1. Copenhagen has a 60-year record of transit-oriented development since its 1947 Finger Plan, which designated five fingers of urban development along existing or planned suburban railway lines.
2. Ørestad is Copenhagen's linear town built around stations on an elevated, driverless mini-metro line and has been successful in creating transit-oriented development of jobs, housing, retail, education, and leisure facilities.
3. Ørestad has contributed to Copenhagen's economic growth and international competitiveness by relieving pressure on the Central Business District and attracting additional investment and jobs to the city.
The article provides a comprehensive overview of transit-oriented development (TOD) in Copenhagen, Denmark, with a focus on the Ørestad area. The author highlights the success of TOD principles in Copenhagen since the 1947 Finger Plan and how they have been maintained over time. The paper also discusses how the construction of the Copenhagen Metro was financed by selling publicly-owned land along its route to developers.
The article presents evidence that Ørestad has successfully created transit-oriented development of jobs, housing, retail, education, and leisure facilities. It notes that Ørestad has contributed to Copenhagen's economic growth and international competitiveness by relieving pressure on the Central Business District. The author argues that TOD can be financed through land value capture from development sites.
However, there are some potential biases in the article. For example, it focuses primarily on the positive aspects of TOD in Copenhagen and does not explore any negative consequences or challenges associated with this approach to urban development. Additionally, while the paper mentions that private car ownership increased rapidly in Denmark after World War II, it does not discuss how this trend may have impacted TOD efforts or whether there were any negative consequences associated with increased car use.
Furthermore, while the article notes that TOD has been successful in Asian cities like Hong Kong and Tokyo, it does not explore why these approaches may not work as well in other contexts or whether there are any potential risks associated with implementing TOD strategies.
Overall, while the article provides a useful overview of TOD in Copenhagen and its successes in Ørestad specifically, it would benefit from a more balanced discussion of potential drawbacks or challenges associated with this approach to urban development.