The Finger Plan for the Development of the City of Copenhagen since the 1940s - Case Study Example

The city of Copenhagen has used the finger plan for the development of the city since the 1940’s. Discuss the evolution of this plan and how it is like and unlike a plan such as The Broadacre City proposed by Frank Lloyd Wright in the early 1930’s. Introduction During the 20th century, Copenhagen underwent rapid growth. Like most other conurbations in Europe one feature of Copenhagen’s growth was the elimination of extensive rural landscape tracts. The idea was to safeguard extensive parts of the existing green structure and landscape through a model that came amid a general urban sprawl. It is this landscape management and planning that is seen as safeguarding the green landscape that penetrates the urban territories almost everywhere. Some of these changes were brought about by conscious decisions while some occurred just incidentally; whatever the case it is often easy to trace the rural past here. It was in 1947 that greater Copenhagen’s urban development plan was unveiled by two Danish town planners and architects Sten Eiler Rasmussen and Peter Bredsdorff. What came to be known as "The Finger Plan" gained an iconic status in terms of its brevity and started being debated in town planning circles internationally. Either by virtue of careful planning or just as the existing periphery of Copenhagen then offered no other option to expand, in what was seen as then and could be seen now, the Finger Plan is like a palm being held by the existing city center – five directions of expansion ostensibly protruding as fingers from the center. As on date the Finger Plan is supposed to have guided infrastructure, urban development and green pace in this city, in which this plan's impact is clearly visible more than 60 years after it was brought into force. Source: http://www.gardenvisit.com/assets/madge/copenhagen_finger_plan/original/copenhagen_finger_plan_original.jpg The Finger Plan was unique in its design and thus has a mythical connotation attached to it, but over the years it has earned an uncanny reputation for being a foresighted plan for countryside preservation (Bredsdorff et al, 1947). The plan worked very well particularly in western Copenhagen as against north, which was not suited for finger-like projections on its fringes. The acceptance of the Finger Plan can be assessed by the fact that it has worked as a cornerstone of transportation and land use in Copenhagen' regional planning where attention has primarily remained within and between those "fingers" (Hansen & Winther, 2006 & Ravesteyn et al, 2005). Even though the plan has gone through several changes in these years, what has remained the same is its spatial pattern. It is by dint of its acceptance that the metropolitan area today has developed a uniform traffic system giving greater Copenhagen a very well-knit public transport system, while the focus has been on the maintenance of extensive forest areas and green zone protection. Artificial hills and lakes were added to the western "fingers" in order to make it more appealing, and for sustaining old farmland the government acquired land for cattle breeding. So far the objectives that had been envisioned on the original Finger Plan have been satisfied. These had been made in order to accommodate the future population growth; however what it missed was that the growth would be too exponential in the years that would follow its implementation. The 1947 plan had foreseen a moderate population growth, but the growth would be as high as this was not probably estimated correctly by it. The plan, in the subsequent years, became a framework that had de facto acceptance even though, say critics, it had no legal basis, which, it is argued, worked in its favour. Copenhagen's unique geographical and historical aspects are said to be the primary reasons for the plan's acceptance over the last many decades and also the factor that continues it to be having a profound effect on further plans that the city is witnessing. Source: http://cdn5.wn.com/pd/b0/a4/1ea56a3d177ed2b0b6be3d8b0741_grande.jpg Historically speaking, it was the 19th century that began the green structure development in greater Copenhagen when moats and forts around the city were abandoned. These were part of the defence ring surrounding the city. The defence ring gave rise to the city's first "green ring". Later a second green ring came into being when areas like Utterslev Mose and Damhussoen were brought under its purview. It is noteworthy that the concept of interconnected nature parks and green areas was first planned in 1908/1909. All this found a strong foundation in 1928 with the establishment of Planning Board of Copenhagen. Subsequently, the board's blueprint for the first green planning was made public in 1936, which coherently outlined the interconnected green areas that the city would have. The plan divided the same into two groups; each group having its distinct functionality. The groups were inner and the outer areas; the former meant to serve the local areas for smaller recreational and the latter for extended leisure activities. Northern areas, as per this plan, offer better recreational access (Jensen, 1984). This plan was a stepping stone for the Finger Plan and considered as visionary, it had positive influences on all forthcoming plans. Source: http://www10.aeccafe.com/blogs/arch-showcase/files/2011/03/plan-albertslund-the-green-waterfront-1-5000.jpg A little over a decade later, in 1947, the Finger Plan was readily accepted since it first pointed out to flaws and disadvantages that the existing city posed in terms of growth. Geographically Copenhagen is a compact, focally central city, the type of cities that see growth taking place in rings on the outskirts (Schrijnen, 2002). But if the city would have expanded that way, it would have created traffic congestion in the long run. While ring roads are said to distribute traffic among many rings around the city, the same poses snarls when they merge at the center or cross at several points with each other. The Finger Plan was developed keeping this limitation in view and thus proposed the radial corridors moving away from around the center. Concern for lakes and large forests in the Finger Plan has played an important role in the development of Copenhagen as the city it looks today. These lakes and forests had to be earlier protected by several conservation means from the urban sprawl. While the threats posed by urban sprawl were contained, it has been seen that not complete justice has been done to planning as envisaged in the plan as bodies responsible for the same did not have, or could not, exert detailed control over the development (Andersen et al, 2002; Andersen & Jørgensen, 1995; Matthiessen, 1999). The Finger Plan has been widely accepted and incorporated into the life and times of Copenhagen, though response to it has been varying from time to time depending on the availability of resources to manage the plan. Poor planning measures dominated between its inceptions in 1947 to 1967. Rather than developing the existing land, the authorities bought more for future development. After 1967 there were concerted efforts together between state, municipalities and counties that resulted in the plan being implemented in a more comprehensive and effective manner. This soon found a downturn, particularly after late 1980s till early 1990s because of the economic crisis, which resulted in lesser demand in urban settlement expansion as people's power to purchase reduced. Late 1990s saw an up market effect again as the demand for housing emerged. This led to increased regional coordination between several bodies looking into the expansion and finally Greater Copenhagen Council's revitalization, which did not have the same planning authority as it had previously. In terms of restraining urban sprawl and urbanisation in northern Copenhagen, 1960s decade asked for great effort. This area had gained unprecedented popularity since early 20th century especially for housing. Much of the urbanisation activity was focused in this area for four decades till mid-1960s from 1900. Several factors were responsible for this and two important ones were industrialisation in 1950s which have had a positive impact on the lives around the industrialised territories and rising demand for detached houses in 1960s. The sprawl was enhanced further in northern greater Copenhagen when the number of private cars increased. Furthermore, first motorway that connected Denmark in 1956 to northern Zealand provided accessibility to far off areas; helping sprawl to expand further. Consequently, Koge and Roskilde were new destinations for the sprawl to be directed to as a follow up to master plan of 1963. By far these two fingers had not been developed as much as the other three; the reasons for underdevelopment being attributed to agricultural land use and fertility of land, which was dotted with private farms, estates and smaller villages. Keeping in line with the originality of the Finger Plan the urbanisation that resulted here got with it the necessary share of motorways and railways. Recreational landscape and urban fingers were appropriately separated from each other, giving each it’s due as proposed in the original Finger Plan of 1947. It was a clear indication that even three decades later the plan was as much acceptable and as relevant as it was when it was conceptualized. As Koge started getting developed the urban area expanded to as much as 28 percent in 1969 from a small 9.2 percent back in 1954 (Jensen, 1984). Source: http://i39.tinypic.com/29p22o5.jpg The most intriguing part of the Finger Plan has been that it was neither implemented nor passed by law, still it on its own, and the amended plans that followed, were the result of the impact this plan had on the structuring and development of Copenhagen. At present recreational wedges as separated by the fingers is a dominant feature of Copenhagen landscape, and radials surrounding these are considered to be having equally important impact on how the city exhibits its uniqueness (Antrop, 2004). Any coexisting traditional land use in these parts grew into a complex sort of multifunctional land use (Præstholm & Kristensen, 2004). The Finger Plan urbanisation of Copenhagen can be seen in the light of both industrial and economic structural changes (Pedersen 1983, Matthiessen 1985) where the city and the environment that surrounded it continuously changed decade after decade. While in most cities that are urbanised rural landscapes are replaced by urban settings, Copenhagen was exceptional in the way that it tried to retain charms of both while keeping pace with fast developing changes impacting a human being through needs that are both time and technology-driven. In the late 1960s structural and general understandings started replacing the concepts of urban development. This is when urban development began to be linked with structural explanations, particularly of social changes (Harvey 1973 and 1978; Castells, 1977). In European culture, particularly with respect to social spaces, to promote social interaction has been greatly emphaised. It is probably such ethos that has led European planners to develop cities that foster "critical reconstruction" and "growth within" in order to keep this social milieu alive. This concept is in sheer contrast with Broadacre City as proposed by Frank Lloyd Wright in 1930s. It is because if the Finger Plan envisioned being accommodative vis-à-vis the urban sprawl, Broadacre City intended to make urbanisation less dense by what it proposed as allotting 1-acre plot to each individual. When Wright came up with the proposal, if it had been compared with Liverpool Docks of the middle of the century gone by, the habitat that he imagined would have been less dense by around a thousand times. While Copenhagen as a city is compact, Wright’s cities were dispersive. Source: http://141.100.77.202/lehrinhalte/Allgemein/Fachgruppen/Darstellung/Geometrie/Plakate/images/A2%20Frank%20Lloyd%20Wright%20-%20Broadacre%20City%203.jpg When the Finger Plan and the Broadacre City is compared, it brings one to housing densities, which can be determined by either external or internal habitation. While the internal factors pertain to what is acquired within the household, the external factors are determined by forces like public transport, the intent of developers and town planners, and the government policies pertaining to urbanisation. Internal factors are not given much credence, whereas external factors are what a city is made up of. Copenhagen is a high density habitation, growing with each year, and if Broadacre City is to be analysed it is strewn all around, growing on peripheries and not within. When Lionel Frost described the Liverpool Docks of 1790, the population density per hectare calculated by him was 4,000 people (Frost, 1991). Wright's Broadacre City imagination was poles apart from this reality. In the words of Fishman (1982) and Framptom (1992), "Broadacre City, a city so dispersed - every citizen would have at least an acre of ground to tend - it would be everywhere and nowhere." Wright's proposal seems to have taken birth from his assumption that cities of today have frayed at the edges and extensively so, which is why what he proposed was an inevitability of the future planning. According to him these frayed cities are surrounded by vast "ex-urban" or "peri-urban" zones, which are heavily dependent on vehicles (Hugo et al, 1997). In other words, the future for this planet's human beings is "widely" between north and south poles, and possibly not confined to something as miniscule as a "palm" and a bunch of "fingers"! Tim Beatley (2000) has commended Copenhagen for developing “the very successful model of high density satellite communities oriented around metro and suburban rail lines”. Wright talks of the dispersed kind of urbanisation which falls from grace when scrutinized by the general public. It also leaves the planners disillusioned substantially because such a dispersive urban model alienates people and communities alike from each other making everyone an island in him or herself. If viewed in the current context, it can be termed a threat to civilisation as it not only lead to land use segregation, but is also a threat to open spaces while demanding extra energy usage, lot more air and noise pollution, and diminished or absent cultural and social integration, responsibility and tolerance for collective good. While the Finger Plan still rules the roost in Copenhagen, Broadacre City didn't leave any impact that could be termed a discernible on anything, a person or a city, neither until the architect's death in 1959 nor afterward. In term of population density - something that gives cities like Copenhagen meaning - Broadacre city hardly deserved what the architect had named it. Its per acre density would be an average 5 people, whereas average per acre urban density of a city is at least 15 people. Clearly it was not even radically near to a city concept. While the Finger Plan was primarily based on proper land use patterns, Wright's plan groped for it all. Whatever the Finger Plan has given Copenhagen is because of cooperation as the basic element in each activity, Broadacre City concept lacked it since it showed more of individualism rather than cooperation. Individuals would practically go berserk building their houses against norms and as per their whims, using materials that are not allowed, and creating rules around their 1-acre ground just on their own. Critics like Witold Rybczynski have snubbed Wright's city as an "embarrassing foible of an aging master". It was probably because Wright's concept was not social; it was based on a random, dispersive pattern. While Wright's Broadacre City does not really seem an apt object of comparison to Copenhagen's Finger Plan, what, however, could be of interest is to introspect what led Wright to think of a city like this. Wright is believed to have deep interest in geometry and he was an agrarian society product. His interest in architecture could have been possibly fuelled by his interest in geometry. Wright in his quest for open spaces and freedom they provide seems to have been wondering on pressures exerted by cities on a human being; pressures of rent, pressures of money and pressures of traffic etc. When one tries to catch up with city speed, he felt, actually loses his individuality in the process. So why should one live in cities when he can have an equal opportunity to live away from it. Averse to the centralisation concept on which cities are based, he opined that it was necessary at one point of time, but as technology advances and one can have the same facilities everywhere there was hardly any difference living in a city or a couple of miles away from it. The Finger Plan is often referred to in instances of urban planning, whereas Broadacre City is seldom mentioned. There are hardly any members in the town planning domain that have accepted Wright's concept in its entirety, though some principles are taken for consideration. For example, Wright's model establishes a well-knit relationship between work, home and recreation. A Wright critic, Stephen Grabow, has remarked that Wright did not pay any attention to the complexity of life which is dynamic in nature and that his assumptions on locating individually physically at a distance was going to solve a person's functional problems. To bring about the comparison again, the Finger Plan in Copenhagen addressed a number of urban development issues, and looked into the ones that were overlooked before, in subsequent amendments. Broadacre concept did, of course address issues as well, but overlooked and actually left unanswered many others. While the former was an elaborate plan with a vision, the latter was one with a limited foresight. Conclusion The Finger Plan, as it was designed in 1947, provided a strategic development plan for Copenhagen, along what came to be known as five fingers. These fingers emerge from a central Copenhagen, considered to be a densely populated palm and a typical urban fabric of the city. The palm was developed such that the green wedges between the gaps of these fingers were earmarked for recreational and agricultural use. The plan has guided and determined the development around Copenhagen through the last six decades and has stood the test of time by surviving a planning system that was once chaotic, a wide framework of institutions and services, and an era that was turbulent and economic growth that was rapid. In short it has gone beyond the expectations of both its developers Rasmussen and Bredsdorff and contemporary town planners. The plan has demonstrated how, despite urbanisation, land use can be effective for all – recreational, agricultural and commercial purposes. Copenhagen's urban planning has witnessed a number of milestones in urban planning practice and it can be said that each milestone has been able to fulfill the missions and visions as laid out by the plan many decades ago. References Antrop, M. (2004). Landscape change and urbanization process in Europe. Landscape and Urban Planning 67: 9-26. Andersen, H.T., Hansen, F. & Jørgensen, J. (2002). The fall and rise of the metropolitan government in Copenhagen. Geojournal 58: 45-52. Andersen, H.T. & Jørgensen, J. (1995). City profile Copenhagen. Cities 12(1): 13-22. Beatley, T. (2000). Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities. Island Press: Washington, DC. Bredsdorff P, Boertmann, M, Draiby R, Lyager P, Nyvig A, Rasmussen D & Teisen F. (1947). Skitseforslag til Egnsplan for Storkøbenhavn. Teknisk kontor for udvalget til planlægning af Københavnsegnen. (In Danish) Castells, M, (1977). The Urban Question. London, Edward Arnold Grabow, S. (1977). “Frank Lloyd Wright and the American City: The Broadacres Debate” in The American Institute of Planners Journal, April 1977, pp 115-123 Hansen, H & Winther, L. (2006). The Heterogeneous (Post-) Industrial Landscape of Copenhagen: Location dynamics and division of labor. Paper presented at the 6th European Urban and Regional Studies Conference, Roskilde 21-24 September 2006. Frost, L. (1991). The New Urban Frontier: Urbanisation and City-Building in Australasia and the American West. New South Wales University Press: Kensington, NSW. Fishman, R. (1987). Bourgeois Utopias: The Rise and Fall of Suburbia. Basic Books: New York. Frampton, K. (1992). Modern Architecture: A Critical History. 3rd ed. Rev. Thames and Hudson: London. Harvey, D. (1973). Social Justice and the City. Arnold. London. Harvey, D. (1978). The Urban Process under Capitalism: A Framework for Analysis. International Journal of Urban and Regional research. Jensen, K. (1984). Hovedstadens grønne kiler. Hovedstadsrådet og planstyrelsen, København. Matthiessen, C. W. (1999). Examples of plans and planning systems changes. Danish Journal of Geography, Special issue 1: 125-132. Matthiessen, C.W. (1985). Danske byers vækst. Atlas over Danmark serieII bind 3. Reitzel, Copenhagen. Præstholm, S. & Kristensen, S. P. (2004). Rural innovation in the urban fringe agricultural landscape in Sound region. TAPAS Working Paper 2004:01. Department of Geography, University of Copenhagen Pedersen, P. O. (1983). Vandringerne og den regionale udvikling. Sydjysk Universitetsforlag. Esbjerg 1983. Ravesteyn N, Hornis W, Verwest F & Thorborg H. (2005). Het gras bij de Buren. Het rol van planning bij de bescherming van groenengebieden in Denemarken en Engeland. NAI Uitgevers Rotterdam, Ruimtelijk Planbureau, Den Haag. Schrijnen, P.M. (2000). Infrastructure networks and redgreen patterns in city regions. Landscape and Urban Planning 48: 191-204. Hugo, G., et al. (1997). Rethinking the ASGC: Some Conceptual and Practical Issues. National Key Centre for Teaching and Research in Social Applications of Geographical Systems, University of Adelaide: Adelaide. Read More