Even newer Nørreport station?

Written in

by

In January 2015 we made one of our first urban beagling excursions, to the ‘new’ Nørreport station. Seven years later, it’s in line for a rethink (latest; 2024 update, again).

CPH’s answer to Clapham Junction, Ny Nørreport opened on time and on budget after a three-year refurb costing DK 400 million. The new station was very much talked up at the time, feted for creating one of the largest and longest public spaces in the city and (almost) opening up a busy intersection, hence integrating Nørreport with the pedestrianised part of the city centre.

The design was based around an analysis of the routes taken by the station’s users, likened to animal tracks or water flowing round rocks, with ‘deposits’ in the form of pavilions and bike stations. Instead of one single building the station is made up of six curved canopies, the largest the size of a small family house. Under two are service centres, including a staffed ticket office, a free! public toilet and two kiosks. The canopies are covered with stenurt (sedum), designed to absorb rainfall and work as insulation, as well as offerng a different appearance depending on the season.

From ground level things aren’t quite so lyrical. The station’s iconic red sign remains, but the six covered islands have largely taken the place of any form of street life around the station. The small stalls selling fruit and coffee, pølsevogner and exotica such as Tonis Lángos’ Hungarian potato bread which had taken up position in front of the station building over the years have moved on.

A further issue is the bike station solution. Modelled on flowerbeds and designed to recall the canopies, bike rack islands are located up to 50cm lower than the rest of the concourse, taking them out of the normal sightline; capacity is however limited, Even more dominant are the 11 ventilation shafts which zigzag across the concourse, lit from the inside, covered in glass and surrounded by hurrah! benches, finally installed in summer 2016.

The concourse may have been envisaged as airy and aesthetically pleasing, but the resulting public space is not really accessible or usable, hardly somewhere you would choose to linger. At the same time it lacks the identity and coherence of a place of transit–somewhere you pass through on the way to somewhere else.

Meanwhile, there have been no improvements to the travellng experience; below ground things remain as grim as ever, and the narrow, dimly lit platforms quickly become overcrowded, It’s hardly state of the art.

The likes of Monocle praise Copenhagen’s sleek lines and design-led approach to urbanism, only occasionally revealing the everyday reality beyond the city break or international ‘expat’ lifestyle. If you are looking for the essence of a city, with diversity and buzz, or simply for people who look different from you doing different things, you’d be better off heading elsewhere.

Incidentally, Beagles 1 & 2 were six and four at the beginning of 2015. Beagle nr 3, who will be two in June, has already earned considerable urban and suburban beagling credentials, while nr 4, at nearly four months, has already visited a small housing estate and inspected the source of a lost river.


Sources: Nørreport og Nørre Voldgades historie (tag; paywall). DAC. 2020 critique: Arkitekturforeningen, Danish Design Review.

See also Politiken’s 2015 review (paywall), which awarded five stars out of six, citing the station’s ‘organic qualities’ offering a range of repetitions and variations, entrances and exits, a station which can’t be viewed as a unity – or even as a single place. The canopies were found to be reminiscent of Arne Jacobsen’s petrol station at Skovshoved, creating a new high space over a bigger and more human concourse.

In Monocle’s Tall Story 300: Sights and sounds, Andrew Tuck “ponders what lessons old photographs of cities can teach us about our contemporary metropolises”. See foot for the perpetual motion of Nørreport in 1950, courtesy of KBH Billeder. Update: pre-Boulevardbanen.

Timeline:

  • 1918: the station opens as Frederiksborggadestation, a stop on Boulevardbanen, the first service running through rather than simply into the city; built underground, the station was marked by two soup terrine-shaped pavilions at street level
  • 1932; new funkis station constructed
  • 1934: the S tog opens; 8 million passengers per year
  • 1937: 24 million passengers per year
  • 2002: the metro opens, with a dedicated entrance on Frederiksborggade
  • 2015: the new station serves 80K S tog passengers a day, plus 20K mainline and regional train passengers and 40K metro passengers, not to mention all the nearby buses

One response to “Even newer Nørreport station?”

  1. Andrew Avatar
    Andrew

    I think this review is a bit unfair. I think the redesign did integrate the station square better into the fabric of Copenhagen. It has some issues yes, principally the bicycle parking. Having been to the Netherlands, even as a Dane, it strikes me there’s a lot to do to improve bicycle parking in Copenhagen (and elsewhere). And yes, more thought should have been given to how to create an inventing space around the station. I think particularly a lack of green space and sitting options are to blame here. But all in all, the reforms were an improvement above ground. Below ground, it’s a much different story. The regional/national rail central platform was renovated and now looks quite inviting and modern, albeit it is still much too narrow. The s-tog platform, however, is in dire need of a major facelift. This is what DSB have reported they want to do next, although without revealing any details. Personally, I think the station is in need of an entire functional rebuild below ground, but at the moment, national politicians are not prioritising the railways to any sufficient extent (much like in the UK alas), so such huge investment is a while off. Still, there is hope, because Copenhagen Council are going to make some changes to the square, hopefully adding some elements of urbanist value. Below ground, DSB intends to improve the mezzanine&stair area and principally, the s-tog platforms, though only aesthetically speaking, for widening the platform would require a rebuild of the tunnels. This work is said to take place from 2025 onwards, so there are at least some modest improvements coming our way.

    Regarding your other comments regarding Copenhagen, I can only gather that you feel a bit like I did after having lived in Zurich for over 16 years. Regardless of all the positive comments you get regarding the positives, you start to focus or at least become aware of the negatives. I think in this regard, Copenhagen is not a perfect city, no city is. You’re bound to find good urbanism in a range of different places: Paris, London, Stockholm, Oslo, Edinburgh, the Netherlands (seriously, good urban design is everywhere there). But there is something to be said for Danish urbanism and design. I was in Odense recently, it struck me that this city, especially with it’s recent redesign and new tram line, is gorgeous. But good urbanism is not restricted to Denmark and in fact, I think we can learn a lot from particularly Dutch and French public planners to improve Danish cityscapes. With all humility, perhaps one would have to conclude that the Dutch come closest to designing the perfect towns/cities, but I think a city’s imperfections are also what can make it special. In this way, it’s the shoddy or quirky bits of London, Copenhagen or Edinburgh, otherwise cities with a lot of beautiful spots, that make them all the more intriguing. Having lived in a near “perfect” city (by no means perfect in terms of urbanism, but more in the sense of cleanliness, functionality, geographic beauty, quietness and orderliness), that being Zurich, I can say without a doubt, it’s soul-crushing. So I say, here’s to the cities that are very *good*, but that have their quirks and imperfections, for those are the great cities of this world.

Leave a comment

walking and writing in Denmark and elsewhere

Upsidedown is a WordPress theme design that brings blog posts rising above inverted header and footer components.