KADK :: IBBL :: MASTER PROGRAMME :: USC by IBBL

IBBL

USC MASTER PROGRAMME URBANISM & SOCIETAL CHANGE 21/22

PUBLISHED BY The Royal Danish Academy Architecture, Design and Conservation School of Architecture 21/22 Master Programme URBANISM AND SOCIETAL CHANGE USC EDITORS Deane Simpson EDITORIAL ASSISTANT Luca Fauciglietti DESIGN Cameron Clarke Susanne Eeg Luca Fauciglietti PRINT PRinfoParitas A/S, Rødovre TYPOGRAPHY Georgia Akzidenz WorkSans PAPER Color Copy 250 g, cover Offset 120 g, content PRINT 200 copies ©2021

URBANISM & SOCIE CH ETAL ANGE URBA ANISM & SOCIE TAL CHANGE RBANISM U M & SOCIETAL CHA ANGE URBANISM & SOCIETAL HANGE C E URBA NISM & SOC CIETAL CHANGE UR BANISM & OCIETA S AL CHANGE URBANI

The Blended City

Urbanism & Societal Change The Royal Danish Academy - Architecture, Design, Conservation 2021 / 22

Urbanism & Societal Change is based upon the following ambitions: 1. to embed the architectural & urban project within the dynamic conditions of contemporary society 2. to couple research and design within the project process 3. to train future architects as leading actors in the material production of a sustainable and equitable society.

Profound societal transformations, ranging from political and economic to demographic shifts, and altered resource availability to climatic change indicate that we can no longer expect the future conditions of the discipline to be an extrapolation of the past. These emerging conditions challenge conventional understandings of urban spatial organization and the role of the architect and planner. In this context, the capacity of architects to identify, understand and respond to these new conditions affecting the discipline becomes increasingly crucial.

Year Statement

Autumn 2021

Spring 2022

Reading List

The Blended City: Toward a Counter-‘Ghettoplan’

The Blended City: Toward a Counter-‘Lynetteholmen’

Texts & Lexicon

General Programme Information 54 Teachers & Collaborators

Studio Culture

Previous Semester Catalogue Thematics & Student Work

106

Political rally, municipal election, Copenhagen - 2017

Year Statement 2021/22 The Blended and Mixed City During the 2021/22 academic year, USC will explore the thematic of the ‘blended/mixed city’ – a notion associated with progressive visions of socially inclusive urbanity, but also one connected with recent problematic political developments. The notion will be examined in the context of an emerging narrative that frames the contemporary city – even in a Nordic and Danish ‘welfare city’ setting – as a site of heightened inequality, which has tended to materialise in increasing spatial sorting and segregation. The issue of segregated or sorted cities is not only a recent European or North American phenomenon, but one with a diverse historical and geographical lineage. From masterplanned racially-divided colonial cities in Africa developed from the 18th and 19th centuries; to the largely unplanned but spatially concentrated conditions of the working class in early industrial Manchester described by Frederich Engels (1845); to the racial and classbased segregations of Chicago studied by the

Chicago school of sociology in the early 20th century; to the vivid socio-spatial disparities of the contemporary megacities of the global south. In the last decades, an increasingly neoliberal economic and urban development regime has been identified as one of the key drivers for heighted social-spatial segregation in our contemporary cities (Harvey 1989; Kaminer 2011; Florida 2017). This development has been presented as one amongst several explanations of sorting and segregation dynamics, from past or present urban planning policy, to housing and immigration policy; from social and cultural stigma, systemic racism and classism, to educational policy and service delivery; and from changing spatial and cultural imaginaries of the good life, to the mechanations of the construction and real estate industries. These dynamics and conditions highlight a complex interplay between what Richard Sennett describes as the Cité (the lived life of the city), and the Ville (the physical built space of the city, encompassing housing, institutions, public space, mobility space, infrastructural space and so forth.)

From the perspective of progressive utopianism and urban theory, the notion of social blending or mixing has been a central element in the conceptualisation of the metropolis – with social and spatial segregation framed as anathema to societal cohesion and ‘good’ urban ethics. From Hartmut Häussermann’s notion of the city as an “integration machine” to broader concepts such as the ‘good city’ or ‘city of relatedness’ (Amin), the ‘tolerant city’ (Florida), the ‘open city’ (Christiaanse), the ‘democratic city’ (Sennett) – and perhaps more poetically in terms of Doreen Massey’s understanding of the city as a setting for civic ‘throwntogetherness.’ These different conceptions of the city position a key role for urban space in its capacity to absorb and interface diverse social groups within contemporary urban settings. Historically, practitioners of the city have consciously developed spatial frameworks that could support social mixing and integration, and work against social segregation. New York’s Central Park, for example, was consciously conceived of by its designer Frederick Law Olmsted, as an inclusive democratic space that would support the coexistence and

The Mall, Central Park, New York, Frederich Olmsted - ca.1897

Plan for Barcelona, Ildefons Cerdá- 1859

integration in public space of diverse social and ethnic groups. The Barcelona urban grid was conceptualised by Ildefons Cerdá as a common democratic urban fabric that would erode the spatial distinction between poor and affluent quarters – integrating them into a common spatial structure. Contemporary practices of urban planning, urban design and architecture have deployed a range of tools in attempting to achieve social mixity within spatial proximity. From mixed and diversified housing tenures within buildings, blocks or neighbourhoods, including for example, minimum prescribed social (almene) housing percentages within local plans; to public school redistricting to produce more diverse social mixes within the everyday social networks of the school community; to targeted investments in deprived areas lifting the quality of space and public services; to public housing policies requiring individual housing estates to exhibit the same percentage of ethnic composition as the national population as a whole. Within the political sphere in Denmark, the theme of the blended city has been a recurring one in recent years, both at a national and municipal level. This has in

Mapping of Chicago immigrant neighbourhoods, Florence Kelley - 1895

part been in response to emerging housing unaffordability and gentrification in the larger cities – linked to increasing inequality and spatial segregation. The public and political debate has also focused on social (almene) housing areas with varying degrees of social vulnerability. An important aspect of this has been the introduction of the controversial and problematically-labelled ‘ghetto-list’ in 2010, which identifies on a yearly basis housing areas of concern by resident criteria such as labour market participation, criminality, education, income, and ‘non-western’ background. In the context of a transforming political landscape in which parties are competing to attract an influential bloc of anti-immigration voters, the politicization of these areas has intensified (Skifter Andersen 2021). In 2018, former prime minister Lars Løkke’s New Year speech addressed ‘ghetto-list’ areas as “holes in the map of Denmark,” arguing that these “parallel societies” should be completely dismantled. The March 2018 government proposal ‘A Denmark without parallel societies: No ghettos by 2030’ frames a radical and controversial set of policies that will severely impact the physical and social composition of

the areas. Despite the 2019 election marking a shift in government from center-right to center-left, the so-called ‘ghetto-pakke’ moves forward with government support, while the rhetorics of the ‘blended city’ remain at the center of the public arguments behind the plan. Amongst a broad range of contested initiatives, the plan imposes a reduced proportion of social housing dwellings in so-called ‘hardghetto’ areas to a maximum of 40% through demolition, new construction and the sale of social housing to private investors. Critics have challenged the resulting displacement of ca.11,000 residents from existing communities and the vicinity of the job market, and other impacts. These include the further erosion of the affordable social housing sector; the overruling of citizen-democracy; and the irresponsible scale and speed of transformation. Concerns have been raised as to whether the blended city arguments have been co-opted for economic gain to allow the privatization of common housing goods. Critics have asked why the application of the blended city is not applied evenly across more affluent urban districts. In general, researchers working with

these areas have fundamentally challenged the scientific assumptions and premise behind the plan, along with its anticipated impact (Skifter Andersen 2021). By immersing ourselves in the complexities and nuances of this setting, its actors, proposals and debates, the studio will work in Autumn 2021 on exploring counter proposals to the ‘ghetto-pakke.’ This effort will pose a number of questions. Are all forms of urban blending equally desireable? Are there preferred or undesireable forms, scales and composition of blending? What roles can spatial and material environments play in this – and what are their limitations in tackling the stated social challenges? In the Spring 2022 semester, the focus of the studio will shift to another perspective related to the thematic of the blended city – the controversial top-down planning proposal for the island of Lynetteholmen for 35,000 residents off the coast of Copenhagen. Unveiled by the prime minister, ministers and mayor of Copenhagen in 2018 – it was framed as an elegant single solution to four challenges – climate security, affordable

Segregation Analysis,

housing, expansion of metro infrastructure, and a new highway tunnel. An urgency has been attached to the project based on the surplus of construction-site excavation soil being produced within the municipality that needed a place to go, and that could in turn be sold as land afterwards to supposedly produce a ‘free island’ – to quote the transport, building and housing minister at the time. The state and municipal-owned developer ‘By og Havn’ has been charged with delivering this project following a continuation of its ‘landvalue capture’ model of urban development. – a model involving the development and selling off of publicly owned lands as a way to finance metro infrastructure. This model however has been criticised by a number of urban experts for the type of urban development it is producing, in part related to the pressure it is under to sell to the highest bidder to pay off large infrastructural debts. Based on a dominance of expensive luxury dwellings, By og Havn’s most active area of current development, Nordhavn, is described by a prominent critic, as a ‘ghetto of affluence.’ As a result, there are also concerns from a number of actors

as to whether Lynetteholmen will perpetuate Nordhavn’s urban pattern of social exclusivity. Procedurally, the rapid actions of By og Havn in moving through public hearings and environmental and planning approval processes have raised a wide range of concerns. Criticisms have been directed toward: the lack of transparency and inclusivity in the democratic process; the project’s environmental impact; the impact on the city of the scale and time period of construction; the implications of the strategic fragmentation of the project into smaller components that are not considered integrally; the economic risk and cost overrun tendency associated with mega projects running over long periods of time; scepticism over arguments that the increase in number of dwellings will contribute to housing affordability; questions as to whether investment in a road tunnel is relevant in a time of climate emergency; and concerns over whether this approach is the best way to climate-secure Copenhagen. And a not irrelevant theme in the public’s perception of the project is the emerging reality that the terms that the project was sold on – ‘an island for free’ – were in fact false.

In the Spring 2022 semester, students will be tasked with developing proposals for a ‘counter-Lynetteholmen’ in the form of coherent spatial alternatives (not necessarily in the form of islands, and not necessarily on the current location) at the urban strategic scale; at the neighbourhood scale, and at the architectural scale that respond to research, experts, public debate, and the challenges and opportunities at hand. Through these two investigations during the academic year of 2021/22 – addressing spatial concentrations of the vulnerable in the autumn, and the affluent in the spring – we see the opportunity to unfold a more nuanced, qualified and critical exploration of the spaces of the blended or mixed city at the intersection of the spatial and the social; and in doing so, triggering further debate and reflection around these controversial existing proposals for urban development.

Autumn 2021

The Blended City: Toward a Counter‘Ghettoplan’ 1st Semester (30 ECTS points) 3rd Semester (20 ECTS points)

This semester we will work within the overall urban thematic of the academic year: the ‘blended/mixed city’ – a notion that has been associated with both progressive utopianism and cynical opportunism. This semester, students will be asked to study the proposals and public debates around the Government’s so-called ‘ghettoplan’ – a plan dedicated to eliminating so-called unblended ‘holes in the map of Denmark’. Students will be tasked with developing a counter-‘plan’ in the form of coherent spatial alternatives at the urban strategic scale; at the neighbourhood scale, and at the architectural scale that respond to the research, and the challenges and opportunities at hand. The work will be conducted in dialogue with relevant public, private and civic sector actors. The general pedagogical approach is centred upon a feedback loop between research and design supported by a combination of

Cover: “A Denmark without parallel societies” - 2018

studios and courses. Assignments, resulting in organizational and spatial design proposals that are largely self-programmed, are carried out at registers and scales spanning from the architectural intervention, and urban design, to the strategic urban plan. Emphasis will be placed on practices of engaging societal challenges through precisely framed research polemics and articulated design proposals. In addition to the main research-design studio component of the semester, supporting course elements involve a range of lectures, readings, discussions, assignments etc.

Rendering of Tingbjerg intervention, SLA/Vandkunsten - 2020

Mjølnerparken residents demonstrating against the ‘ghettopakke’ - 2019

Learning Outcomes (Knowledge, skills and competences) 1st Semester • knowledge related to history, theory and discourse, and their application, at the intersection of architecture/urbanism and issues of urban and societal transformation: • insights into the complex landscape of actors and dynamics in the production of architecture and urbanism; • knowledge and skills of research and analysis allowing comprehension, synthesis and visualization of complex conditions of societal change – and the ability to translate/reformulate these conditions in the form of architectural and urban programs within specific contexts; • knowledge and skills in the creative development and production of a sociospatial project at architectural and urban scales ranging from designing building envelopes and urban design to strategic planning. This includes insights and skills in the development of spatial, organisational and strategic concepts through iterative exploration and risk-taking, and their articulation in relevant and compelling

formats of architectural and communication and visualisation.

urban

3rd semester • Same learning outcomes as Semester 1, but with the following supplementary outcomes (representing progression from previous semesters): • competencies related to relevant history, theory and discourse, and their application, • competencies addressing the complex landscape of actors and dynamics in the production of architecture and urbanism, and the relevant competencies related to architecture / planning system practices / technologies that steer / support them; • developed competencies in the iterative creative development and production of the architectural and urban project ranging from designing building envelopes and urban design to strategic planning. This includes relevant competencies in the development of spatial, organisational and strategic concepts through iterative exploration and risk-taking, and their high level of development and articulation in relevant mediums and materialisations;

• developed capacity to work with high degrees of complexity. Please note: as this program for third semester students constitutes 20 ECTS points – in contrast to those in their first semester who take 30 ECTS points – this is largely a function of reduced course obligations. Syllabus: Approx. 300 pages (titles given in the semester plan) Submission requirements: Background and in depth research/ identification and analysis of key issues. Infographics and visual communication of the research. Programmatic development. Formulation of the design scenario and its argumentation. Presentation of the intervention with models, drawings and visualisations; and presentation of its transformation in relation to the planning system framework, presented with planning documents including drawings and other visual material. Method of assessment: Oral examination 30 min. Grading: 7-point grading scale Censor: Internal

Jens Kramer Mikkelsen of NREP with Tingbjerg model - 2019

IBBL shared courses (LAND, USC & ART) (1st Semester only) Spatial Planning I Introduction to the history, theory and contemporary challenges to urban and landscape planning. The course is a combination of readings in groups each afternoon preparing questions for the 3 lectures the following morning and the debate among students and lecturers mid-day. The course is introductory, laying the foundation for insight into and understanding of the history, most important theories and current challenges within urban planning and landscape architecture, including the specific contributions to the field from architecture through aesthetically based methods and through the production of futures. Lectures introduces to background and conditions for planning, amo the formation of DK-landscape, history of garden art, the historic development of cities and contemporary challenges, aestical discourses in architectural planning as well as the role that produced futures hold in architecture and planning; utopias, visions, scenarios, plans etc. Workload: Presence all days are expected. 4-6

texts are read each day in the groups, however the individual student reads and presents 3045 pages a day, but will through the readingrelay in the groups get acquaintance with btw. 400-600 pages. Language: All lectures are in English, and 90% of texts are in English, a few historic documents on DK-planning is only available in Danish. English spoken students only read English texts, but will get aquanted with the Danish texts through the reading-relays. Spatial Planning I Learning Outcomes Knowledge of the history of and discourse of urban- and landscape planning from the antique city-state to the industrialised and post-industrialised mega-cities. Insight into and understanding of contemporary challenges to the Danish Planning System, including issues of climate and biodiversity and demographic challenges. Insights into the specific contributions to planning from the architectural profession Insight into how futures are produced and stabilized through discourses and materialisations and visuals. An overall insight into the most current

theories and paradigms within the topic of the course. GIS part 1: Introduction to research, analysis, and visualisation of urban conditions and dynamics through geographical information systems (GIS) GIS part 1 Learning Outcomes Acquaintance with GIS, knowledge of its network and structure Skills in setting up maps and accessing data. Ability to apply GIS in ongoing projects Attendance requirements: Full attendance and participation in all activities is expected.

Ghetto Urbanism in Early Modern Venice, Map, Giovanni Merlos - 1676

Autumn 2021 Written Thesis

3rd Semester (10 ECTS points)

The course encompasses introductions to the basics of scientific methods, to academic writing and to writing as reflection on and coproducer of architectural statements. The course is dedicated to the production of a predominantly written document with graphical support. The assignment is a reflection concerning a contemporary architectural, artistic and/or societal problematic of relevance. It can either be conducted as a pre-work for a following programmatic text, with a professional reflection on a contemporary problematic related to the program/line, or it can be a written reflection directly related to the students 3rd semester project and its appearance, concretion, ways of operating and its architectural/artistic context. The course contains lectures, reading-circles and -pairs, seminars on writing as well as individual teaching over the run of the semester. Please note: he content of the course is taught

in English. Assignments are to be written in English. Learning Outcomes (Knowledge, skills and competences) • Knowledge, skills and competencies in the themes and methods of academic text writing. • To develop and structure a text as an instrument for thinking and reflection over problematics related to architecture/ urbanism/landscape architecture • To formulate and present a problematic and to account for its background and relevant context • To understand the role of empirics in a scientific text, to gather data relevant to the theme/problematic at hand and to elaborate these as empirics • To point to and make use of a theoretical and/or historical horizon • To conduct an analysis • To form and use arguments and to discuss research including relevant scientific findings. • To establish an abstract and to use references etc. • To combine theme, empirics, theory

and analysis in a way that allows for comprehension, synthesis and visualization of the project problematic.and • Critical insights into the possible role of the architectural/urban/landscape program/ brief. • Attendance requirements: • Full attendance and participation in all activities is expected. Syllabus: Max 300 pages. Submission requirements: Written paper, 10-15 pages Submission deadline: 21st December 2021 Method of assessment: Written paper, 10-15 pages Grading: Danish 7-point grading scale Censor: External

By og Havn, rendering of Lynetteholmen for press meeting - 2018

Spring 2022

Climatic Urbanism in a Hostile Context 2nd Semester (30 ECTS points)

This semester will work within the overall urban thematic of the academic year: the ‘blended/mixed city’ – a notion that has been associated with both progressive utopianism and cynical opportunism. This semester, students will be asked to study the proposals and public debates around Copenhagen and By og Havn’s plan for Lynetteholmen – a plan for a so-called ‘island for free’ dedicated to supposedly addressing four challenges to Copenhagen: climate security, affordable housing, expansion of metro infrastructure, and a new highway tunnel. This will be explored in light of a number of critiques directed toward the mega-project. This includes the critique of the continuation of By og Havn’s ‘land-value capture’ model for producing an unblended ‘ghetto of affluence’ in its recent large scale project: Nordhavn. Students will be tasked with developing a counter-‘Lynetteholmen’ in the form of coherent spatial alternatives (not necessarily in the form of an island) at the urban strategic scale; at the neighbourhood scale, and at the architectural scale that

Lynetteholmen announcement press meeting - 2018

By og Havn presentation of Lynetteholmen - 2020

respond to the research, and the challenges and opportunities at hand. The work will be conducted in dialogue with relevant public, private and civic sector actors. The general pedagogical approach is centred upon a feedback loop between research and design supported by a combination of courses and studios. Design assignments, are carried out at registers and scales spanning from the architectural intervention, and urban design, to the strategic urban plan. Emphasis will be placed on practices of engaging societal challenges through precisely framed research polemics and articulate and artistically developed designs. In addition to the main research-design studio component of the semester, supporting course elements involve a range of lectures, readings, discussions, assignments etc. Learning Outcomes (Knowledge, skills and competences) • Same learning outcomes as Semester 1, but with the following supplementary outcomes (representing progression from previous semesters): • skills related to relevant history, theory and

•

discourse, and their application; knowledge and skills addressing the complex landscape of actors and dynamics in the production of architecture and urbanism, and the relevant competencies related to architecture/planning system practices/technologies that steer/support them – with reflection upon the complex local practice conditions; competencies in research and analysis allowing comprehension, synthesis and visualization of complex conditions of societal change taking place – and the ability to translate / reformulate these conditions in the form of architectural and urban programs and projects within specific contexts; competencies in the creative iterative concept development and production of the architectural, urban project. This includes competencies in the development of spatial, organisational and strategic concepts, and their development and articulation in relevant mediums and materialisations; skills and competency in a range of media of architectural and urban communication and visualisation;

Syllabus: Approx. 300 pages (titles given in the semester plan) Submission requirements: Background and in depth research/ identification and analysis of key issues. Infographics and visual communication of the research. Programmatic development. Formulation of the design scenario and its argumentation. Presentation of the intervention with models, drawings and visualisations; and presentation of its transformation in relation to the planning system framework, presented with planning documents including drawings and other visual material. Method of assessment: Oral examination Grading: 7-point grading scale Censor: Internal

Tredje Natur, Lynetteholmen renderings - 2020

IBBL shared courses (USC & ART) (2nd Semester only) Spatial Planning II Case-based analysis of contemporary examples of urban and landscape planning and their prerequisites The course is a combination of lectures, field research and group work focusing on gaining a deeper understanding of planning in practice through analysis of contemporary cases. Special attention is given to the complex interplay between different stakeholders, paving the way for a critical discussion of central questions of decision making and formal and actual power in urban and landscape planning. While focusing on real-life cases, the course looks at the different roles of the architect in the realm of urban, regional and national urban and landscape planning, whether it is as an officer in municipal or national government, as consultant, adviser or critical researcher. To conclude the course, the students will present a case-based analysis of a contemporary example of urban and/or landscape planning in Denmark.

Spatial Panning II Learning Outcomes • Knowledge related to the interplay between different stakeholders and their influence on the built environment in a context of how the spatial planning system and the theories and paradigms of urban and landscape planning works in practice. • Skills in the methodology of case-bases analysis as a means of gaining insight into planning in practice with a critical perspective on aspects of power and politics, informed by the history and theory of spatial planning. • Competencies in understanding the pathways of decision-making, the practices of planning in municipal and national contexts and the intended and realized consequences of urban and landscape planning and the planning process in a social, political, cultural, financial and technological perspective.

GIS 2, Advanced Advanced research, analysis, and visualisation of urban conditions and dynamics through geographical information systems (GIS); GIS 2 Learning Outcomes Advanced skills in the use and analysis of GISdata. Attendance requirements: Full attendance and participation in all activities is expected.

Reading List Texts & Lexicon Blended City: USC Academic Year 2021/2022 General Readings: Richard Sennett: Building and Dwelling. Ethics for the City, 2018 [excerpts] pp.1-89, 121-143 Tim Rieniets, Jennifer Sigler, Kees Christiaanse, (eds.) Open City: Designing Coexistence, 2009 [excerpts] Tobias Armborst, Daniel D’Oca, Georgeen Theodore / Interboro, The Arsenal of Inclusion and Exclusion, 2017 Bill Bishop, The Big Sort, 2008 [excerpts] Fran Tonkiss, Cities by Design: The Social Life of Urban Form, 2013 [excerpts] Ash Amin, Cities: Reimagining the Urban, 2002 [excerpts] Carl Husemoller Nightingale, Segregation: A Global History of Divided Cities, 2012 [excerpts] Peter Gladoić Håkansson, Investigating Spatial Inequalities: Mobility, Housing and Employment in Scandinavia and South-East Europe, 2019 [excerpts] Sako Musterd, Wim Ostendorf (eds.), Urban Segregation and the Welfare State, 2011 [excerpts] Peter Cachola Schmal, Oliver Elser, and Anna Scheuermann, Making Heimat: Germany Arrival Country, 2016, pp.12-16, 42-55, 176-185

Autumn Semester 2021 Core Readings: Hans Skifter Andersen, Ethnic Spatial Segregation in European Cities, 2019 [excerpts] Regeringen, Et Danmark uden parallelsamfund: Ingen ghettoer i 2030, 2018 Ministeriet for By, Bolig og Landdistrikter, Analyse: Segregering i de fire største danske byområder, 2014 [excerpts] Sidse Martens Gudmand-Høyer, Tom Nielsen, et al, Gellerup, 2020 [excerpts] Niels Bjørn, Arkitektur der forandrer: Fra ghetto til velfungerende byområde (2008) [excerpts] Beck-Danielsen and Stender’s ‘Fra ghetto til blandet by’ 2017 [excerpts] Anunuska Pronkhorst, Michelle Provoost, Wouter Vanstipjout, (eds.) A City of Comings and Goings, 2019, pp. 10-57 Spring Semester 2022 Core Readings: Anna Gasco, Naomi Hanakata, Kees Christiaanse, The Grand Project: Towards Adaptable and Liveable Urban Mega Projects, 2019 [excerpts] Kristoffer Weiss (ed.), Critical City, 2019 [excerpts] Christine Boyer et al (eds.), Urban Asymmetries, 2011 [excerpts]

USC Studio, Bejing Semester - 2019

General Programme Information Profound societal transformations, ranging from shifts in economic and demographic conditions, to altered resource availability, to the massive spatial implications of climatic change indicate that we can no longer expect the future conditions of the discipline to be an extrapolation of the past. These emerging conditions challenge conventional understandings of spatial organization and the role of the architect and planner. In this context, the capacity of architects to identify and understand these evolving conditions affecting the discipline, and to provide new visions for our collective future, becomes increasingly crucial. As a result, much of the program involves research-based teaching in which the student is herself/himself generating proposals and knowledge related to specific thematics, conditions, contexts, and programs that represent key societal changes and challenges.

Studio Models, 2019

In addition to foundational knowledge in architectural and urban theory, history, representational techniques, design methods, form-making, strategic-development, systemic thinking, etc.; students at USC can expect to learn research methods, and rhetorical formats, and spatial visions formulation as a basis to contribute novel spatial responses to the evolving conditions of our time.

A key characteristic of the program is that each semester’s project work is framed less according to conventional scalar categories, and more based on thematic approaches to critical societal changes. The themes offer a range of entry points to design and planning proposals that might range in scale from that of the building, to that of urban space or the territory. Past thematics have included: the urban implications of population aging; climate change focusing on spatial adaptation to predicted sea-level rise; vulnerable housing areas and associated challenges of sociospatial segregation. The structure of the two-year, four-semester program can be unfolded as follows: Semester one is focused on developing broad knowledge and competencies in the methods and approaches that the program employs. Project work is based in a Copenhagen context, exploiting local knowledge and a local network of collaborators including local academics, practitioners, and the Municipality of Copenhagen. First and second year students work together in this semester, typically working in groups of two or three students. The

second semester focuses on a foreign context undergoing dynamic transformation, to which the studio conducts an in-depth study tour. These settings are intended both as unknown environments to challenge the students, and to allow them to reflect on conditions in their own ‘home’ contexts. Previous second semester sites have included Riga/Tallinn, and Beijing – and have involved exchanges and on-site exhibitions. In this semester, first year students work separately from second year students. (It is also possible for students to take an internship during this semester.) The focus of semester three returns to the local Copenhagen context with the studio mixed between first and third semester students. Third semester students are encouraged to work on projects individually. The program for third semester students is a split semester between the studio project set in the Copenhagen context, and an independent research project. The research project addresses a societal change and a specific context of the student’s choice and forms the basis for the student’s thesis/diploma program. After the first three

semesters of the program, students will have had experience working across scales and modes of production: from architectural design interventions, to urban space or neighbourhood designs, to local plan documents, and spatial strategic plans. The fourth and final semester is dedicated to developing the thesis/diploma project on a societal change, context and program of the student’s selection. Students are expected to deliver a mature, thoroughly iterated and provocative research, program and spatial proposition at the end of their studies. USC is an important part of the Institute of Architecture, Urbanism & Landscape. The programs at the Institute share a geographical frame in the fall-semester, and also a common meta-theme throughout the studyyear. Through these commitments, students are able to exploit and investigate different sets of professional positions, methods and knowledge-bases at IBBL, and the types of problematics that they entail. The institute aims at training graduates who can take on leadership in all of the complex processes of urban development.

Therefore, there is a focus on developing knowledge of what this implies, both at the bachelor level and on the candidate programs.

IBBL's Katrine Lotz introduces 'Atlas of The Copenhagens' launch - 2018

Teachers & Collaborators Studio Tutors Deane Simpson (Wellington, 1971) is an architect, urbanist, professor and leader of Urbanism and Societal Change at the Royal Danish Academy. He is formerly a unit master at AA London, professor at BAS, faculty member at ETH Zürich, and architect with Diller + Scofidio NY. He received his masters from Columbia University NY, and his Phd from ETH Zürich; and is author/coeditor of publications such as The Ciliary Function (2007), Young-Old (2015), The City Between Freedom and Security (2017), Forming Welfare (2017), and Atlas of the Copenhagens (2018). Christine Bjerke (Aarhus, 1987) is an architect, cofounder of the urban think-tank In-Between Economies and editor of www.thefxbeauties.club. She studied at the Royal Danish Academy, and at The Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London, where she received her Diploma of Architecture with Distinction. In addition to teaching at USC, she runs her own company, and is a frequent writer on architecture and design. Morten Kjer Jeppesen (Copenhagen, 1981) architect, urban planner and founder of Arkitekt | Morten Kjer and teaching associate professor at the Royal Danish Academy. He has studied at the ETH in Zürich and the Royal Danish Academy in Copenhagen. His work is focused on urban regeneration strategies, and planning of our suburbs and postindustrial areas. He currently works at Tegnestuen Vandkunsten where he is in charge of several large scale urban planning projects across Scandinavia and Germany.

Michael Asgaard Andersen (Copenhagen, 1973) is an architect and associate professor at the Royal Danish Academy. He was formerly associate professor at Aarhus School of Architecture and Chalmers University of Technology - where he also served as head of the division of Architectural Theory and Method - and visiting scholar at University of Pennsylvania. He received his masters from Columbia University NY and PhD from the Royal Danish Academy and is the author/editor of publications such as Nordic Architects Write (2008), Paradoxes of Appearing (2009), Jørn Utzon (2011/2014), New Nordic (2012), and Bofællesskaber (2021). Tamara Kalantajevska (Riga, 1988) is an architect, working on large scale master plans and visions at Gehl in Copenhagen. Tamara studied at the Royal Danish Academy (Urbanism and Societal Change), Riga Technical University and HafenCity University (Urban Design). In addition to teaching at USC Tamara runs an architectural collective Dinner Group, focused on small scale artistic and architectural projects. Cameron Clarke (Scotland, 1989) is an architect who trained at the Shefield School of Architecture (UK) and at the Royal Danish Academy. His graduating thesis from USC was awarded the 2019 Royal Danish Academy UN scholarship, a nomination for the 2020 EU YTAA Mies van der Rohe Award and publication in Dezeen. He is currently an architect with Morris + Company in Copenhagen. He has previously worked for Sangberg Architcts in Copenhagen, O’Donnell + Tuomey Architects in London and Dublin on projects for the V&A Museum and Sadlers Wells Theatre, and Mikhail Riches Architects where he worked on their 2019 Stirling Prize winning social housing scheme.

Course Leaders Jonna Majgaard Krarup is an architect with specialisation in landscape architecture, and associate professor at the Royal Danish Academy. Jonna has a number of years of practice experience and is formerly head of the Institute of Urban Planning, head of the Centre of Urban Space Research at the Royal Danish Academy, and a visiting associate professor at the Aarhus School of Architecture. She holds a Phd and candidate degree from the Aarhus School of Architecture. Jonna’s ongoing research addresses issues of landscape urbanism and climate change adaptation, with an interest in broader questions of urban ecology. She plays a central role in the Phd school at the Royal Danish Academy, and leads the third semester 10 ECTS course for IBBL students. Joost Grootens (Netherlands, 1970) is architect, graphic designer and founder of Studio Joost Grootens (SJG) – an Amsterdam-based design firm focusing on book design. SJG has received a number of awards including the Rotterdam Design Prize, the World’s Most Beautiful Book Gold Medal, etc. He received his masters in architecture from the Rietveld Academy, Amsterdam. He is the author of I swear I use no art at all (2010). He is currently the head of the Information Design Masters at the Design Academy, Eindhoven, and is a regular workshop/course teacher and collaborator with USC.

On Leave 2021/22 Charles Bessard (Paris, 1970) architect, partner and cofounder Bessards’ Studio and the Powerhouse Company, and teaching associate professor at the Royal Danish Academy. Charles Bessard has realized several awardwinning projects and won the Nycredit Motivation prize. He received his masters from the Ecole Speciale d’Architecture, Paris, his postgraduate masters from the Berlage, Rotterdam, and is currently completing a Phd at the Royal Danish Academy. Co-author of Shifts: Architecture after the 20th Century (2012), and Ouvertures (2011). Simon Sjökvist (Malmö, 1981) is an architect working as project manager at COBE Architects in the fields of urban planning, landscape and building architecture. He is currently in charge of the new Science Museum in Lund. Simon studied at the Royal Danish Academy, and has worked for various European architectural practices. Simon also teaches urban planning at Lund University. Next to his work he is conducting research projects on social housing, and on urban adaptive reuse. Carlos Ramos (Madrid, 1985) architect and educator, currently working at BIG. Graduated with honours at ETSAM, Madrid, his thesis entitled Biomass powerplant and artificial atmosphere stacking in Chelsea, NY has received international recognition. He has worked at studio Herreros, Dorte Mandrup. Arkitektur, Manuel Ocana and dosmasuno, and taught and lectured at ETSAM, IE School of Architecture, UEM, AHO and the Royal Danish Academy.

USC Field Trip, Athens - 2019

Indy Johar

Keller Easterling

Philip Schaerer

Collaborators Past/Present Programme Collaborators

Marco Steinberg

Nicolay Boyadjiev

Chrisopher Roth

Model making at the desk - 2019

Studio Culture For many, much of what is described below may be obvious or self-explanatory. However, as we come from different study backgrounds and environments, it is possible that there are different expectations and cultures associated with study. Therefore, this document attempts to lay out some of the particularities and expectations associated with studying at the Royal Danish Academy, and at USC. It is partly inspired by some of the wise writings of our colleague, Morten Meldgaard. Urbanism and Societal Change (USC) is a masters program at the Royal Danish Academy - Architecture, Design and Conservation. USC is part of the Royal Danish Academy’s Institute for Architecture, Urbanism and Landscape (IBBL) consisting of a bachelor program, three masters programs and researchers – involving around 230 people in total. The institute is the basis for cross- program collaboration and we consistently aim to have collective conversations, events, presentations etc. bridging between both bachelor and master students. IBBL is housed in building 72 (Philip De Langes Allé 11), designed by the accomplished architect, Ferninand Mehldahl in 1883 and now historically listed. It is the responsibility of all of us to take good care of the building and the courtyard. It is important that on an everyday basis, we leave the indoor and outdoor spaces in the same condition or better than when we arrived. In this way, we show each other that we value the environment and community where we spend a large part of our everyday life.

Studying at the Academy Studying architecture at the academy is framed to a large extent as a student-directed study. You are asked to apply your full dedication, commitment, passion, and desire for knowledge and creativity as an active producer of your own education – not as a passive consumer. In these terms, your time at USC should follow the maxim “the more you put into it, the more you get out of it.” We encourage you to avoid apathy or mediocrity, and instead to dive wholeheartedly into the opportunity that study represents; take risks, and accept that you will make mistakes along the way as an essential part of learning and developing. With a tradition going back to 1754, studying at the art academy has two important facets. Firstly, artistic statements are unique and therefore cannot be solved singularly from a list of facts with already established answers. Secondly, the term ‘academy’ implies that the teachers address you ‘at eye level’. As teachers, we do not profess to have all the answers, but rather have a responsibility to respond with relevant questions that challenge you in discussing how to take the work forward – for the simple reason that it is you who will need to develop the capacity to respond to the challenges of the future to come. It is important that the studies are not understood as a todo list to be ticked off, or as being singularly result-focused upon grades. The education is about immersion, personal and professional development, design competence and skills, leadership, collective solidarity in the studio, and learning how to contribute to a productive and fruitful process, and carrying it through to the materials you present.

While formal teaching takes place through a combination of inputs, lectures, workshops, pin-ups, group critiques, etc. arranged by the teaching team, it is the weekly desk critique with your tutor addressing your project that plays a central role, marking key milestones in the weekly project development work. The development of the project – and its material production in the form of various iterations of sketches, diagrams, drawings, collages, models, visualisations, etc. (rather than words) – is the central pedagogical process through which you think, act, know and do, and through which you gain from the teaching. It is expected that you are well prepared for these desk crits, have prepared this material production, and have pinned up work with a commitment to an engaging conversation and discussion. A key expectation in the process is that the project is developed through many iterations and ongoing refinements along these desk crit milestones. With this in mind, it is relevant to be aware of ‘not letting the perfect get in the way of the good.’ In other words, you are not expected to come up with brilliant proposals in your first attempt, but rather, through the ongoing refinement and development of iterations of the project, it becomes more articulated, resolved, and specific in its qualities.

Studio Culture The physical studio space of the program is our core educational environment. It is intended to foster an intensive culture of collective learning based on support, solidarity, friendship and exchange, rather than competition. It is a space where you can talk with your fellow students and learn from their projects. You learn by talking to your peers and the table group about their projects or by helping students in other levels. It can be that you help someone with something they do not master or vice versa, or that you help a more experienced student and thereby learn something yourself. The unique combination of cultures in the programme also holds the potential of bringing forward ideas and comments based on experience and different backgrounds. Being physically on the premises, in the studio, then is central to the education at the academy - and it is expected of the students as it is the space where it is possible to learn more from one another than from the structured teaching. As teachers, we have some of our fondest memories from our architecture school studios – where that collective environment supported a common lift of the project toward a new level of quality, and cemented friendships that are still important today. As a starting point studio hours are normally 09:00-17:00, but we encourage and support other working hours as well. We supply a schedule with planned joint study activities including regular structured studio teaching days with desk crits, pin-ups, reviews, along with lectures, workshops, reading seminars, inputs etc.

If there is nothing on the schedule between 09:00-17:00, it does not mean that you have time off, but that you study and immerse yourself in developing your project. This could involve: sketching, drawing, model-building or web-based research in the studio; exploring relevant references in the library; interviewing an expert or going on a site visit outside the Royal Danish Academy; building a model or mock-up in the workshop, etc., or giving feedback on one another’s projects in the studio. In short, the studio should function as a space for contemplation around you, a working community, a professional culture for dialogue with each other, the teachers and the society we are part of. The studio is your space and you should collectively, as a student group, find the ways to make it one that is inspiring, attractive and pleasant to thrive in together – a space that you want to spend time in, with people you want to spend time with, doing the things you want to do. Fully inhabit it and make it your own! In addition to the physical studio space, we have a virtual supplement in the form of RUM where you can communicate and share material. It is common for the students to also work with other platforms such as Slack to maintain collective communication in the student group.

Start of semester gathering in the sunshine - 2019

Thesis Exhibition Preparation - 2019

Language USC is an international programme and is taught in English. Open, inclusive and collaborative communication, debate and discussion between students is vital to the creative studio environment. Therefore to maximise this potential and opportunity, it is expected that English is the language used by students to communicate when in the studio and with coursemates. Collective/Group Work During all semesters (with the exception of the option of working individually in the Diploma) you will be working in groups of 2-3 students. We believe this approach is relevant and productive due to the collective, rather than individual nature of our field. (As graduated architects, you will almost always work in teams - both with other architects, consultants or clients, and other disciplines.) The groups are paired by you, with if necessary, the assistance of the teaching team. In each group you are expected to collectively support one another in driving your project forward – and to find ways of working together that will allow you both to communicate effectively and to thrive. As with situations where you may have worked in teams before, we encourage you to embrace the behaviours that support positive group outcomes. For example, we encourage you to come to the collaboration with openness, generosity, humility, and mutual respect. Be a good listener, as well a good speaker. Sketch together. Embrace your differences as qualities – there is so much to learn from one another. Try to build up a common ownership of your project by sharing and exchanging your

work on its components, rather than placing proposals in competition at desk- crits. Sometimes we also develop collective projects at the level of the studio, in which the studio functions as a kind of think tank - developing knowledge that can be communicated to the outside world. In the past, this has also been a great way to build up the coherency of the studio group. Critiques and Reviews Each semester we have two to three interim or midterm reviews where the different sub-assignments are presented and discussed with fellow students, internal and external critics. As it is an important part of the learning experience, you are expected to be present at each review at all times and take an active part in the comments and discussions. Critique is an important aspect of the studies and at the school of architecture it takes place in a particular way. Here we practice talking to each other about the projects and their related thematics in a language where we unfold the implications of the work in a common learning space. It is intended as an open dialogue between teachers and students. You are expected to present your material to the auditorium while fellow students and teachers comment. It can of course make you nervous, but it is very important for all parties to remember that it is always the project and not the person(s) we are discussing. The fact that the project may have errors and omissions does not mean that you as a student are necessarily deficient. It just means that we discuss the choices that have been made

and how the material itself lives up to the logic or premise that you, its author have unfolded. Criticism is an important common activity, and one of the ways the community of the studio, the school, and the discipline are constituted. Therefore, it is part of the curriculum that you must attend your fellow students’ projects and presentations as a way of supporting your fellow students work – but also as an important way of experiencing and learning the diverse ways of designing, conceptualizing and discussing architecture. We also encourage all of you to engage your own critical capacities, not just in terms of critiquing one another’s work, but also in addressing the developments taking place around you outside the school. We have had a number of USC students and graduates who have been outspoken in the public debate in Denmark and internationally, whether writing chronicles in the newspapers, articles in international magazines or contributing to the political discourse around our built environment. Student Representation and Institute Assemblies Across the different IBBL programmes we have representatives (both students and staff) who meet and discuss on behalf of everyone at the institute. It is highly appreciated that the students are involved in the collective discussion forum and they bring the updates back to the USC group to discuss further. It is important that your voice is present in these forums. Attendance and Outside Jobs We accept that it is necessary for many of you to have a small part- time job outside your studies to support

yourself financially and/or to claim SU. However, it is important to emphasise that we consider the studies as a full-time education. Work outside of the USC studio (e.g. part-time work for an architecture studio, bartending, etc) should be limited to a maximum of one week- day per week. We ask that it be organised so that it does not interfere with your presence in the scheduled activities of the studio program – to which attendance is mandatory. Wellbeing At USC we greatly value the wellbeing of both students and staff. We are invested in working with you to develop an environment in which all of you can thrive. A key to achieving this is an open line of communication amongst yourselves and between students and staff in the program. We encourage the discussion of concerns or issues as soon as they arise so we can come up with swift and appropriate ways of addressing them. In general both students and staff are encouraged to support each other and to notify others if any assistance is needed. You are welcome to communicate with your tutor in relation to significant issues or personal challenges, and the tutor will try to assist with either the institute or school contact if they are not able to help. Within the institute it is possible to receive advice and guidance from a non-program specific staff member. At the Royal Danish Academy level, you are welcome to contact the study administration/ Runa Søgaard Krohn with concerns. The school also is able to offer counselling for students. Furthermore, each semester you have a one-on-one interview with your tutor to touch base to discuss how you find your development within the program, to discuss

your possible future trajectories, and for your tutor to give you individual feedback on your performance so far. It is a chance to air concerns. Workshops and Library Students are encouraged in their studio projects to use the different workshop facilities available at the Royal Danish Academy. The workshops also include the Academy:LAB with facilities such as laser cutting, 3D printing, CNC-router, photography etc. The Royal Danish Academy library is as well key in relation to discovering references, research and ideas in general. (For further information see the Royal Danish Academy website.) We also strongly encourage you to reach out to other relevant forms of expertise that you need to develop the project. That means both relevant figures within the Royal Danish Academy, including engineering and other consultants employed by the school (our institute coordinator, Heidi Pedersen, can be contacted for the list), but also outside in the wider academic, professional, and artistic world. Cleaning Students are expected to collectively take care of the studio space, other collective spaces as well as their own desk(s). Due to the Covid-19 situation students are obliged on a regular basis to clean and disinfect their desk and nearest surroundings. COVID-19 The school’s policies for responding to COVID-19 are being coordinated at the Royal Danish Academy level. Please be alert to updates as the situation might change. It is our collective responsibility to look after one another and make sure that we are following the current guidelines.

USC Studio after mid-term critique - 2019

Design Culture References Throughout the semester we ask that - alongside these assignments - you concurrently develop a collection of spatial and tectonic references and iconographies that begin to explore your understanding and response to the architectural and social contexts of your site(s). These can take the form of, for example, architectural built references, on site photography, material samples and explorations, hand sketches, collage or other mixed media, interviews, short essays, and films. This process work should begin to fill you studio space, inspiring you and your fellow students. Production of sketchbooks, catalogues or other resources is encouraged and expected as key groundwork for architectural design. The following pages contain some suggested readings and references.

Charles & Ray Eames Studio

Two Hundred and Fifty Things an Architect Should Know - Michael Sorkin

Ten Bullets - Tom Sachs

An (incomplete) manifesto for growth - Bruce Mau

Studio Culture Physical & Virtual

Adapting to the Covid-19 Pandemic - 2020

Beijing 2018

Riga 2016 Helsinki 2019 Athens 2019 Denmark 2020

New York 2017

California 2015

Studio Culture Study Trips

Athens Town Hall Debate- Greece 2019

Visit to the Akropolis- Greece 2019

Lecture with local expert - Greece 2019

Ferry Ride - Helsinki 2019

Group tour - Helsinki 2019

USC Exhibition Preparation at Beijing Design Week - China 2018

USC Exhibition Opening at Beijing Design Week - China 2018

Students presenting with AA London at SPACE:10 - Copenhagen 2019

Studio Culture Events & Engagement

USC Student organised Zoom lecture with - Copenhagen / London -2020

106

USC Instagram Account @usc_kadk

Studio Culture Sharing

Danish Design Awards Finalists UCS Graduates Jana Possehn & Meggan Collins - 2020

YTAA Mies van der Rohe award nominee UCS, Cameron Clarke - 2020

On Civic Grounds - Daniel Rea Kragskov - Diploma 2021

Previous Semester Projects

On Civic Grounds - Daniel Rea Kragskov - Diploma 2021

110

On Civic Grounds - Daniel Rea Kragskov - Diploma 2021

112

On Civic Grounds - Daniel Rea Kragskov - Diploma 2021

114

Hosting the City - Arendse Steensberg & Inga Skjulhaug - Diploma 2021

116

Hosting the City - Arendse Steensberg & Inga Skjulhaug - Diploma 2021

118

Hosting the City - Arendse Steensberg & Inga Skjulhaug - Diploma 2021

West Coast Futures - Mikkel Larsen & Ninna Kjær Ravn - Diploma 2020

Fifth Mode of Transportation - Anton Ling - Diploma 2020

122

West Coast Futures - Mikkel Larsen & Ninna Kjær Ravn - Diploma 2020

124

Magic of the real - Lauge Floris - Diploma 2020

126

Tokyo Suburbia, Again - Serina Kitazono - Diploma 2020

128

Hong Kong Frangment - Desmond Choi - Diploma 2020

130

Hong Kong Frangment - Desmond Choi - Diploma 2020

132

Energyscape - Gabriella Arrland - USC 2020

134

Outdoor Intimate Harbour - Linda Tran - Diploma 2020

Post Preserved Landscapes - Anna Wahlen & Inga Skjulhaug - USC 2020

Make Shopping Great Again - Anders Vikse & Daiki Chiba - USC 2020

Subunbia UCS Student films- CAFx 'Polite Hack' 2020

140

Ly & Favn - Daniel Kragskov - USC 2020

The Community Hub, Anna Jo Banke & Gabriella Arrland - USC 2020

144

Theres Always A Lawn Mower In Suburbia, Cassandra Hammerstad & Sara Emilsson - USC 2020

Valby Co-social, Anna Wahlen & Elise Schultz - USC 2020

Producing City, Daiki Chiba & Season Ho - USC 2020

148

Tourism Suburbia - Serina Kitazono & Kristin Laz - USC 2020

Choreography of Logistics - Jana Possehn & Meggan Collins - Diploma 2019

No Home is an Island - Archie Cantwell - Diploma 2019

Close to Home - Cameron Clarke - Diploma 2019

Municiple Retail Supplement - Archie Cantwell & Tamara Kalantajevska

Between the Lines - Fran Álvarez - Diploma 2018

158

The Right to Dwell - Marcus Vesterager - 2017

Tamara Kalantajevska - Diploma 2018

162

Study Model Workshop - USC 2017

164

Urban Ex-change, Copenhagen and Beijing in Parallax - USC 2018

166

167

168

169

170

Institute of Architecture, Urbanism & Landscape works as a thinktank within its areas. Together with the students, the teachers – who are both practitioners, researchers, and artists - poses sharp questions to the contemporary problems and challenges of the city, and show new ways of meeting them. The Institute is collaborating with the most relevant offices, artists, organizations, and authorities in our areas to manufacture tangible and well-sustained images of a future, where the architecture we are creating is giving more than it takes from its surroundings. The three programs at Institute for Architecture, Urbanism & Landscape educates architects, that are able to create architecture with the capacity to meet the great challenges we are facing. They can, because they know how architecture is at the same time a building, a process, a strategy and a plan – always inseparable from the society and the culture of which it is a part. They can, because the know how to handle the many different forms of complexities at stake in the processes of architecture and planning. The can in particular, because they can produce concrete spatial and material architectural proposals with the ability to lift a given situation to an experiential unity that is more than the sum of the parts. And they can, because they know how to address the UN 17 goals for a sustainable future in practice. Katrine Lotz Head of Institute