TY - GEN
T1 - Denmark: Intervention Dilemma in South Harbour and Aalborg East
AU - Hansen, Jesper Rohr
AU - Engberg, Lars A.
PY - 2014
Y1 - 2014
N2 - APRILab WP1 starts from the hypothesis that to address the intervention
dilemma, any planning process needs to integrate the capacity to
combine, integrate and flexibly navigate between the open and close
contours of intervention processes throughout time and space. For this
sake we have investigated the incremental progress of the project
management both in terms of programming (time) and definition of
areas of target (space). In particular, we assume that, despite its capacity
of responsiveness and engagement, elements of ‘spontaneity’ actually
might lead to situations of uncertainty and un-control in urban
intervention, and create disengagement between short term outcomes
and long terms objectives (time), as well as between micro-practices and
larger dynamics (space).
In this report, a summary is made concerning the key findings related to
the ‘intervention dilemma’ of planning between control and spontaneity
(Savini, Salet, & Majoor, 2014). Two cases are analysed in two cities in
Denmark: The suburban case of Aalborg East, and a brownfield case in
Copenhagen, the South Harbour.
The main difference between the two Danish cases are the collective
points of action which were set in motion enduring planning processes in
the urban fringe. In the Copenhagen Case, this happened from 1999-2003,
in which the Head of Planning and his municipal allies were able to
make a showcase that convinced developers to invest in a neighbourhood
by proposing to build dwellings along the harbour in a former industrial,
ill-reputed brownfield area; whereas in Aalborg East, this point of
collective action is still open: will collaborators succeed in supporting a
joint agenda? Is it possible for Aalborg Municipality to enable this sort of
collaborative, flexible planning? Will one of the actors succeed in
demonstrating a strategic leadership that will convince collaborators of
the added value of the project, in order to change the status quo in the
huge, fragmented suburban area of Aalborg East?
For general background information concerning the context of the cases,
the reader should consult the case-study descriptions already developed
(Hansen, Savini, Wallin, & Mäntysalo, 2013).
AB - APRILab WP1 starts from the hypothesis that to address the intervention
dilemma, any planning process needs to integrate the capacity to
combine, integrate and flexibly navigate between the open and close
contours of intervention processes throughout time and space. For this
sake we have investigated the incremental progress of the project
management both in terms of programming (time) and definition of
areas of target (space). In particular, we assume that, despite its capacity
of responsiveness and engagement, elements of ‘spontaneity’ actually
might lead to situations of uncertainty and un-control in urban
intervention, and create disengagement between short term outcomes
and long terms objectives (time), as well as between micro-practices and
larger dynamics (space).
In this report, a summary is made concerning the key findings related to
the ‘intervention dilemma’ of planning between control and spontaneity
(Savini, Salet, & Majoor, 2014). Two cases are analysed in two cities in
Denmark: The suburban case of Aalborg East, and a brownfield case in
Copenhagen, the South Harbour.
The main difference between the two Danish cases are the collective
points of action which were set in motion enduring planning processes in
the urban fringe. In the Copenhagen Case, this happened from 1999-2003,
in which the Head of Planning and his municipal allies were able to
make a showcase that convinced developers to invest in a neighbourhood
by proposing to build dwellings along the harbour in a former industrial,
ill-reputed brownfield area; whereas in Aalborg East, this point of
collective action is still open: will collaborators succeed in supporting a
joint agenda? Is it possible for Aalborg Municipality to enable this sort of
collaborative, flexible planning? Will one of the actors succeed in
demonstrating a strategic leadership that will convince collaborators of
the added value of the project, in order to change the status quo in the
huge, fragmented suburban area of Aalborg East?
For general background information concerning the context of the cases,
the reader should consult the case-study descriptions already developed
(Hansen, Savini, Wallin, & Mäntysalo, 2013).
M3 - Report chapter
SP - 9
EP - 26
BT - Intervention Dilemma Descriptions. Deliverable 2a.
CY - Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam
ER -