Lynetteholm - Copenhagen's MEGAPROJECT Folly

[@ThisTheAviator]

I like how everywhere around the world,instead of building affordable housing,we build fancy houses for rich people that are probably going to remain empty,either because it's a second house or because nobody can actually afford it.

[@DavidFilskov]

Investments often only make sense if you see it from the "top" perspective. Society is sort of an enemy in this regard - not something to invest in :|

[@socalguy829]

welcome to capitalism 101

[@jakobachenrainer]

I was crying when i heard your Danish Accent. You sounded exactly like the first Dane i ever met 😂

[@LifeSizedCity]

Tank you wary mooch! /mikael

[@lykourgossigalas3500]

As much I agree Danes have accent while speaking English, I haven’t really heard anyone in 9+ years sounding like Schwarzenegger! But I understand the choice.

[@Rebasepoiss]

I feel your pain. The number of cars in Tallinn has been increasing by 5,000 cars annually in the past decade and the "solution" by the city government is to build more roads... Every new road widening, interchange or bypass is touted as 'the project that will divert cars away from the city centre' yet somehow the roads in the city centre are still just as wide and just as busy as before. I wonder why...

[@ElectricityTaster]

I don't understand how these videos don't get hundreds of thousands of views, and I've been on youtube since 2005. This is good shit, man.

[@LifeSizedCity]

The whimsical world of youtube! Thanks, man! /Mikael

[@Jeffur2]

@@LifeSizedCity Don't worry! From everything I've seen, I think the best strategy these days is to have strong content that competes with the big channels, so that if the algorithm randomly chooses you to recommend your videos to millions of people, people will be impressed and will want to stay around. 10 years ago it was okay to have the quality of your content grow and improve as your channel grew, but it's just not the case these days. That said, I do honestly think this is QUALITY content so you're definitely doing it right!

[@ImranShaikh-gh2wd]

Fully Agree - this channel is the best

[@joerivanlier1180]

Who the hell trucks dirt in to a harbour, if only there was a alternative way to move large volumes of stuff near water. Like huge trucks but floating?

[@LifeSizedCity]

Haha. Barges were planned, but dropped. Too expensive. "Apparently" /Mikael

[@joerivanlier1180]

@@LifeSizedCity Let me guess it went a little like this City official: Could you recalculate with barges? Some madman suggested it. Contractor: Sure I’ve got dozens of trucks, so using them is free and barges I need to rent so that cost money. City official: Nice, thanks. I just asked my butcher if becoming vegan is good for me, I always know where to find the correct answers.

[@Jakob_DK]

They need the payment for receiving contaminated dirt to make it financially viable.

[@iam.damian]

@@joerivanlier1180 This comment is so underrated!

[@nicolasblume1046]

@@LifeSizedCity but why is it done with ships in almost all comparable projects in the world? (also smaller ones) You also need much less workers with ships. To me it doesn't make sense that trucks would be cheaper

[@JokkeDotH]

As a Dane from Jylland, I love these videos shitting on overly expensive urban projects in Copenhagen, while projects and whole towns in rural parts of the country are drying up financially. I mean, there are a lot of stupid projects in Aarhus and Odense, but none of them are big enough or exciting enough to warrant a video on this channel. I have no words for how much I hate everything about Lynetteholm. Should we try to support local initiatives throughout the country, so that everyone gets the opportunity to live somewhere desirable? Nope, let's just fucking build an island, clogging up the roads and disturbing everyone around it. I honestly believe that I have gained an awareness of the urban space around me from watching your videos, and this also extends to life in smaller towns. What I can say about the development in a lot of Danish towns that I have been to is that they are starving in terms of culture and life, and it is driven in no small part by a mentality on the part of our politicians, that only wants to tear down public housing and build stupid shit.

[@JokkeDotH]

Your Copenhagen accent is also absolutely tremendous.

[@LifeSizedCity]

Enig! I am a big city boy. Always have been. Always will be. But yes, in a tiny country like this, the imbalance between Capital and The Rest is arrogant and shocking. Tina - who I interviewed here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/ioubhXugp7FjlZI&ab_channel=TheLife-SizedCity - works with smaller municipalities in order to create positive urban change. /Mikael

[@Jakob_DK]

There are also built expensive projects in small towns in Jutland. Like Hou south of Aarhus.

[@rvallenduuk]

We do the same in Ireland. Lots of space around the country but all development goes into a few square km in Dublin. The latest is a 45 storey vanity tower, 4 times higher than almost anything else in Ireland. And you thought traffic in Copenhagen is bad? Try Dublin. Or Galway.

[@FPJDK]

You being from Jutland shouldn’t complain though. We’re pumping billions of DKK from the wealthy parts of the capital region to Jutland every year so you can have brand new motorways and public swimming pools everywhere while north of Copenhagen (one of the most densely populated parts of the kingdom and where we’re sending the most money to you guys, we still don’t even have a motorway to Hillerød.

[@sedyali2]

Talking about voting for the project, have you ever listened about the Mexico International Airport? A couple of administrations ago, they decided to build a massive airport whit 3 runways over a drained lake... Yes, a lake. Its supposed to be finished next year but in 2018 the cost was triplicate and the advance was around 30% and the opening date moved to 2026 The actual government decided to put the project in consideration of population and offer an alternative: rebuild an actual militar airport and improve the actual international airport (Both would be demolished in the original project). The people voted for the alternative and the construction of the new airport move forward as planned, every week a advance report is published and the lake of the original project is being rescued and will be a 120 Hectares public park

[@LifeSizedCity]

Yep, I've read about it. Loco! We considered covering it in the Mexico City episode of The Life-Sized City but we usually cover the positive angles so we dropped it. /Mikael

[@veselinmihaylov9718]

It's interesting how the exemplary city of Copenhagen is actually permitting grotesque projects like this to be even brought to attention let alone actually approved and stamped to be build. I'm not saying that nothing new should be build but this island madness just seems too much. Huge fan from Sofia, Bulgaria here, pro - biker, driving only when really necessary (don't get me wrong, love my car and love driving. just disciplined) Great videos, I follow the channel very tightly!

[@blockofmusic]

Density in Nordhavn and Sydhavn. Incredible for me, those parts of the city don't feel like CPH, at all. Both not completed projects.

[@BeezerWashingbeard]

Try hiking to Ørestaden. Except for cars and the occasional metro, it feels like a ghost town and looks more like Jakarta than Copenhagen.

[@Alienman1212]

@@BeezerWashingbeard lmao not at all

[@kathy259]

This Lynetteholmen has to be stopped

[@andorpakh]

This makes me a bit sad to be honest. I used to believe that Copenhagen was developed with reason and careful planning in advance. Well there's still hope that they won't go ahead with this horrible project, if nothing else there's still the current covid situation with its financial consequences which could halt this thing.

[@petterbirgersson4489]

The great advantage of Copenhagen in comparison with Stockholm is that Copenhagen wasn't that it wasn't rebuilt as thoroughly in the 60s and the 70s. That has made me more attracted to Copenhagen than the Swedish capital, so it's sad that the decision makers of Denmark seems to be erasing that.

[@LifeSizedCity]

The joke in urban planning is that Sweden was neutral during WW2 but then bombed their own capital in the 1950s, with American style infrastructure. /Mikael

[@Hilu8D]

Lynetteholm will be a disaster for the Baltic Sea, which is already in bad condition. The currents to the Baltic sea are small to begin with. Please stop this project Denmark!! Regards from Finland

[@rxtbt]

everything about this project sounds horrible

[@garry8390]

Can you do this same critique of cities around europe so we can mock our politicians and share on social media please? Ireland recently spent 3 Billion on broadband infrastructure that will be redundant before its even finished.

[@thorsteinboserup-v4o]

I think that Lynetteholm is a great project, and it makes a lot of sense to use it as a place to deposit all the material from excavating, drilling, and constructing the Metro tunnels and the harbor tunnel. If we didn’t dump the material close to the construction sites, we would have to transport it much farther, which would increase pollution. I don’t mind that we will have more cars in the future, as they will all be electric by then. Some people will complain about investing in directing cars out of Copenhagen. If they don’t want cars in the city, I’m all for turning Copenhagen’s streets into parks and gardens. Once there are no streets left in Copenhagen, you’ll need better public transport, and with no streets, that transport must consist of additional metro lines - which will further increase our need for a dumping site. Contrary to what you state in the video Copenhagen is growing, and just last year the city expanded by around 5,700 new residents. A new forecast now shows that by 2060, the population is expected to increase by 120,000 (March 24, 2024). At the time when you made this video everyone knew that the COVID effect for a short time would motivate people to move to less populated areas. I fully respect that others have negative and or postitive opinions about the Lynetteholm project but I do find it to be manipulative and dishonest when both sites misrepresent facts in hope that they that can lead others to make ill-informed decisions .. Why sink to such a low level of Integrity?

[@PLF...]

Fun fact: in a city where housing is one of the biggest needs, real estate projects are not "just about making money", it's about building more homes for people. Please don't mistake the motives for something as banale as is proposed in this video. What if the "some people" that makes money here was everyone? Is the idea here really that we don't need to pay off the metro? The tram idea I'm not even going to comment on, it's as stupid as stupid gets. What is different about this project also is that the properties are created without really giving much up in return. It's not like you are plowing down a park to build an office building. The area is of fairly little importance in regards to marine life and doesn't really interfere with the city as is. On the other hand we will then get new beaches, less heavy traffic in the harbor (e.g. cruise ships) and faster traveling times from the northern coast out across Refshaleøen to Amager, and a reduction in inner city traffic. And yes, while more roads could mean more cars, building more roads and reducing others mean you necessarily move the traffic. No net increase in roads means no more net cars. This project is a mega project because it makes sense, not that we wanted a mega project and just made something up to fit the bill. It's not like it's a coincidence the plans were revealed so shortly after the Nordhaleø-project was published. With that all said, sure there is plenty of problems with the current proposal, but none of the points of critique (even in this very video) couldn't easily be rectified with relatively minor changes. The rest is just this one dudes personal opinions, which doesn't seem very bright to be honest.

[@LifeSizedCity]

Wow. Not the fastest the moped on the harbour, are you? I realise that here on KZbin I won't always participate in discussions with my colleagues in urbanism or people who are well-versed in urban planning, but your comment is so full of holes that it's a bit embarrassing. /Mikael

[@GrantSimons2]

So... a freeway, bigger roads, not finished until 2070, expensive housing, aquatic habitat destruction in there as well. Fuck, we're not even doing these things in US cities. Aside from maybe Boston? This channel continues to highlight that no city is perfect. In fact, Copenhagen has a lot more problems than I realized when I visited. It felt like a utopia to me to the point that I was crying while cycling around the lakes lol. Still, moving to Copenhagen to further study urban design and planning is high up on my to do list for next year.

[@lob0tomized438]

Copenhagen is still an amazing city, it will continue to be even with all the fear-mongering about Lynetteholm.

[@stubnitz3656]

”The last place I expected to see it was right here in my own backyard”. I mean, pretty much all of modern Copenhagen is built on reclaimed land to build houses. Denmark has been reclaiming land from the Øresund for literally hundreds of years. “First and foremost a real estate project”. The anlægslov doesn’t mention developing the land for real estate, and the report from Transport- og Boligministerets (ref. pg.91 §1) does not include building homes. It just states “Hvis der på et senere tidspunkt skal bygges boliger mv. på Lynetteholm, er det et krav, at området forinden konverteres til byzone”. The project is meant to be cost neutral just from the excess excavated dirt, not selling the land. What exactly do you think is wrong with the metro? It seems pretty popular to me. A tram system for Copenhagen was investigated back in 1995 and discarded for very good reasons.

[@JACMinecraftDK]

Let's be fair, the truck thing is only a few percent increase in peak hours of traffic. It is a drop in the bucket when you look at the traffic of copenhagen. Also, even if all the housing in Lynette would get expensive, especially with a dropping population increase, it would mean that the other parts of Copenhagen would get cheaper. Also the primary goal of the tunnel is to decrease heavy traffic, but i guess it does effect normal traffic sure

[@peterukkonen9959]

This project is insane. I live in Margretheholmen and will certainly move in 2023 (estimated, but hopefully it won't be that soon) if this goes ahead and the truck traffic of unfathomable scale will begin. I never thought Denmark would be so lacking in democracy. Thanks so much for making this video, it was very insightful (and entertaining)!

[@philrichmond5919]

Kudos for using a clip from the brilliant Australian political satire, Utopia. Though it does make me sad that it has relevance beyond our fair shores. The same plague of excessive development that requires massive public infrastructure spend to make property sales viable is a curse here too. In our case it was hundreds of millions spent on a tramway 2.7km long, ripping up the existing railway which it could have run on and selling the land for high rise development, then spending hundreds of millions more grouting old mine workings so they can build the high rise. Utter madness in a city (Newcastle) which Jan Gehl visited in 2013, and gave good advice on how to make the city more walking and cycling friendly with proportionate development. Which was promptly ignored. It frustrates me in one city, I hate to think what it does for you seeing it repeated all over the world. Thank you Mikael for the knowledge you share. It gives hope that if we keep chipping away, the status quo will eventually crumble 👍

[@LifeSizedCity]

Utopia is so brilliant! /Mikael

[@Gregger92]

The amount of ignorance in this video is amazing. There are so many wrong claims and "matter of fact statements" that I don't know where to start. Just comparing trams with metro is laughable. The efficiency of a metro system is on a whole other level. But trams are of course more romantic and takes space from cars, so f**k efficiency am I right? And can you back the claim that the remaining 25% "affordable" housings will not be build until after 50 years, when the 75% "expensive" (Market price?) housings are build?

[@LifeSizedCity]

I can back all the claims. You can also get off your whiny ass and engage yourself in the subject instead of the classic troll remarks like "can you prove it?!" Why are so many cities in Europe choosing to re-establish their tramways instead of sending people underground? Cost-efficient. Beneficial to urban life. A tenth of the price. Removing cars from the city. I have worked in many of these cities on transportation projects and they laugh when I tell them about the mini-metro in Copenhagen. Like we're stupid. Which the people who built it are, of course. As well as the people who don't know enough about transportation and yet who comment on it. But yeah... the Internet... /Mikael

[@isaks7042]

I like your videos! Video suggestion: Stockholm bypass. The worlds second longest undersea tunnel in the proximity of a city that will make it possible for cars to drive around and not through the city centre. I personally like the idea because it would create an effective ring road.

[@waldenli9232]

I’m a weekend fisherman who just moved to Copenhagen area, and is devastated to find out that fishing in Copenhagen will practically be banned, since mercury levels in cod is found to be too high in Copenhagen. Why am I posting about cod here? You mentioned the trucks transporting dirt to build the island. Now they may have found a new solution: digging up dirt from the sea bed around the new island, the sea bed where tons of industrial hazards got covered up tens of years ago. All the hazards are being released. And I believe it is supposed to be illegal, but it’s happening. I am so confused. I love Denmark, tbh. With everything I knew about it. Thus I am confused about what’s happening around this new island. I was so eager to fish in Copenhagen, but the thought of toxins is stopping me right now.

[@gregavolk]

Why worry? We can just infinately widen our motorways, just as we can infinately spiral into debt. But seriously, I'm from Ljubljana, Slovenia, an old medieval town that majorly developed after ww2 in the automotive spirit, with 4 lane roads coming into the center from 6 directions and public space reduced to a minimum. People were lilterally driking coffe on the sidewalk 1m away from traffic. What we've seen in the last 15 years is a weird compromise between city planners and the mayor's development appetites, where the very center of the city was made into a car-free zone, that was superb at first, and brought a lot of small businesses back to life, but then tourism came and it all went to shit. It became a fairground for tourists to enjoy an "undiscovered" european town which meant rising prices and falling services quality, and people selling off their appartments to investors who turned them into boutique hotels and AirBnB places, which essentially killed the center of all life, with the exception of the farmers market, which is the next target of gentrification. Covid 19 made the tourists go away and our city center is a ghost town. On the other frontier, the ring road around the city, build for 1990's traffic numbers, there are daily congestions due to people driving into town from up to 120km away. We're at 300.000 inhabitants at night, and about 500.000 during the day, including students and schoolchildren. And it's so amazing that these people, who don't even live in the city, have a lot of influence in what goes on in the planning department. What did they come up with, in the age of internet and private space travel? They're gonna widen the ring roads!

[@julioaqua]

Hej Mikael I hope this project will not be accepted, and that it will never again be megalomaniacs that can shape the cities we live in. I have a boat in Lynetten, the most wonderful place..and this project for me and many others that use the harbor is a nightmare. Thank you for all the info.

[@lykourgossigalas3500]

As mentioned, Nordhavn is having one of Denmark’s highest/sqm housing prices. My apartment, also in Nordhavn, costs 35 to 50% less compared to those looking towards the sea. So I’ve expecting my neighbors’ reaction to their investment when the sea view is going to substituted with trucks and dirt for few decades. Btw... every reasonable person I’ve talked to so far believes that’s a BS project

[@LifeSizedCity]

Oh, good point. That would suck to live there if the fake island is built. /Mikael

[@simonkempe1212]

your Danish-English accent is spot on (the video too), hilarious.

[@MrManafon]

By&Havn is an evil villain. For example, they are singlehandedly at fault for Ørestad having tons of communal problems, and feeling detached from the city. I wonder what your opinion is on the 2030 plan by By&Havn to cover the highway at Ørestad?

[@alexanderdupont6293]

Really relevant with this new perspective! I have perhaps, prior to this video been among the hype-people segment. But you state some really sobering points, and have changed my outlook on these kinds of projects, where funds could be used so much more efficient and serving of the average citizen. I live in the outskirts of greater copenhagen, simply because it is too expensive and too hard to find somewhere to live within the city limits. As a popular american polititian with cool mittens would perhaps say, Copenhagen should not only be for the 1%.

[@stegotron]

I heard Megaproject that many times I was expecting Simon Whistler from the Megaproject channel to pop up at the end. Though it is good to see that this sort of white elephant can happen even somewhere like Copenhagen

[@paula_petersilie7124]

I love the Copenhagen content!

[@EvoKey]

Det er en fornøjelse at følge med. ❤️

[@LifeSizedCity]

Tusind tak! /Mikael

[@mike3999]

Great video. Thank you. It helped me understand the project and a bit more about Copenhagen. Being Australian it is also great to see reference to Utopia on the ABC. That show points out so many of the problems related to how these projects get off the ground perfectly.

[@drimdrimz]

Well that ruined my perfect picture of this city... At least I am aware of this now, thank you.

[@tgrace019]

This was amazing! Also, is anyone else here for the impressions? Or is that just me?

[@LifeSizedCity]

Tank yoo wary much. /Mikael

[@MeBallerman]

I'm a Dane, from Jutland, who time and time again go to Copenhagen for a little vacation, Copenhagen s a wonderful city. As I don't live in Copenhagen myself, I admit I find the Metro AWESOME, we park our car at the Hostel on Amager, and we don't need it anymore before we drive home. The Metro takes us where we need to go, and also the Harbour busses (small boats) ae fantastic for uds tourists... But Lynetteholm - i totally agree with this video, they're trying to turn Copenhagen into a city for the rich. And I didn't even see or hear you talking about one of the very worst backsides of it - when you throw stuff in the water, for example to build an artificial island - the sea level rises. Rise of sea level is the biggest threat known to Mankind - and this Island will contribute to sea level rising. But good video, though I don't agree on the Metro.

[@BavYeti]

What CPH (and most other cities) really needs more tangential public transport lines. I commute by bike (1h) from Sydhavn to Høje-Taastrup and it's a shame that Bus/train takes 50min and car less than 20min. All the lines are pointing to the center.

[@TheLastCockney]

If they were to build their crazy island, why not bring the material in on barges rather than filling the streets with trucks?

[@LifeSizedCity]

That was discussed but dropped. Can't remember why... probably cost. Like THAT matters on MEGAPROJECTS. :-) /Mikael

[@isoadvector5819]

@@LifeSizedCity They calculated that it would be much more costly in terms of CO2. Because the "solution" they investigated was to still drive the cars to through Copenhagen to the harbor front, then ship it on barges and sail the couple of hundred meters with it. Complete pseudo-investigation.

[@SOPADELICIOSA]

Even though it's not a city I'd LOVE to hear an analysis like this of the insane Kattegat bridge project which is threatening to F up most of Denmark.

[@robenglish416]

I don’t know if I should be glad or not that even the Danes can mess up projects, I thought we Swedes excelled in that in a Nordic country perspective!?

[@isoadvector5819]

Ville ønske du ville lave denne video på dansk også, så også hr og fru Danmark ville se den.

[@LifeSizedCity]

Nu er DK det land i verden hvor folk er bedst til engelsk som andet sprog jo. Men med på hvad du mener. /mikael

[@jonashansen6391]

Hej Mikael. Glimrende gennemgang af vanvidsprojektet. Jeg savner dog lidt nogle kildefortegnelser på de raporter og studier som anvendes til at argumentere i videoen (hvis de ikke er fortrolighedsstemplede, naturligvis). Men ja. Flere veje betyder flere biler: kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4aoeYqehMR7mrs

[@Michal2Mimo]

I was studying at Roskilde University - nordic urban planning (absolute garbage program) and I can say that the super hard focus on Copenhagen wasn't right. I had a feeling like they didn't even know that there is the rest of the kingdom to discover. Anyway, we were introduced to this project by ex CPH urbanist, we discussed more or less the same topics, like you did in the video and I was quite disappointed when the amount of parking spaces, 60'-like Road layout and the top of the cake the underground highway tunnel is planned for a city district which could be in use in 50 years. That's crazy! Denmark is very innovative, but this project feels unambitious. Let's see.

[@mikkeljacobsen6846]

Fuldt berettiget kritik ,,,👍

[@LifeSizedCity]

Tak! /Mikael

[@corinaschwarz2042]

Where can I find the data concerning increased car use and congestion in Copenhagen?

[@thetrashchannel1217]

In Kaunas Lithuania urbanists are trying to reduce the humongous Karalius Mindaugas street (6 lanes near the oldtown of a 300'000 people city), but the city continues making parking spaces around it, and the proposed bridge (Kėdainių tiltas) that would reduce the car trafic from that massive street is not supported by public because it would mess up the view to the of where the rivers meet. It would be interesting to hear your professional opinion on how would it be possible to solve this traffic puzzle by not increasing the car usage in the city.

[@LifeSizedCity]

Is the proposed bridge a car bridge? /Mikael

[@thetrashchannel1217]

@@LifeSizedCity yes it is a car brige but it has place for pedestrians and bikes too. if you are interested I would be very happy to share more information and illustrations, however I would need a gmail to send it to you and some time to collect enough data to make your job a bit easier on understanding the problem.

[@thetrashchannel1217]

@@LifeSizedCity also I see that I have made a mistake the street is 8 lanes wide and then a 6 lane street that conects with it cuts straight through the oldtown, putting pedestrians underground.

[@pettahify]

Really interested in the clip "simulated solutions". Wher can I find the complete video?

[@mdhazeldine]

That was a damn good Bjark Ingels impression. haha

[@nicholaswoollhead6830]

The Michael, saw you out at HC Andersensboulevard a few days ago - I wanted to say hi and thank you for all your content, but ya know, Corona and all. Anyhow, you're a champion, keep keeping it real.

[@LifeSizedCity]

Do it next time! Thanks, man! /Mikael

[@nicholaswoollhead6830]

@@LifeSizedCity Noted. Btw. your video here inspired be to put some energy into getting people to write høringssvar about Lynetteholm. I'm up to having helped over 50 people write them personally, over 70 shares on a facebook post on the topic, and having several andelsboligforeninger, ejerforeninger, and possibly a few companies send their own høringssvar as well (and also a kayaking club lol). Thank you for the inspiration dude.

[@Torsan1977]

That's insane!

[@Elementalfear]

I don't know in what capacity these numbers were already converted, but the advertised building cost of 25 bil Danish Krone, if compensated for 50 years of inflation (4,22% per year) comes to nearly 200 bil at completion. Meaning that even if the new properties are sold for the advertised price, you're realistically not recouping more than 15% of your investment. Count me in lol

[@LifeSizedCity]

Oooh. Nice! Good point! /mikael

[@Elementalfear]

@@Zapperlicious www.inflationtool.com/danish-krone this one uses a bit wider scope, so it comes to 4.15 but it averages to 4.22% annually in the last 50 years. I was very surprised by that too to be honest.

[@wernerrietveld]

On some points I agree with the video, on some a bit less. As a proud Dutchy, I cannot really be against claiming land from the sea. One serious question: why on earth are they planning to bring the dirt by truck? Don't you have ships in Denmark?

[@konskift]

Simple answer is that they are NOT planning on bringing it by truck. This idea is still at a very very early stage. With a rough estimate of how much dirt will be needed for infill, which can be measured in 'truckloads'... The infill could also come from the tunneling for the mentioned tunnel highway round the new island and new metro tunneling. It also could potentially be brought in by barge from other excavation projects elsewhere in the sea around DK.

[@wernerrietveld]

@@konskift That would make sense. However, there is still the map at 4:59, which shows, if google translate is correct is showing "daily land transports with new access road' in 2035. Where does that map come from? What does it mean? Would that be things other than dirt, like food, building materials and equipment etc?

[@LifeSizedCity]

The plans for using barges were dropped. So it's all trucks. www.tv2lorry.dk/koebenhavn/kaempe-oe-byggeri-kan-sende-72-lastbiler-gennem-koebenhavn-hver-time-i-30-aar

[@LifeSizedCity]

The map is the study from Rambøll about where the trucks will drive. More here www.tv2lorry.dk/koebenhavn/kaempe-oe-byggeri-kan-sende-72-lastbiler-gennem-koebenhavn-hver-time-i-30-aar

[@konskift]

@@LifeSizedCity Yes, a preliminary study from Rambøll, about some back of an envelope calculations and some frankly bizarre choices for routings. Whether lynetteholm is built as speculative land or not, coastal defenses will have to be built there and that will require transport of 'fill'. And the tv2/lorry piece doesn't indicate that barges are off the table. All of this is very preliminary and not likely to be an issue for at least 10 years. There may be valid criticisms of lynetteholm but frankly hysterical number crunching about big trucks thundering through 'medieval' town centres is not one.

[@gnawershreth]

The reality is that Copenhagen is simply a shitty city to make really big, they just don't want to admit that. There's water east and south of it, and west and north is pretty much fully developed already unless you want to live really far from Copenhagen itself. Copenhagen is full of legally protected buildings, narrow streets, canals etc. which simply makes it hard to expand. On top of that it's also one of the cities that are most likely to have serious problems with rising water levels due to global warming since it's low and flat. What are they going to do? Build a big sea wall from Helsingør to Køge or what? Closing off the Øresund will basically be a declaration of war with Russia since it's their way out in the world. Closing off Øresund and sending all shipping traffic to Storebælt and just sacrificing other towns and cities to the sea rise will likely create massive internal problems in Denmark, do people think the population will just be fine with being sacrificed for the good of the capital? The simple fact is that Copenhagen has a shitty location when it comes to a big city and a capital, geographically speaking it's way over in one corner closer to large parts of Sweden than to most of Denmark. In reality Denmark should try to move things *out* of Copenhagen instead of always trying to move more stuff *in* to Copenhagen. To keep expanding the harbor area is just stupid considering the city's location. The expansion of Copenhagen is basically taking place on the "backside" of the city, away from the rest of the country and Europe. That means all traffic going there will have to find a find across large parts of Denmark and through large parts of Copenhagen itself. The city is simply not located in a good position. Had it been located like one of our cities at the end of a fjord (ie. Horsens, Kolding, Odense etc) you'd have a way easier time expanding it, since you'd only have water blocking development on one side (the fjord itself) and you could expand easily in every other direction.

[@amalieemanuel1]

Does anyone know where to find than 400 something pages impact report that he refers to? :)

[@trainluvr]

This is a shocking report. Anyone wearing a shirt and tie and driving alone daily in a car to a job is likely not producing much of value.

[@NielsChristianNielsen6720]

Excellent take!

[@Alienman1212]

Would be nice if you added sources to substantiate all your claims

[@LifeSizedCity]

It would be nice if you learned how to google yourself, instead of expecting others to do all the work for you. /Mikael

[@Alienman1212]

@@LifeSizedCity you’re the one making the claims, hence you need to back it up, otherwise this video (and your claims) have no credibility

[@williamkristian4075]

@@Alienman1212 he mentioned a report, and I, a slightly furious Copenhagen citizen, can back him up, as I am also spectating this circus

[@Alienman1212]

@@williamkristian4075 I live in copenhagen as well, but his points are still not valid without evidence

[@kasperjensen8863]

@@williamkristian4075 None of the price numbers mentioned are in the report. Many of them seem to just be made up, including the initial claim that it'll cost 25bn kroner (the government is saying the island will be free because people pay to get rid of surplus soil and that'll create the island. That part has nothing to do with selling the land). The only source for the highway expansion mentioned in the end for example is the front page of a report on a 600 million kroner expansion of a highway 10 km away. It has nothing to do with Lynetteholm and the 20bn kroner cost seems to just have been made up. But it's still included despite the Lynetteholm project making it less necessary to expand that highway, not more. Just like an expansion of the current metro is included in the cost despite Lynetteholm making it less necessary not more. If anything those 6bn kroner should have been included on the benefit side of the calculation, not the cost side. And that's just some of it

[@kennethgad4402]

I don't agree with Copenhagen doesn't need a metro? It have completely changed how the city is connected. Suddenly its a joy going from outer Nørrebro to inner city / christianshavn / amager etc.

[@LifeSizedCity]

But as a taxpayer, wouldn't you wish it was a modern tramway system instead? Like the rest of Europe is doing? Same pleasure but on street level (urban anthropology) and for a tenth of the price, as well as a drastic reduction in cars. My colleagues in urbanism laugh when we talk about the CPH metro.

[@ruigoncalves2]

@@LifeSizedCity trams have to be slow for safety reasons. Needs to be subject to car signaling, road rules and car traffic. It’s just a shittier bus. Metros are an investment for centuries ahead. Fast, makes use of the vertical dimension. In my home town of Porto we have Tram like metro, underground (top speeds of 70kph) near the center of the city and surface level tram in some outskirts of the city. The road level sections are a joke: limited to 30kmh for safety reasons. Makes it unbearably bad and slow to get anywhere. I can bike faster...

[@nicolasblume1046]

11:00 same "argumentation" in berlin: supporters of the A100 motorway extension say that will reduce the number of cars on the local streets, while the opposite is true. Seems like the motorway they have in mind would only lead out of the city, not into it.

[@rosomakkamosor9766]

Czy tam przypadkiem, nie mieszkają myszy i nietoperze. Czy to jest dozwolone?

[@frenchfrog70]

Great video as usual. I'm curious to know who's idea is this megaproject? I find it disturbing to imagine that any competent environmentally minded urban designer could come up with such a ridiculously idiotic scheme.

[@LifeSizedCity]

It's not an urban designer. It's real estate people and developers. Which explains a lot. /Mikael

[@Kvadraten376]

The former mayor (centre-left) and the former prime minister (centre-right) proposed it together. But it has actually been proposed by visionary architects many times in the past. The motivation was the fact that they were planning future development areas to meet the demand for housing. The planning period ends in 2030. And the next planning period goes for the period 2030-2075. The tunnel had already been proposed as an independent project, and talks about flood protection made the whole thing kind of make sense.

[@laurids4586]

did you know that you talk like arnold :D this is amazing, keep up the good work

[@rvallenduuk]

Your Toto Wolff impression is pretty good ;-)

[@williamkristian4075]

Har du tænkt dig at lave en video om byggeriet på Lærkesletten?

[@marcsmsm]

They should focus on create density on the Reffen area and building a bridge connecting Reffen and Osterbro!!!

[@konskift]

Refn is privately held land. So unless you can get the land owners there to cough up for the necessary infrastructure that would cost the kommune even more.

[@LifeSizedCity]

As Konskift says, it's private - and it is these developers who have been pushing for a tunnel for years. But actually, a bike/ped bridge is planned across the harbour up there. No news when though.

[@isoadvector5819]

@@konskift The pension companies owning Refshaleøen needs the new traffic infrastruture (metro + car tunnel) coming along with Lynetteholm to be able to start building on Refshaleøen. Without it they cannot release the many potential billions of kroner they can gain by developing Refshaleøen. Therefore they are currently negotiating to contribute a significant amount (probably ~10 bkr) to the infrastructure of Lynetteholm.

[@konskift]

@@isoadvector5819 Yes. The kommune could also control development of both Refn and Lynette as they see fit (or we pressure them to see fit). Drop the p-space per dwelling requirement! If there is going to be an outer ring motorway, have it all in a tunnel and tie it directly to closure of Østerbro to Amager routes through the center. Designate Refn and Lynette as special cycle-neighbourhoods. With no through access for cars, a blanket 15kmh speed limit.

[@SimonS44]

looking forward to your rant on the 30 billion DKK Øresundsmetroen :D

[@ferrumlynx1914]

If they will build it I will leave the city. Sydhavnen is not a place I like to hang out, neither is Nordhavn. I luckily live in an older building on Amager but the island is also changing- if they just wouldn't build so soulless buildings.

[@JackFate76]

What are the chances of this monstrosity being built?

[@LaskeFA]

"M..Me.. Men væksten!" - Ole Birk Olesen m.fl.

[@LifeSizedCity]

Tja, ham gamle Ole. Den mest destruktive transportminister siden 60erne. /Mikael

[@MortenDurr]

God video, tak for den fremlægning!

[@tokepanduro7302]

The idea of lynetteholm were originally developed as an idea to avoid paying for climate adaptation.

[@emilferent23]

1) What do you mean they don't do things to mitigate the traffic in Cph? Bike lanes! 2) "There isn't any relestate in the south"? But there is a lot of it! And they are building south as well! 3) It doesn't make sense do develop communities far away from the center because it's always more efficient to have concentrated communities. And as it is, Cph is developed only in some directions, and not in a full 360. 4) Copenhill - it's great man! What's wrong with it? 5) The landfill project doesn't take 30 years (the trucks). It's the infrastructure. 6) There are already a lot of trucks driving around; so the increase is not significant. Just go to any highway and count them. 7) Making the motorway tunnel - instead of driving around the city, that sounds good to me. 8) You're cherry picking on all bad projects proposed around. A bit convenient isn't it?

[@LifeSizedCity]

Omg. Jeg ved fandme ikke hvir jeg skal begynd med alt det her. Vrøvl er jeg vant til men lige nu har jeg flødekartofler i ovnen og skal forberede resten af madem så held og lykke med din online undervisning! /Mikael

[@3goldfinger]

So glad I no longer live in Copenhagen or Denmark.

[@haraldkongen]

Great video！

[@jonatanrangan2874]

You should write a chonricle to a news paper we need to talk about this in DK especially with everything going on with Amager Fælled. Love your videos, cant get my head around you dont have a say in the planning of cph

[@HeavySmoker9240]

Fuck den der stolte dansker var spot on hahaha 😂

[@CarstinTwitch]

svøbt in i god gammel dansk satire sovs :-D

[@Ishtadi]

Thanks!

[@anderslethhefting2336]

His passive aggressive tone is funny especially for a dane who can tell how much he makes fun of people with 'danglish' accent.

[@andalalvar7183]

Eh, I think the metro has been a big benefit to Copenhagen and has opened up large parts of the city. The region is over a million people and it’s not excessive to have 3 or 4 metro lines.

[@LifeSizedCity]

What benefit? It only covers places that are within a bikeable or bussable (is that a word?) distance. I've done the studies. The primary goal of a metro is to reduce car traffic and that hasn't happened. Ask yourself why the rest of Europe is putting their tramway network or extending it. Cheaper, removes cars and adds life to streets - instead of sending citizens underground like rats so as not to affect car traffic.

[@andalalvar7183]

@@LifeSizedCity It's a great alternative to cycling, when carrying heavy loads, for older people or going all the way to Amager or Kastrup from Nørrebro eller Nord-Vest when it's raining. About 25% of my trips down there are by metro these days (also buses kind of suck). I'm with you that the kommune's support of cars in KBH is crazy but all those people using the (soon to be overcapacity) metro are doing so for a reason- maybe ask them why!

[@tomashule2369]

Denmark should invest this money for reforestation and rewilding rather, than for new housing for elite.

[@dorianleakey]

if they say its 3.4 billion then it will be 9 billion.

[@LifeSizedCity]

Truth. /Mikael

[@meceneurbandesign5105]

You are amazing!

[@jobbvir1]

Since your talk in January it seems the project still announced progress in June 2021. Hope it fell but stupidity is often also stubborn and can attract more fools.

[@crazycutz8072]

Hi Michael your malice makes me laugh out loud :) Thanks for the laugh - I need that

[@nicolasblume1046]

3:25 you really think the metro is unnecessary? I think it's a great success! They just should have made the platforms longer, so that in the future the trains could be extended

[@LifeSizedCity]

How do you measure success with public transport? In urban planning success is a reduction in motor vehicles. That hasn't happened. Only a reduction in cycling, which is not a benefit to public health. Trams have a high cost-benefit and contribute to urban life. /Mikael

[@Alienman1212]

Danish metro system is horrible when compared to elsewhere

[@1323-j6k]

@@Alienman1212 danish metro is awesome. What the hell are you talking about??

[@Skvat69]

@@Alienman1212 how? doesnt make sense to write this and not tell why

[@nicolasblume1046]

@@LifeSizedCity I agree that Copenhagen needs more trams - but as a replacement for buses, not as a metro replacement. The metro offers faster trips and has a way higher capacity

[@chazzplaya]

Didn't know the drummer from Metallica was so into urban design

[@kirstenbernstorffschrder3878]

Jeg respektere en som er i mod projektet. Vil selv undersøge mere.

[@LifeSizedCity]

Du kan med fordele meld dig ind i Stop Lynetteholm gruppen på Facebook - masser af info og inspiration.

[@zephyrus339]

50 years for a little island? The Netherlands build an entire province in slightly less time.

[@nielspedersigaard9821]

Oooor you can ship it in

[@2kguys]

Mikael, huge fan of your work, but I have to disagree with you on some of your critiques here. If the city is getting more expensive, forcing population loss because of the expense, there's a definite need for housing.Those with means might buy homes & apartments in Lynetteholm, allowing others to move into their old homes, with the chain continuing upwards so that people across the city may all move up an apartment class. I'm usually cautious of relying on market urbanism ideology, but it does hold some weight here. Simply dismissing this project as a cash grab rings hollow and kind of tone deaf when there are massive housing crises world wide. If cities are not able or unwilling to provide housing, someone has to do it, even if its market rate. Otherwise, no housing will get built and population losses & unaffordability will only increase. I like the solution of densifying Nordhavn with its existing infrastructure, efforts should be centered there first. Megaprojects are usually not smart or sustainable solutions, so if there are existing places to move growth needs, then let's do it! But as the city grows, there's going to be a need for more and more housing that can't all just be pushed outside of the historically protected core. I don't think we can dismiss the burden of the cost of housing for so many. As for the trucking issue, it's no doubt a big one. Could the dirt/sand not be hauled in on the harbor by ships? Doesn't make sense why large trucks would clog up the streets of a global capital for a project on the water. (Seeing in the comments others proposing the same thing, but you've said that idea was scrapped -so myopic!) Couldn't agree more with you on the timeline of project, roadways built (in the biking capital of the world in 2021??) and the cost. In the US, it's been common for 70 years to overpromise cost savings and under deliver on timeline for mega projects. Then, when the project is a quarter of the way done, the costs are hiked up, and no one can renege on it because looking at a quarter finished mega project is worse than a fully finished one. The Robert Moses special!! Love these videos and so glad for the content you're putting out. Planning community is small but mighty on KZbin!

[@TheOscDude]

As a person who came from a corrupt country I would say that a project like Lynnetteholmen would definitely make a lot of rich people richer there are always money behind it and those people are pushing it to make it happen but i guess Danmark is really not a corrupt country like mine 🤣🤣

[@tomaats24]

Your danish accent is spot on though. Hold nu kæft :D

[@soberhippie]

At least it's not Moscow

[@WanderABit]

No to so many projects of this scale around me, but the MO is the same -- awe the citizens the life will be better, spend some big money, and change nothing. Well, except for the headlines. As for air pollution -- you are being too optimistic, Polish way to deal with it -- increase the air pollutions limits, and voila, you have fresh, healthy air again. And it costed you nothing.

[@LifeSizedCity]

European Union nations can't raise the EU limits.

[@WanderABit]

@@LifeSizedCity Probably I used wrong term, if this is the case, sorry. Direct translation to English would be "alert threshold" (or "alert level").

[@alxengel]

The tunnel to Amager will cut the heavy traffic through the city to the airport and Sweden. If we are a little bit smart about public transport and self-driving electric vehicles, that will be wonderful. Also, dirt for the island will be transported by barges from the sea side not by truck through the city. Hope that nobody gets to buy rights for any land for the next many many years. There may be new inventions over the next thirty years that would make the current plans obsolete.

[@LifeSizedCity]

Nowhere in the world over the past 100 years has a tunnel or more motorway cut the number of cars. Cars increase. It's called Induced Demand. Self-driving cars in cities are 50 years away.

[@alxengel]

People are not going to fly less because the road to the airport is congested

[@johnjuhl3121]

The BIIIIG question: WHY ? The answer: It all makes perfect sense Expressed in dollars and cents Pounds shillings and pence (Roger Waters)

[@StelioRossi]

I hope you and your co-citizens will stop this foolish project. As Italian, I’m quite used to see stupid building projects, which are clear who is gaining money, at the expense of general population. I’ve been to Copenhagen once 8 years ago and found it great. So good luck an hope that the left and the greens will win your next elections!

[@xX3alienpjXx]

The only way i would move out of Copenhagen and into the surrounding municipalities would be better public transport. like you talk about with the tramways. which was removed because they blocked the cars, If you take Rødovre kommune, or Brønshøj in Copenhagen, they have bad connections with public transport, specially rail transport that is nonexsisting