A look into the urban changes of Copenhagen

Kobenhavn, the capital of Denmark since 1416, is strategically located at the crossings of the Scandinavia and the Baltic Region. After a flourishing period during colonialism, the metropolis flourished during the industrialisation. Although the subsequent progress of Fordism amounted to decennaries of the Fordist economic crisis, Copenhagen has successfully developed its comparative advantage and evolved as a regional concern hub in the post-Fordism epoch.


Following the mercantilist moving ridge in the seventeenth century, Denmark, under the reign of King Christian IV, started her abroad enlargement to Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean. As the chief seaport of the Scandinavia, Copenhagen rapidly established itself a important trade Centre of Northern Europe. Danish Asiatic Company, restructured from Danish East India Company, built its Eigtved ‘s Warehouse in Copenhagen during 1748-1750. Copenhagen ‘s merchandisers traded with China for tea, silk and porcelain, which is non merely stored and auctioned in this warehouse, but besides partially smuggled from Copenhagen to Britain for net incomes.

The tremendous wealth from trade endowed Copenhagen with much of its luster. An ambitious building strategy began, including new palaces and many other expansive buildings, such as the Rundetarn observatory and the Borsen, Europe ‘s first stock exchange ( Andrew Bender, Sally O’Brien, 2005 ) .

However, the glorification of the metropolis ended in the British barrage in 1807, known as the Battle of Copenhagen. “ The onslaught targeted the bosom of the metropolis, bring downing legion civilian casualties and puting 100s of places, churches and public edifices on fire ” ( Andrew Bender, Sally O’Brien, 2005 ) . Consequently, a diminished Denmark was forced sell its colonies in India and the Danish Gold Coast to the Britain. With the rise of British colonial imperium, the seaport of Copenhagen bit by bit lost its importance.


After decennaries of diminution, Copenhagen regained its strength in the 1840s as industrialization took topographic point. In the early nineteenth century, the chief industries in Copenhagen were textile, garment, furniture, machine-tool and ship building. Introduction of new machinery operated by steam engines brought a paradigm displacement. For illustration, the function of fabric industry fell from 41 per cent of all industry in 1839 to 9 per cent in 1873 ( Baker, 1990 ) . On the other manus, agribusiness and building sectors flourished due to a encouragement in productiveness. Private enterprises thrived in both the figure and size. Many of today ‘s largest Danish corporations were created during this period, such as the Carlsberg Group.

As the mills were built, fabricating occupations shifted extensively off from the metropolis. This ‘pull ‘ factor caused – together with the hapless sanitation status in the interior metropolis ( the ‘push ‘ factor ) – a strong displacement of colony form towards the suburbs. “ Suburbanization meant a loss of interior metropolis population as chiefly younger, better-off families moved out, go forthing chiefly older and economically weaker families in the interior metropolis ” ( Hansen, Andersen, & A ; Clark, 2001 ) . In order to suit this freshly emerged working category, Copenhagen ‘s boundaries were extended beyond its munition into the territory of Osterbro, Vesterbro, and Norrebro.

It was besides a period of mass in-migration, chiefly from Meleagris gallopavo and Yugoslavia, which preponderantly contributed to the metropolis ‘s population growing. Migrant workers provided abundant inexpensive labor, farther spurring the industrial development in labor-intensive sectors. However, immigrant population was extremely concentrated, particularly to the interior metropolis and western suburbs where societal lodging – left empty as the Danes moved to the suburbs – was offered at a low monetary value. Ghettoization still exists in these countries today.


In 1919, Ford motor company set up transplant fabrication installations in Copenhagen, ( Haruhito Shiomi, 1995 ) first clip presenting the Fordist theoretical account to this well-capitalised metropolis. Thereafter, merchandise specialisation and detached land utilizations were progressively apparent in Copenhagen ‘s industrial development. Districts are differentiated harmonizing to their diverging characteristics and maps.

Picture demoing the territories of Kobenhavn:

Indre ByA







Northern suburbsA


Landscape Silence

Kobenhavn was badly hit by the economic crisis of the late-1970s, ensuing in over a decennary ( late-1970s boulder clay 1989 ) of landscape silence. De-industrialisation, population stagnancy and high unemployment non merely weakened the metropolis ‘s urban economic system but besides eroded its tax-base ( Hospers, 2004 ) .There were few province building undertakings as the authorities budget was limited. Furthermore, private investing in substructure was restricted due to the “ constituted national policy on ‘balanced ‘ regional development ” ( Hansen, Andersen, & A ; Clark, 2001 ) . This political tradition besides deterred foreign investing by making an anti-business clime. The industrial heartland was bit by bit shifted from Copenhagen to Western Jutland.


The drawn-out recession trigged the rapid political alteration from 1989 to 1992 ; political relations have since shifted position from “ preponderantly inward looking to a more outward looking attack ” . Copenhagen ‘s precedences moved from “ an docket of distribution ” to “ an docket of growing ” , altering its position from “ one town among many Danish towns, to the ‘growth locomotor ‘ of all Denmark ” ( Hansen, Andersen, & A ; Clark, 2001 ) . To farther encouragement investors ‘ assurance, the proposal of the Oresund Bridge was approved in 1991, linking Copenhagen and Malmo , the 3rd largest metropolis in Sweden, for both rail and route traffic. Since the completion of Oresund Bridge in 2000, Copenhagen has become the Centre of a larger metropolitan country crossing two states, pulling foreign investing as a major regional hub.

Thankss to the influx of investing, Copenhagen ‘s economic system was successfully restructured from fabricating to services after a painful period of de-industrialisation. Flexible, decentralized endeavors boomed. The populace sector besides improved its efficiency by encompassing entrepreneurial signifiers of administration and behavior. Copenhagen increasingly develops its niche in life scientific discipline, information and communicating engineerings, originative and amusement, and clean engineerings.

Yet, polarisation in the labor market was progressively marked. Unemployment was peculiarly high among immigrants and unskilled labor. There is intensified spacial concentration of immigrant minorities at Vesterbro, and progressively marginalised and stigmatized countries such as Sydhavn. Elites are segregated at territories like Osterbro, with added investing in luxury lodging to pull the burgeoning in-between category.


Kobenhavn is heading towards a high value-added, knowledge-based economic system. “ Danes have progressively perceived Copenhagen as a growing engine for all of Denmark, as a node in the European urban system, and as a topographic point tied in umteen ways to a battalion of topographic points around the universe ” ( Hansen, Andersen, & A ; Clark, 2001 ) . With open-door public policies and strong comparative advantage in the niche countries, Copenhagen presents a bright mentality as a major concern hub. However, given the immigrant population transcending 15 % , and increasing polarisation in the labor market, Copenhagen is confronting a daunting challenge to its societal coherence.