NØRREPORT
Flux Transportation
Saurav V. Ayyagari
INTRODUCTION
A universal principle from bacteria to planets dictates that entropy flows not randomly but will trend toward the more efficient path. We interpret these phenomena as naturally optimized systems that we intuitively observe and emulate. However, humans are the exception in this universe; as we grow, move, and interact, we burden and break natural systems. As technology developed from the wheel to the airplane, the time and cost it took to communicate and travel significantly reduced. Despite our adoption of technology to accommodate our unlimited demands of work and life, our geographical context still determines the opportunities and threats to our artificial systems. Theoretically, even if we had unlimited space, it would still not be ideal to sprawl haphazardly because humans desire social interaction. Among the many advantages of densified living, conscientious planners should demarcate and agglomerate appropriately such that the character of space is not nullified. Elementary transportation projects which prioritize automobiles often disregard the social constraint just so more people move faster. On the other hand, the urban centers of Copenhagen and Berlin are seamlessly woven with buses, trams, and subways to universally afford commuters diverse means of transit. Flux transportation is an urban theory to reintegrate social character as an essential modular facility to ensure public transit networks are diverse and resilient. Practically, however, these concepts are never as optimized as proposed because entropy will override any artificial system. The 2015 renovation of Nørreport Station by Cobe architects marks an ideological reprioritization of pedestrians and cyclists in Copenhagen’s central Indre By district. The cyclist density is one of the highest in the world, so even Nørreport Station’s innovative bicycle bed concept is often crowded.
Although Nørreport Station may lack infrastructural transport capacity, this station still adequately facilitates modular flux priorities and integrates the urban fabric of Copenhagen.
CONCEPT
To work, to school, to park, to eat, to home, at least 250,000 passengers commute daily through Nørreport Station making it the busiest train depot in Denmark. (Cobe) Between the medieval city and the lively neighborhood Norrebro, this station resides in the historic beating heart of Copenhagen busiest geographic intersection. (Archello) Though this station existed here since 1918, these photographs [Images 3,4] show how the square was originally very open to cyclists and pedestrians; however, cars soon dominated this popular urban center. (Cobe) The first diagram [Image 5] shows how the adjacent streets isolate flow and congest the station, now the second diagram [Image 6] examines the conceptual ease of opening the station’s eastern edge to Norrebro so the commuters could directly spill into the homogenous
urban fabric. These gridlocking streets were a major constraint and Copenhagen’s progressive urban development standards enable the vision of the station to express itself on a much larger scale in Norrebro rather than just functioning within its site boundaries. Unilaterally, the grid of Los Angeles is definitive proof of cities will congested if they sprawl too far. The American automobile infrastructure dominates and interrupts every urban space disregarding the social fabric and rendering rich walkable neighborhoods into inaccessible enclaves. Emerging first in Parisian suburbs but then implemented across the United States of America, Corbusier’s modernist transport theory is increasingly an unfeasible burden on the public domain. Ecological emissions, traffic, and operational hazards are all threats inextricably caused by an overreliance on cars in cities. On the other hand, one may not simply rely on trains, there will always be commutes that require a last mile solution or even more autonomy where train infrastructure becomes simply too expensive to develop. For example, central stations
like the Berlin Hauptbahnhof means costing half a billion euros even if they operate with highly efficient transit capacity and support a rich interior commercial complex. Both Nørreport Station and the Berlin Hauptbahnhof exemplify excellent applications of flux infrastructure; however, as a central station Nørreport Station operates much more as an urban plaza than an efficient megastructure. Functionally and physically this space operates now much more as a town square than a train station. To craft resilient public space, it should be integrated with its context. However, to what extent can you adapt the utilitarian function of transport infrastructure into a plaza? For the sake of urban flux, integration must Cobe compromise the transit efficacy of Nørreport Station?
Despite its practical implications, Cobe employed this radical expression of flux transportation infrastructure in the heart of Copenhagen. Simply stated, Cobe’s critical design intent was to redefine “public infrastructure as public space” and vice versa. Thus, as a theoretical interpretation of flux infrastructure Nørreport Station distinctly mobilizes and reinvigorates the heart of Copenhagen by prioritizing the accessibility and modularity of the program in its urban context.
EXPERIENCE
Experiencing architecture step by step and intentionally engaging with its program unveils so much more of the architecture’s practical implications. Presenting about the station in its critical intersection as people rush past you on foot and bike afforded me the opportunity to personify the conceptual circulation diagrams from a subjective perspective. When the architectural theory is literally brought to life, there is no better visual aid. It is an intuitive nature of humans to critique the opportunity and constraints of space. When a space like the Karen Blixen Pads were empty despite its intentional approach to activity, it compels us
to improvise and propose moments. Essentially the goal of architects is to craft sublime moments by developing systems of space. Here it should be easy to follow the natural system of pedestrian traffic; however, there are a few critical spaces where I thought the station deserved salutation and others improvisation. Every project exposes when translating a concept from paper to ground. Here in Nørreport, I expressed my sentiment that relative to other larger central stations, it feels discrete. In both senses that it is formally understated but also functions discontinuously as multiple objects in a plaza rather than one station. Though it may have been the critical design intent of Cobe to adapt this station as close as possible to the urban context, some instances can be slightly improvised to
reinfrom a more intuitive hierarchy. Of course, you don’t need a sign on every corner informing the average citizen where to board, but soft implications are helpful. Though the plan is directly translated from the diagram of circulation, it helps to demarcate lanes of circulation speed. For example, I was rushing to meet up with the group on my bike, as I entered the plaza, I immediately felt the prioritization of the pedestrian and wanted to park my bike as soon as possible in one of the many bicycle beds after almost bumping into a pedestrian. However, the beds were very crowded to lock my bicycle. On that day, though that system was overburdened, most of the bikes were still parked close enough to the bed because there was a socially established hierarchical opportunity
to park bikes respectively. Moreover, an improvisation was to stamp the curvilinear organic circulation of the plaza on the bike racks like concentric ellipses. Hierarchy is important to define social participatory patterns but also spatial optimization. Cobe arranged the station’s six pavilions and nine “bicycle beds” comfortably “between the main flow lines without disrupting the natural flow of movement.” () similar to OMA’s organic axial circulation approach. The circulation diagram directly translates to the station’s plan; however, to bridge this natural system with the existing road infrastructure, the plaza is much wider along the central axis of Frederiksbrogadde. I gave my presentation in the central intersection of the plaza and could evidently gesture toward every axis and viewpoint from there, suggesting that the flux circulation concept works even when the plaza does not have definitive limiting adjacencies. There across from me, my classmates sat on a bench around an unassuming pillar; however, this pillar is one of many ventilation shafts that provides many advantages. Primarily, it is a core function to expose the subway to as much ventilated natural air and light as possible. Secondarily, the wrapped bench establishes a slower exterior activity space between the pavilions and the bicycle beds. Moreover, when combining the ventilation and seating
function this space is coincidentally much warmer in the winter. In New York and Chicago, homeless people usually find subway vents as the best places to stay during the harsh winters. Though New York invested antithetically in unethical anti-homeless architecture to keep their subway stations secure, Copenhagen embraces that coincidental opportunity. Nevertheless, these pillars also light up the plaza at night to ensure the plaza is safe. Cobe specially contracted Gottlieb Pauldan Architects to light Nørreport Station after they won the competition to craft an award-winning night atmosphere in the plaza and also ensure its safety. Even if crime is much lower in Copenhagen, security must still be considered simply because can be no discrete security thresholds when intentionally opening the station to the entire urban context. Subjectively, I would also say that the station is expressly planar. Apart from the street level and the sub-transit level, the whole space is homogenous. This is also reflected in the form of the pavilions, as they protrude over the plaza and attract people to core functional and commercial activity spaces. I explored other competition entries for the Nørreport Station and found that introducing the bicycle beds may be a good solution to promote an open homogenous level, but absolving the bikes from the ground entirely and raising them onto the roof datum
would reduce a lot of the hassle of parking or cycling across the station. In Cobe’s project, the roofs as seen from aerial shots are extensive green roofs, but if the integration of this flux station extended up another datum it could optimally function as a slowerpaced attraction for commuters or the average Dane. This competition entry by Sebastian ANDERSEN, Ann CHRISTENSEN, Thomas HÅKONSSON, and Kristian OVERBY in 2010 exemplifies these opportunities precisely as it interprets Nørreport Station along many of the same guidelines as Cobe’s final project.
CONCLUSION
Nørreport Station is a homogenous amalgamation of six pavilions that exemplify how transit can fully integrate its urban context and adequately facilitate many modes of flux program and transit. The systems implemented here mimic the natural flow of people circulating and thus are inherently more efficient even if it lacks the capacity of larger urban transit centers. Here the station is an ensemble of shoes and wheels performing an idiosyncratic harmony where chaos and danger once dominated. Cobe’s interpretation of flux transportation may be radical but ensuring safe and convenient activity ties the project’s loose ends together.
REFERENCES
Archdaily, “Nørreport Station / Gottlieb Paludan Architects + Cobe”, Archdaily, 2022 <https://www.archdaily. com/794012/norreport-stationgottlieb-paludan-architects-plus-cobearchitects> [Accessed 21 August 2022]
Archello, “Nørreport Station | Cobe | Archello”, Archello, 2022 <https:// archello.com/project/norreportstation> [Accessed 21 August 2022]
Cobe, “Cobe - Nørreport Station”, Cobe. Dk, 2022 <https://cobe.dk/place/ norreport-station> [Accessed 21 August 2022]
Scheurer, Jan. “Measuring Copenhagen’s public transport accessibility and network performance in a European context.” Proceedings from the Annual Transport Conference at Aalborg University. Vol. 20. No. 1. 2013.
Sebastian ANDERSEN, Ann CHRISTENSEN, Thomas HÅKONSSON, and Kristian OVERBY, “THE NEW Nørreport | The Transit System of the Network City”, supervised by Ole B. JENSEN, Simon Wind, 2010 <http:// www.kristianoverby.dk/> [Accessed 21 August 2022]