Why would anyone make a postcard about ugly Copenhagen architecture? Isn’t Copenhagen praised for being an architectural marvel? There certainly is a lot of talk about Danish architecture, but at the same time aesthetics is subjective. What many admire, others criticise, which makes for an interest subject to explore.
In 2019 I started making postcards about life in Denmark and since then I’ve been constantly expanding on my collection. After making postcards for 5 years, I feel like I’ve already tackled the most obvious and expected topics. So it was time to turn to some out of the box ideas.
Lately I’ve been noticing more and more all the new construction in Copenhagen. Like some others, I can’t help, but be disappointed in the new developments. So, I’ve taken the challenge to channel this discontent into my work, as I believe an artist should.
What is ugly or beautiful is a matter of personal taste. This blog post and the postcard it is about are heavily based on my own personal feelings and opinion. This is why I’m choosing to use quite a subjective language. That being said, this discussion is not purely based on tastes alone. I will be addressing (what I believe to be) some more legitimate criticisms as well.
I’ve always been quite sensitive to my surroundings. Being in a space that I find visually pleasing makes me feel at peace, happy and energetic. So I’ve always sought beauty around me. Well, my version of “beauty” of course. I was never a huge fan of cities, especially really big and noisy ones. Especially the really dense- high rise ones and especially the really polluted ones. Thankfully Copenhagen isn’t one of them… for now. It’s one of the things I like about it, but I worry that it may be headed that way.
I’ve been noticing a boom of new quick ugly and poor quality construction pop up all around the city. Copenhagen is quickly becoming grey and sad looking, especially considering that most days are cloudy and grey already. Unfortunately modern architecture doesn’t seem overly concerned with how the average person experiences it. It doesn’t strive to create a harmonious, warm and cosy environment. It mostly seems to chase either short deadlines or flashy designs that mainly serve the architect’s ego… or both.
Despite all this I’d probably not have bothered to make a postcard about the ugly Copenhagen architecture if I felt that I was one of very few people who noticed or cared about this trend. That’s not the case however. I’ve come across plenty of conversations about the topic both online and offline. From both regular people and those with more architectural expertise that I feel like it’s a discussion worth having.
That being said, this card may appear to be just about aesthetics. That’s not my goal. Appearance is just a symptom of a bigger underlying issue: prioritising profitability, speed and “growth” above all else. It’s “fast fashion”, but for architecture.
When I started making my illustrated postcards about life in Denmark, I wasn’t interested in simply drawing pretty pictures and creating staged idealised images. I wanted to offer a deeper and more realistic commentary while also keeping it light-hearted and humorous. As a foreigner experiencing Danish culture and life, I feel that I have quite an unique perspective to offer. As an artist, my way of communicating my point of view is through my work.
TLDR: My reasons for making this postcard are: I’ve noticed a negative trend. I’ve noticed I wasn’t the only one. I wanted to start a discussion about it through my work.
Once I had decided to make a postcard about ugly Copenhagen architecture, I had to choose what buildings best represent this trend. A small A6 postcard obviously has quite small real estate. So I limited myself to five buildings and then loosely identified a sort of criteria for myself.
From the start I knew that I’m going to include two of the latest additions to Copenhagen’s skyline: the Cactus towers and Papirøen. I’m usually able to look at an ugly building, sigh in disappointment and continue about my day. These two have haunted me! Every time I see them, they actively make my day worse.
Choosing the other 3 buildings was a bit more difficult. While there’s plenty to choose from most lacked the same level of intense dislike. I read a lot of articles and discussions online. My final resource was asking the members of a Facebook group called “Expats in Copenhagen”. The responses I got there helped form the final line up. At the end of the day however it was my personal bias that prevailed.
So let’s examine the final picks a bit closer!
The Cactus towers were probably the last drop in the Copenhagen ugly architecture bucket that sparked this whole project. And I’m far from being the only one who thinks that way. They were voted the ugliest buildings in all of Denmark according to Architecture Rebellion‘s annual ranking.
(The Architecture Rebellion is an international people’s movement, whose mission is to protect and reintroduce a more traditional approach to urban planning. I wasn’t aware of this organisation when I started this project and still don’t really know a lot about them. I have no affiliation with them.)
The Cactus towers were designed by BIG, a company started by Danish celebrity architect Bjarke Ingels. In the description of the building on their own website they call it “an exercise in economical construction”. I find shockingly honest as we’ll soon see.
Despite being unimpressed with this building I’d like to try and give it a balanced review. If we are to simply judge it by the exterior, I’d admit that it’s an interesting looking building. Definitely not a standard boring box and I do appreciate the creativity that went into the design. However where I will get more critical is whether this was appropriate for its location and for its intended purpose.
The building is located in Dybbølsbro over the train tracks, near the Fisketorvet mall and the new IKEA building. This area has seen much new development and it’s probably one of the strangest spots in Copenhagen. The Dybbølsbro bridge itself has the most confusing and unintuitive traffic rules and directions that I’ve ever experienced. I’d argue that in a weird way, the Cactus towers fit quite well in this loud and messy slice of urban jungle.
As for the building fitting its function, I must be more critical. If it was meant to be a bank or another corporate building, maybe even a library, a museum of contemporary art, I’d actually find its design quite fitting. I might still not like it based on my own taste, but I probably wouldn’t judge the design as harshly. However this is an apartment block! People are supposed to live here. I believe living spaces should be practical first.
As a (graphic) designer I was taught that “good design is invisible” and “functionality over style”. So let’s examine the design closer, using the information and floor plans available on the Cactus towers’ own website.
The Cactus towers look spiky and sharp on the outside. I didn’t expect that to be the case also on the inside. There’s not a single 90o angle in this building! Except maybe between the floor and the walls. The “apartments” are just a long trapezoids with a triangular balcony. While undeniably creative, is not the most practical for everyday life. The apartments come with preinstalled custom made furniture. That’s helpful as furnishing a space like this on your own would be a nightmare! While I appreciate the effort, this makes it impossible or very hard to make the space “your own”.
The interior is unfinished, the walls are not painted. Apparently that’s not because it’s cheaper that way. No, it’s because these are “cool” and “trendy” apartments with a “minimal industrial vibe”. It’s true that this can be seen as a style choice, however to me it’s a marketing trick. You simultaneously get to make an inferior product and demand a higher price for it by upselling the flaws.
The building is aimed at students and young professionals. This makes me cynically question whether the reason is that younger people would be more easily manipulated into settling for fancy architects and questionable design choices.
One of the main selling points seems to be the “communal living”. That means sharing kitchens, laundry and other common spaces (such as a gym). According to posts on reddit and Google reviews some residents enjoy this aspect. I can certainly see the positives in having a private space, while being easily able to socialise and meet people right where you live.
The price of living here however is absolutely not student- friendly. The ”apartments” are between 33m2 and 53m2 and cost between 10 000 and 16 000 kr a month, which makes them the highest rent per square metre in Copenhagen, a city that is already in the world’s top most expensive cities. For the price it must offer an outstanding quality and living experience. Right?
While the location is very central with great access to transport and shopping, which of course increases the price. Less can be said about the quality.
Now that the building has been open for residents for two years, plenty of stories have come out about “the “perks” of living here. Sure some like it, or did at first, until they faced the poor quality construction, careless management and endless issues, such as blocked toilets, non functioning elevators, floods, shattering windows etc. Of course these things happen, but if they happen as often in a building that is barely 2 years old and charges a premium rent, something must be wrong!
So whether you love or hate the exterior, what I believe the Cactus towers represent is the general decrease of quality in products in general. Whether it’s electronics, fashion, furniture or buildings, we are seeing an increase in compromise on a product’s quality and life span for a quick turn of profit. All that at an ever increasing cost for the end consumer and the workers involved. The Cactus towers are the TEMU of architecture, but with the branding and price tag of a big ego architect.
Welcome to the future!
Since Street food was moved from Papirøen to Reffen, I’ve been curious as to what will pop up in that spot. And when I first noticed the new buildings, I couldn’t believe my eyes. I kept telling myself that those must be some kind of support structures that will be eventually removed to reveal the actual buildings. I couldn’t accept that that’s what the new buildings actually looked like!
The area that is now called Papirøen (The Paper island) used to be a part of an industrial region where paper for newspapers was stored, hence the name. Later it was a temporary home for Street Food Copenhagen. Now it has been designated for urban development and new housing buildings have been built.
The building project was designed by award-winning Danish design studio Cobe. Their idea was to reimagine the traditional style of the Christianshavn area. What they have created is however a dense and imposing sequence of structures with an oppressive presence that just seem out of place and consistently comes up in conversations about the ugliest buildings in the city.
I haven’t been able to find much information on what living there is actually like, so for now Papirøen earns a spot mainly on how unpopular it is. In the aforementioned ranking of the ugliest buildings in Denmark for 2022, according to Architecture Rebellion, it earns 3rd place.
BLOX was designed by the Dutch design studio OMA and was built from 2013-2018. It is a large building made up of green-blue glass blocks of different sizes stacked on top of each other. The building combines several different functions and is home to the Danish Architecture Center , it also contains office spaces, a parking garage, restaurant, fitness centre and private residential rentals. This blending of different functions is meant as an anticipation of “the future of urban life”. However the building has been criticised for taking too much space and being too much of a deviation from the overall look of the area.
BLOX is another example of ugly Copenhagen architecture that is often mentioned when the topic comes up. In an article on HFK’s website Jesper Nygård (CEO of Realdania – the owner of the building) is asked how does the building contribute to making the city beautiful. I find his answer very telling of the mindset of the people behind all these new projects.
He says, he’s aware that opinions are split, but overtime, people will learn to like it as it’s been the case with other buildings that were criticised in the past. On one hand, he is right that opinions do change, as we’ll see with the last building on this list. At the same time I find his response arrogant and condescending.
To me Blox is just another iteration of the generic glass corporate structure that has been built to generate profits and not to serve a vibrant city environment. It’s cold, sad, boring and uninviting. It looks out of place and it takes a lot of space, but at least it doesn’t dominate the skyline which I think is a plus.
The combining of functions doesn’t seem like a bad idea as long as all the different functions coexist in a way where they don’t negatively interfere with each other. There is an argument being made for the reductions in comforts such as balconies, private kitchens and laundries in favour of more communal living. I personally believe (as previously mentioned) that this is more of a façade, a marketing tactic to paint a reduction in functionality as a desirable feature and an excuse to charge more while offering less.
Bella Sky is the Nordic region’s largest hotel. It is located in the Ørestad area. It consists of two 76.5 meter high towers that slope dramatically and are connected by a footbridge at a height of 75 metres. Bella sky, the hotel, is connected to a conference and exhibition centre known as Bella Center. It was designed by the architects at 3XN and completed in 2011.
The project prides itself on its leaning tower design which was an engineering challenge to execute. The construction was however quick, utilising pre- made concrete elements. It is conveniently positioned close to the Kastrup airport, metro and train connection to Sweden. It raises above a nature area and much like the other buildings on this list takes no care to blend into its surroundings or contribute to the landscape in any meaningful way besides screaming for attention.
While Bella Sky as a building isn’t negatively mentioned as often as the others it can be seen as a symbol of the entire Ørestad area, which has developed alongside the last 2-3 metro stops. It is considered a failed urban development in terms of its inability to foster welcoming urban space and “city life”. However this may be slowly changing in recent years. The proximity to open nature space is often used as a selling point and it is probably its biggest asset, however it is unknown how long nature will be allowed to survive.
The SAS Royal hotel (currently referred to as Radisson Blu) by Arne Jacobsen was not at all amongst my personal picks for ugly Copenhagen architecture, not because I think it’s a beautiful building, but because it has never captured my attention in any conceivable way.
I was somehow blissfully unaware of it even though it’s very centrally located, I passed by it a thousand times and never took note of it. For me it has just blended in the background of boring grey rectangles. Sad as that may be, I also find it as something that actually works in its favour. It’s not screaming, fighting and imposing itself on its surroundings, it just quietly exists. And for that I forgive its boring-ness.
So why, then did I decide to include it in this project? Well, there are several reasons.
The SAS Royal hotel was created by renowned Danish architect and designer Arne Jacobsen. He was responsible not only for the architecture, but for the interior design as well, including furniture and even curtains and cutlery. It is regarded as architecturally impressive and is praised for its design and attention to details. It opened in 1960 and was Copenhagen’s first skyscraper, intended as a hotel and airport terminal for the SAS airline.
The building’s design was criticised almost immediately and was even voted the ugliest building in Copenhagen at the time. This is one of the reasons to include it.
Based on the information available a lot more care and attention to details has gone into the design of this building compared to the rest, which makes it something of an outlier. In 2023 it was decided to change it’s status to “protected heritage“. Today the building is a reminder of an era of great prosperity and excitement for the future in Denmark.
What I find fascinating about this story is that even if people may dislike or disagree with one’s work, they will eventually shut up about it and accept you if you are renowned and celebrated enough. Or maybe if enough time has passed. Or maybe they’ve found real merit… ?
I find it curious how opinions form and change, how they are influenced. I wonder whether in 50 or so years all these other buildings would be gone or considered a “heritage”. I decided to include the SAS Royal hotel as an interesting case study of changing tastes and attitudes. Is it a really valuable piece of historical architecture or is it Arne Jacobsen’s mythological status mixed with a nostalgia for an era of economic prosperity?
I can’t really say.
Usually when criticising it’s a good practice to outline how things can be improved in a constructive way. This is of coursed based on my own preferences and taste. I am well aware that the look and feel of a city is a complicated system and should be a balance between the needs, wants and preferences of all it’s inhabitants.
First there needs to be a consensus that there is indeed a problem to begin with. While there is some debate on the matter, I don’t believe there’s any consensus. That being said I’d still share how I wish things were different anyway.
While I’ve used “ugliness” to frame this issue, I think that aesthetics is just a symptom of a bigger problem. For me the issue with modern architecture is that it’s too focused on quick and cheap production, a compromise in quality, lack of craftsmanship and attention to details, while still keeping the price out of reach for the average person. Profit seeking has completely destroyed quality, not just in architecture, but for every single product on the market. There is an environmental cost as well.
I think we need a societal shift from “growth” and “profit” to creating actual value for regular people in a way that causes least harm to the environment and those involved in the production process. We need to care more about what people actually need and want, instead of telling them to learn to like what we give them. If so many feel that the urban environment has become too cold and hostile, maybe we can believe them and look for ways to improve it.
Personally, I love old towns, I think they are so good at creating that atmosphere of cosiness and human-ness. They have lots of warmth and personality, colours and details, a lot more organic shapes, more greenery and a human scale. I imagine part of that is because they arose organically as people built what they needed. This may be harder to recreate in a bigger modern city, I understand that, but I’d still strive for it, if I was a city planner.
I know that criticising anything “modern” or “new” always comes with a counter criticism of “being too conservative”, “stuck in the past”, hindering “innovation”. And while I believe there is some truth in that, I also think that it’s a lazy surface level argument.
My point isn’t that “old is better”, it’s that we can learn from what worked in the past and re-invent it, improve on it, build on it. I love modern plumbing, electricity, running water and vastly superior insulation. I’d just like a bit more greenery, charm and personality in my urban environment. I don’t want to live in a place that is as soulless and sad as a corporate meeting room. I don’t think I’m asking that much.
When it comes to the look of contemporary architecture, as a designer I completely understand that creatives don’t want to be stuck making the same things over and over. I understand that we want to push boundaries and challenge old standards and I understand that this often means making unpopular choices. As much as I dislike the current trends in architecture, I’m not comfortable stating that architects should just go back to this or that style in the past either.
I believe there is space for bold experimental architecture too, it could be reserved for newer city areas that could be designed with a specific new look in mind, though they still need to strive for a human- centric environment, affordability for the average citizen and (actual- not- green- washed) sustainability.
I also think that even small changes can bring a positive difference. A lot of new buildings will immediately be elevated with a little bit of detail, a bit of colour. The houses of Nyhavn that are emblematic for Copenhagen aren’t really all that amazing in terms of architecture, they are quite simple actually, their most memorable feature is their colourful facades in a very very grey city.
In conclusion I want to reiterate that for me, this is not a debate of old vs. new or ugly vs beautiful. The same issues existed in the past and age doesn’t make something better. For me the debate is about building affordable cities that are comfortable, welcoming and appealing to the people who live in them vs. quick investment opportunities for the rich.
Making this card has made me feel deeper emotions then any other project I ever worked on. It’s made me think harder than any other. And I find that very interesting to explore. I certainly want to do more projects like this.
At the end of the day this card is not really about ugly Copenhagen architecture, it’s not even about Copenhagen and it’s not about making fun of architects. It’s about the feeling of being small and powerless in a world that is being built around you in a way that you have no say in. It’s about reclaiming what small voice I have and expressing myself whether anyone wants to hear me or not. It’s about refusing to accept what I cannot change.
The city is just a metaphor.
