, Volume 83, Issue 2, pp 289–304 | Cite as

"Welcome in my backyard"…but on my terms: making sense of homeless exclusion from renewed urban spaces in Copenhagen

  • Parama Roy


Based on a Danish case study of urban renewal in Copenhagen’s Sundholm District, this paper examines, (a) how present urban regeneration efforts in a historically welfare-driven, but increasingly neoliberalized state context, is contributing to more or less spatial exclusion of the homeless, and (b) to what extent this may be associated with a revanchist/punitive stance of the Danish state. Using an urban political ecological lens, this paper highlights a relational understanding of the apparently dualistic/competing public and civic discourses shaping the Danish urban regeneration program. Revealing the complex ways that public socio-environmental policies and middle-class civic environmentalism/activism intersect with state-entrepreneurialism within such regeneration efforts, this paper presents an instance of a historically and geographically distinct process of neoliberal disciplining of the poor in Sundholm District. The paper shows that while such disciplining of the homeless is not driven by a purely punitive state, it results in soft, green-coded, nonetheless exclusionary implications for the homeless and their socio-spatial practices within the renewed urban spaces.


Neoliberal disciplining Urban political ecology Urban renewal Danish state Homeless Spatial exclusion 


  1. Agger, A., & Larsen, J. N. (2009). Exclusion in area-based urban policy. European Planning Studies, 17(7), 1085–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agger, A., Roy, P., & Leonardsen, Ø. (2016). Anchoring network-based community projects in Copenhagen. Planning Theory and Practice, 17(3), 325–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen, H. T., Blach, V., Nielsen, R. S., & Beckman, A. W. (2014). Assessment of urban policies on diversity in Copenhagen. Copenhagen: Danish Building Research Institute, Aalborg University.Google Scholar
  4. Andersen, J., & Pløger, J. (2007). The dualism of urban governance in Denmark. European Planning Studies, 15(10), 1349–1367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atkinson, R. (2003). Domestication by cappuccino or a revenge on urban space? Control and empowerment in the management of public spaces. Urban Studies, 40(9), 1829–1843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bannister, J., Fyfe, N., & Kearns, A. (2006). Respectable or respectful? (In)civility and the city. Urban Studies, 43(5–6), 919–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bayliss, D. (2007). The rise of the creative city: Culture and creativity in Copenhagen. European Planning Studies, 15(7), 889–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bjødstrup, A. (2014). Balancing diversity in urban public space planning-A case study of the potential for integration through public spaces in the Sundholm Quarter. Master’s Thesis, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
  9. Bloomley, N. (1994). Law, space, and the geographies of power. New York: Guildford.Google Scholar
  10. Blumenberg, E., & Ehrenfeucht, R. (2008). Civil liberties and the regulation of public space: The case of sidewalks in Las Vegas. Environment and Planning A, 40(2), 303–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Body-Gendrot, S. (2008). Muslims: Citizenship, security and social justice in France. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 36(4), 247–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brandt, P. (1999). Reflections on homelessness as seen from an institution for the homeless in Copenhagen. In I. D. Avramov (Ed.), Coping with homelessness (pp. 510–526). Aldershot: Feantsa, Ashgate Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  13. Brenner, N., & Theodore, N. (2002). Cities and the geographies of “actually existing neoliberalism”. Antipode, 34(3), 349–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bunce, S., & Desfor, G. (2007). Introduction to “political ecologies of urban waterfront transformations”. Cities, 24(4), 251–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. City Strategy. (2008). Accesses 5th Jan 2016.
  16. Coleman, R. (2004). Watching the degenerate: Street camera surveillance and urban regeneration. Local Economy, 19(3), 199–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Coleman, R. (2009). “They just look wrong”: Visualizing crime and grime in the post social city. Criminal Justice Matters, 78(1), 29–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Desfor, G., & Jørgensen, J. (2004). Flexible urban governance: The case of Copenhagen’s recent waterfront development. European Planning Studies, 12(4), 479–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Doherty, J., Busch-Geertseema, V., Karpuskeine, V., Korhonen, J., O’Sullivan, E., Sahlin, I., et al. (2008). Homelessness and exclusion: Regulating public space in European cities. Surveillance and Society, 5(3), 290–314.Google Scholar
  20. Dooling, S. (2009). Ecological gentrification: A research agenda exploring justice in the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(3), 621–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dyrholm, L. B., & Leon, P. (2015) Sammen Om Sundholm, Sundholmskvarterets Omradeloft.Google Scholar
  22. Ellin, N. (1997). Architecture of fear. New York: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Eurostat. (2014). Eurostat statistical books. Living conditions in Europe. Luxembourg: European Union.Google Scholar
  24. Favell, A. (2003). Integration nations: The nation-state and research on immigrants in Western Europe. In G.Brochmann (Ed.), Multicultural Challenge (Comparative Social Research) (Vol. 22, pp. 13–42). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  25. Feantsa. (2012). Housing Rights Watch, Denmark. Accessed 7th June 2013.
  26. Ghose, R., & Pettygrove, M. (2014). Urban community gardens as spaces of citizenship. Antipode, 46(4), 1092–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hansen, H., & Winther, L. (2012). The urban turn: Cities, talent and knowledge in Denmark. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Heynen, N. (2014). Urban political ecology I: The urban century. Progress in Human Geography, 38(4), 598–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heynen, N., Kaika, M., & Swyngedouw, E. (2006). In the nature of cities: Urban political ecology and the politics of urban metabolism. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Jensen, P. H. (1999). Activation of the unemployed in Denmark since the early 1990s. Welfare or Workfare? Centre for Comparative Welfare State Studies (CCWS). Aalborg University. Accessed 12th May 2014.
  31. Jensen, E. H., & Munk, A. (2007). Kvarterløft:10 Years of Urban Regeneration. Published by The Ministry of Refugees, Immigration and Integration Affairs, Denmark.−79E6-4227-B08B-1B5A641CC27E/0/10_years_of_urban_regeneration.pdf. Accessed 3rd March 2015.
  32. Johnsen, S., & Fitzpatrick, S. (2010). Revanchist sanitation or coercive care? The use of enforcement to combat begging, street drinking and rough sleeping in England. Urban Studies, 47(8), 1703–1723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jou, S. C., Clark, E., & Chen, H. W. (2014). Gentrification and revanchist urbanism in Taepei? Urban Studies. doi: 10.1177/0042098014541970.Google Scholar
  34. Kearns, A. (1995). Active citizenship and local governance: Political and geographical dimensions. Political Geography, 14(2), 155–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Koefoed, L. (2015). Majority and minority nationalism in the Danish post-welfare state. Geografiska Annaler: Series B Human Geography, 97(3), 223–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kohn, M. (2004). Brave new neighborhoods: The privatization of public space. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Larsen, N. J. (2013). Area-based approches to urban regeneration: innovation in vain? A comparison of evidence from the UK and Denmark. In M. E. Leary & J. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge companion to urban regeneration (pp. 401–410). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Larsen, C. A., & Andersen, J. G. (2009). How new economic ideas changed the Danish welfare state: The case of neoliberal ideas and highly organized social democratic interests. Governance, 22(2), 239–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Larsen, H. G., & Lund Hansen, A. (2008). Gentrification gentle or traumatic? Urban renewal policies and socioeconomic transformations in Copenhagen. Urban Studies, 45(12), 2429–2448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Larsen, H. G., & Lund Hansen, A. (2015). Commodifying Danish housing commons. Geografiska Annaler: Series B Human Geography, 97(3), 263–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lees, L. (2008). Gentrification and social mixing: Towards an inclusive urban renaissance? Urban Studies, 45(12), 2449–2470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Loftus, A. (2012). Everyday environmentalism: Creating an urban political ecology. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Low, M. S., & Smith, N. (2006). The politics of public space. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Macleod, G. (2002). From urban entrepreneurialism to a revanchist city? On the spatial injustices of Glagow’s renaissance. Antipode, 34(3), 602–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. MacLeod, G., & Johnstone, C. (2012). Stretching urban renaissance: Privatizing space, civilizing place, summoning ‘community’. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mitchell, D. (2003). The right to the city: Social justice and the fight for public space. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  47. Municipal Plan. (2011). City of Copenhagen, Denmark. The Finance Administration. Print.Google Scholar
  48. Papayanis, M. A. (2000). Sex and the revanchist city: Zoning out pornography in New York. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 18(3), 341–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Peck, J., & Tickell, A. (2002). Neoliberalizing spaces. In N. Brenner & N. Theodore (Eds.), Spaces of neoliberalism: Urban restructuring in North America and Western Europe (pp. 33–57). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  50. Quastel, N. (2009). Political ecologies of gentrification. Urban Geography, 30(7), 694–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sahlin, I. (2006). Urban definitions of places and behavior. National Report for Sweden, Working Group 1 European Observatory on Homelessness, FEANTSA, Brussels.Google Scholar
  52. Schmidt, J. (2012). The Danish government’s policies on homeless migrants’ rights to public space and public facilities and services for homeless people: An example of the criminalization of homelessness in Copenhagen. In The Geographies of homelessness: Homeless experiences and homeless policy in different spaces, homeless in Europe (Summer 2012). The Magazine of FEANTSA - The European Federation of National Organisations Working with the Homeless AISBL. Google Scholar
  53. Simonsen, K. (2015). Encountering racism in the (post-)welfare state: Danish experiences. Geografiska Annaler: Series B Human Geography, 97(3), 213–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Slater, T. (2009). Revanchist city. In R. Hutchison (Ed.), The encyclopedia of urban studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Accessed 8th June 2013.
  55. Smith, N. (1996). The new urban frontier: Gentrification and the revanchist city. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Smith, N. (1998). Giuliani time: The revanchist 1990s. Social Text, 57, 1–20. doi: 10.2307/466878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Smith, N. (2001). Global social cleansing: Post liberal revanchism and the export of zero tolerance. Social Justice, 28(3 (85)), 68–74. Law, Order, and Neoliberalism.Google Scholar
  58. Staeheli, L., & Mitchell, D. (2008). The people’s property: Power politics and the public. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Strategy for Copenhagen Tourism. (2014–2016). Wonderful Copenhagen. Accessed 12/21/2016.
  60. Sundholmsvej Områdeløft. (2009). Kvarterplan 2008–2013, Sundholmsvejkvarterets Områdeløft. Accessed 5th February 2013.
  61. Taylor, N. (1998). Planning theory after the new right. In N. Taylor (Ed.), Urban planning theory since 1945 (pp. 130–154). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  62. Technical and Environmental Administration. (2012). Integrated Urban Renewal in Copenhagen, 2012. Accessed 19th March 2015.
  63. Technical and Environmental Administration, District Development. (2010). Policies for Disadvantaged Areas in Copenhagen (2010). Accessed 24 November 2013.
  64. Tverskov, K. (2007). Image-a part of the Kvarterløft strategy. In E. H. Jensen, & A. Munk, (Eds.) Kvarterløft: 10 Years of Urban Regeneration, (pp. 35–37). Published by The Ministry of Refugees, Immigration and Integration Affairs, Denmark.−79E6-4227-B08B-1B5A641CC27E/0/10_years_of_urban_regeneration.pdf. Accessed 3rd March 2015.
  65. Uitermark, J., & Duyvendak, J. W. (2008). Civilizing the city: Populism and revanchist urbanism in Rotterdam. Urban Studies, 45(7), 1485–1503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Unified Plan. (2008) Boligsocial helhedsplan for Sundholmsvejkvarteret. VIBO, AAB, Lejerbo, Hovedstadens Almennyttige Boligselskab. Accessed 3rd Feb 2013.
  67. USER. (2012). USER Changes and conflicts in using public spaces, Base line Study URBACT II. Accessed 2nd March 2013.
  68. Van Eijk, G. (2010). Exclusionary policies are not just about the ‘Neoliberal City’: A critique of theories of urban revanchism and the case of Rotterdam. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34(4), 820–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Whitehead, J. (2008). Rent gaps, revanchism and regimes of accumulation in Mumbai. Anthropologica, 50(2), 269–282.Google Scholar
  70. Wygnanska, J. (2006). Homeless and access to space. National Report for Poland, Working Group 1 European Observatory on Homelessness, FEANTSA, Brussels.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Binghamton UniversityVestalUSA
  2. 2.University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations