Copenhagen, Denmark
Crystallising out of an open-air cafe in Copenhagen harbour,
the urban-social collective Supertanker evade definition
other than t heir own. Self-described 'facilitators', the group
are emphatically interdisciplinary: coming from fields
spanning architecture, urbanism, art and sociology, they
set up in 2003 as a non-profit with t he aim of exploring
the potential for productive forms of densification. They
emerged amid antagonistic discussions over t he fate of
the harbour: crit icism was levelled at t he area becoming
the private reserve of luxury housing and big business -
sp eculative land value misting t he air above ex-industrial
warehouses - ·while grassroots groups and small endeavours
still held interim occupation of this interstit ial terrain.
Supertanker b egan as 'a symbol of constructive debate',
mediators in t he age-old tension playing out between local
stakeholders and the powers-that-develop. Organising
workshops, exhibitions and boat rides, they combined tactics
in a series of public meetings they called Free Trial. Staging
a simile of a court case in which journalists presented
opposing posit ions on an issue of development, t his
framework gives structural agonism to the oft-fraught
meeting betvveen a preservative community and the
proponents of the developing city, ensuring advocacy for the
former and informed advice for the latter. Anders Hagedorn,
a process designer for Supertanker, recalls a case in which
the group was commissioned by the city of Copenhagen to
hold a Ineeting on high-rise str ategy. Predicting an impasse
between the mayor's office and the public, they began by
asking attendees to map where it would be preferable not
to go high, implementing the polar structure of t he debate
against itself, in service of nuance; of a public good. 'There's
creative energy in that tension', Hagedorn comments.
'The critics are voicing something important, and it's
a question of how to integrate those crit ical notes.'
The high-rise strategy case also became a caution of
sole-source finance for the gr oup. The mayor's office became
reluctant to accept challenges to their plan, jeopardising
Supertanker's impartiality: they no longer work in advisory
roles without guarantee that challenges will be welcomed,
now focusing on a multi-dependent funding model devised
to defer accountability from a single source. The success of
such a model lies in delicate equilibrium; a balance t hat must
be guarded, actively maintained against t he heavy swaying
power of capital.
While still subject to t he same forces that mandate
the interminable and untenable expansion of t he city,
Copenhagen does offer a privileged environment for groups
hoping to experiment with urbanism as a creative condenser.
Hom e to Jan Gehl and famously exemplary of humane
urbanism, the city seethes with the potential to use density
as a crucible of human connection: in its staunch protection
of the p edestrian and celebration of the cyclist, t he city
avows a liveability unthinkable in t he siloed stations of
megalopolises worldwide. Since 2005, t he city's public
housing fund has also invested in social init iatives as well as
rebuilding and r enovation, a move which has funded 75 per
cent of Supertanker's more r ecent work in t he Copenhagen
suburb of Charlottekvarteret - the other 25 per cent split
between the municipality and t he housing association.
Contrary to t he apparent social good of this funding,
Danish housing policy can b e decisively cruel. As one of
the 'ghettos' designated by the former populist government
in 2010 (and thus far largely upheld by the n ew centre-left
government), Charlottekvarteret is particularly marginalised- its residents sufl'er stigmatisation and severe special
legislation: doubled sentencing for crimes committed,
for example, or a minimum 25 hours a week of m andatory
instruction in 'Danish values' for children from the age of
one. Yet Hagedorn assures that the interests of the funding
provided lie purely in social good. ' Vhere strict regulations
prohibit expr essions of place such as painted fences or
vegetable gardens, Supertanker's work her e has focused on
facilitating projects to support community development and
the creation of collective identity. Rather than focusing on
a material aesthetic, the group has designed a process for
participative action, involving residents in the manifestation
of interventions from benches to bins to the renovation
of underpasses. Often delving into the area's history to give
root to installations, t he engagement of the community
further embeds each intervention within local lore: the
intangible value of ownership imbued and community
networks developed by these projects is immeasurable.
What is striking is not just the impact of the interventions
themselves, but Supertanker's method of engagement with
the megalithic, rolling momentum of a massive institutional
body or state entity. Their strategy intimates an abiding
pragmatism about t he inevitability of growth: rather than
opt out entirely, forming small en claves of social good almost
independently of political, legal or economic context,
by diving into t h e densifyi.ng morass Supertanker are able
to strike near t h e heart, signifying opportunities to make
a genuine, replicable and widespread difference. Lili Za1'Zycki
Supporting em er ging architects