Why Architects in Denmark Should Speak Up About the Ghetto Plan

EDIT: 24.06.2020 - I have been notified that the links to regering.dk are now dead. If you wish to read the law in Danish, I believe it is here. And if you would like to see the pdf proposal entitled "Et Danmark Uden Parallelsamfund: Ingen Ghettoer i 2030," that is here.

I’ve spent a few days and nights in Mj?lnerparken. My good friend Maria lived there as a student for some time. Coming from the US, where even in the safe city neighborhoods, you need to be aware of your surroundings, Mj?lnerparken seemed rather tame in comparison. I watched kids play and mothers chat in the courtyard park from her window.

It surprised me to learn that this little part of Copenhagen was legally classified as a “hard ghetto.” Or that a government would embrace this terminology. The word "ghetto" is an ugly word, with an ugly history, and something I would never expect to see used so openly by politicians as if they were calmly discussing afternoon tea. Worse, I found out that an official list existed with these so-called ghetto neighborhoods, updated yearly.

I lived the first two years of my time in Denmark in Br?nsh?j, around the block from Tingbjerg, another "hard ghetto". While there was the occasional gun shot once every six months in the middle of the night or the time the police enforced stop-and-search zones due to gang activity (visitationszoner), it felt otherwise like a quiet suburb of a major city.

As of 2018, to be a ghetto in Denmark, an area has to fulfill three out of five characteristics.

The first criteria is mandatory.

In an area of over 1000 residents, over 50% of them come from (or are descended from) non-western countries.

For any person with a decent understanding of history (apartheid, the holocaust, segregation), this should set off alarm bells, as we are already setting the stage for discrimination. Especially since this legislation encompasses descendents that may be born in, and live in Denmark for their entire lives.

Legally a majority ethnic Danish or European community cannot be considered a ghetto under this criteria, no matter the crime rate, income, education or unemployment .

After this mandatory criteria, the residential area must also fall under two of the following four criteria:

1. 40% of residents are unemployed
2. The proportion of residents convicted of violating the Criminal Code, the Arms Act or the law on euphoric drugs is at least 3x the national average (note, it was hard for me to find statistics on this national average in order to disseminate this requirement further).
3. The proportion of residents aged 30-59 who have only a basic education exceeds 60%
4. The average income for taxpayers is less than 55% of the average income for the same group in the region.

If an area is on the list for four years in a row, then it’s listed as a “hard ghetto”. Tingbjerg, and Mj?lnerparken are classified as both. A new “ghetto plan” was also announced in 2018 to compact these so-called parallel societies within Denmark, with the lofty goal of no ghettos by 2030. While that sounds amazing, let's take a look at just a few of these specific proposals under the plan.

People like me (family-reunified foreigners married to Danes) are banned from living in these areas or we lose our right to residency in Denmark.

There was a period of time where it was discussed if a crime should receive double punishment if it occurred in a “ghetto.” Or if “ghetto children” should have an 8pm curfew.

A crime that occurs in a "ghetto" should receive more punishment, than a crime that occurs outside of it.

Worse, from an architect’s perspective: hard ghettos are to be physically demolished (there exists a case-by-case exemption for this, however). If not the only option is to sell them off to private developers that will hike rent prices. Already on my LinkedIn feed this is being lauded as a success by politicians.

Here’s my gripe: this plan does nothing to solve the socioeconomic issues that we know lead to the creation of vulnerable, at-risk communities. And advocating for the demolition of residential neighborhoods in good condition is inherently unsustainable for a country that has recently patted itself on the back for passing new climate laws.

Cities in Denmark, like Copenhagen, already face a scarcity of affordable housing, especially for students. Many Danes live in these communities because they can’t afford to live elsewhere.

Instead of focusing on the underlying causes of these issues and increasing access to affordable housing, the government is punishing people for “choosing” to live in an area they’ve deemed to be a ghetto, and further stigmatizing these areas. This is a dangerous precedent to set. Furthermore, if the government can change the criteria for a ghetto as it suits them, as shown in 2018, then any community could potentially be labeled a ghetto in the future and subject to these sorts of laws.

Now up to 11,000 people may be forced to relocate from their homes as they are sold off or demolished- thankfully many in Mj?lnerparken will receive help with moving from Bo-Vita but many in the community will be likely split up. Think how you would feel if this was your home. Your community, neighbors and friends.

As an immigrant myself, sense of community is incredibly important when you move abroad. You start over, without friends or family in a new place. To be forced to leave your community can be uprooting and devastating.

Let me fast-forward a few years. Maybe by 2030 Mj?lnerparken will no longer be a ghetto because the area will become gentrified and the rents will be sky-high. But will the original residents be better off for these changes? Perhaps instead, another local community will become a ghetto because anywhere with enough "low-income", "basic education" and "non-western" residents will be classified as one. History will repeat itself.

In architecture school in the US, we studied about Pruitt Igoe and the conditions that lead to its colossal failure as an urban revitalization project. I wonder, do Danes study about Tingbjerg or Mj?lnerparken in architecture school here? (Leave a comment, I'd love to know!)

Tingbjerg had two projects that were on the right track toward dealing with these problems- the Tingbjerg Library by COBE and the Tingbjerg Art and Research Dialogue (TARD). This is the direction we need to move towards to truly begin to approach urban revitalization projects in Denmark. Dialogue, communication, support and education are always positive, productive ways to begin to tackle inequality.

I believe that the architecture industry has a responsibility to speak out about this issue. We may not have all the answers, but we are responsible when we are hired to demolish or redesign these neighborhoods and knowingly displace people. Shouldn't we stand up for ourselves, and our work, and say, "we know this is a wrong solution based on hundreds of years of history?"

As designers, architects and urban planners, we have the abilities to act as a neutral go-between. We can communicate, work with local communities directly, as well as with the government. This is a vital step towards improving social issues.

What's more, we have the skills and education to influence positive change (or at least try), or be complicit, keep our mouth shut and collect our money.

Which side of history will you be on?