Camilla Richter Friis van Deurs writes about the problems of outdoor space that does not signal what it is used for, or who it belongs to. Claus Bech-Danielsen writes about the problems of building consistency, repetition and the bad materials, in addition to providing a historical introduction to the public housing. Torben Street writes about the

lack of sustainability in vulnerable. Louise Kielgast and Kristian Skovbakke Villadsen writes about what goes wrong in a building when it is not made for body proportions and sensuality, and how the city plans often works against the possibility that life may occur. And Mark Vacher wrote about Danish dream home.

The second part of the book brings together the foreign examples of changes in ghetto areas. The foreign examples are divided into themes for strategies that cut across national borders. One chapter examines the possibility of demolition of apartment buildings made in many places. Other chapters describe the importance of spectacular icon building, designed by renowned architects, how the physical action could create ownership feelings of a population and the importance of buildings and neighborhoods gives residents sensual experiences.

The examples are many, and we will only mention a few: Two different ways of using bamboo to form the ideas of two very different buildings of public housing, respectively Madrid and Paris and makes them living buildings. Giant puppets and giant chandeliers are two of the elements of a social housing in Amsterdam, which makes the experience at the center. In Chicago, it has been official policy to build social housing with an entrance from the street to each dwelling, a front yard and a fence. It gives ownership feeling and makes them social housing blends into the expensive single-family homes. And in Paris do you change a forslummet district by taking population mainly of African background and make it the basis for the renovation, so the neighborhood is going to appear as a beautiful neighborhood with African character that draws other Parisians and tourists.

One of the largest and most successful examples is the huge residential Bijlmermeer in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. In 1995 appeared Bijlmermeer as a dilapidated and creepy ghettoby, a huge level of honeycomb structure, built for 40,000 people, but forslummet, creepy and dilapidated. The development spreads over a huge area and consists of huge apartment buildings, with large green areas in between. Classic CIAM-building in creepy large scale. Already a few years after the completion of the building in 1975, it was found that very few wanted to stay there. All with the possibility of it moved from the area, and the ghetto was in Holland scare the example of the worst city you could imagine. A plan was put in place to transform the area. Some of the blocks were demolished, others were modernized, built other types of construction, lower house and built in varied materials and shapes; were hospitalized shopping streets and canals, and today - even while change is underway - shows the results: Unemployment is falling. New resourceful residents attracted, and the neighborhood now appears attractive, beautiful and with the possibility that many kinds of life can thrive in and around each other.

Bijlmermeer is only one of many examples that we can learn from in Denmark. The hope is that this book generally can increase knowledge and understanding of the relationship between architecture and life. The book is written so that it can be read by anyone with an interest in the area. Housing associations with the desire to do something about the neighborhood can find inspiration here and the arguments for why something has to happen. Politicians can gain insight into new approaches to social problems. And architects and planners can read over your shoulder and find strategies that make a difference.

The book was prepared by the Architects Association, with support from the Ministry of Social Welfare,

Realdania Foundation and the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration. In addition, a wide range of individuals and institutions been helpful with advice, coaching and practical assistance. Hans Kristensen from the Centre for Housing and Welfare, together with ministries and Realdania participated in an advisory steering committee for the project. We have drawn countless times at senior Claus Bech-Daniel's extensive knowledge and advice. The foreign architects and planners, we have visited, has been incredibly helpful with information and photos. Gil Rose Thai from Wallace, Robert & Todd and Peter Landon and Jill Preston, Landon Bone Baker Architects in the United States, Jacob van Rijs of MVRDV in the Netherlands, Belinda Tato from Ecosistema Urbano in 'Madrid, Concha La-payese and Dario Gazapo in Madrid, Gerardo Mingo sr. and jr. In Madrid, Anne Lacaton from Lacaton & Vassal in Paris, Quentin Vernette from Grand Projet de Ville in Vaulx-en-Velin and Birgitte Kortegaard from Haraldsgade neighborhood's area renewal and Arne Cermak Nielsen from Copenhagen. Architects' Association of Home Network and International Network has provided feedback and inspiration for the project. In addition, a large amount of photographers and architects given us permission to use their images and illustrations, which we would like to say thank you for. ■