The 50-Year Plan to Save Copenhagen From Flooding
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 авг 2024
- Coming Summer 2070.
For more by Tomorrow's Build subscribe now - bit.ly/3vOOJ98
Narrator - Fred Mills
Executive Producers - Fred Mills and Graham MacAree
Producer - Adam Savage
Video Editing and Graphics - Thomas Canton
Additional footage and images courtesy of COWI, Arkitema, Tredje Natur, A / S Øresund, Consorzio Venezia Nuova, Euronews, Royal HaskoningDHV, The Danish Government and OpenStreetMap Contributers (www.openstreet....
Follow us on Twitter - / tomorrowsbuild
Like us on Facebook - / tomorrowsbuild
Follow us on LinkedIn - / tomorrowsbuild
Follow us on Instagram - / tomorrowsbuild
#construction #architecture #cities
Tomorrow's Build is owned and operated by The B1M Limited. We welcome you sharing our content to inspire others, but please be nice and play by our rules: www.theb1m.com/...
Our content may only be embedded onto third party websites by arrangement. We have established partnerships with domains to share our content and help it reach a wider audience. If you are interested in partnering with us please contact Enquiries@TheB1M.com.
Ripping and/or editing this video is illegal and will result in legal action.
© 2022 The B1M Limited
I think I'm with the people who say "just build a simple flood defense without housing".
I think it's a pretty safe assumption that the housing would be premium and out of reach for the majority.
also the idea of populating it with wildlife just to plaster everything with housing afterwards seems quite strange.
same
That's mostly around the barrier for flood protection. Basic landscaping will be done after construction.
They will be completely new buildings to the latest standards and land reclamation isn't exactly cheap. I would be happy the whole thing is funded privately and not with tax money. It all depends on how Denmark manages housing as investings but more homes can't really do harm right? Wouldn't other parts of the city fall in price accordingly?
@@Maxime_K-G In a crowded urban area with a housing shortage, any new housing is good housing.
Even if it's high-end "forever homes" for upper middle class or wealthy people, it still means that much *less* competition for lower-cost fixer-uppers middle-class couples maybe could afford.
Very strange. If it’s to prevent flooding, adding impermeable surfaces is counterproductive. A simple flood wall would do the trick, but if you’re gonna build a nature area it should stay. It should be a wetlands area that’s used to soak up any water that does make it over the barrier.
I live in Køge a small town on the coast facing the bay of Køge, about 40-50 km south of Copenhagen. This is where most of the sludge initially dug up, is going to be dumped. Some of the sludge is contaminated and even if it wasn't, dumping this amount of material is bound to disturb the marine environment in the area. There is a "string" of municipalities along the coast of the bay, that are not too happy about this dumping. This is something the Swedes are also aware off as they have a marine nature reserve just next to the dumping grounds on the opposite side of the bay.
There was an article on this recently, where it was mentioned that in order to move that much dirt, an enormous fleet of trucks was needed. Specifically 72 truckloads an hour, 10 hours a day, 5 days a week - for 30 YEARS!!!
50 years mate.... 50 god damn years im 38 living in CPH so I will only see the trucks
And you have to remember, danish people are slow building things. So it's probably gonna be 50 to 70 years.
This project of madness puts the entire nation of Denmark to shame ...
Truly amazing. Always fascinated by countries that add to their land mass, it just seems way beyond Britain's capability. Sad I will be 100 by its end date of 2070 so somone else will need to observe the outcome. Thanks for delivering this story.
I’ll tell you about it when I get the chance
Not every Island in Europe is British.
It’s Denmarks capital.
@@samuelgassert6826 i think hes saying that britain couldn't do it, referring to "it just seems way beyond britain's capacity"
🇳🇱
@@RedRocketthefirst 🇷🇺
Here in Copenhagen the tradition goes: Become a major of the city , get all the political influences and then jump from politics to contractor business then you know all you have to know to make most profit out off real estate -regardless of environment and people living in the city. High income people are what you are after and for them you will build!
I live in Copenhagen, and sadly, it’s not for saving Copenhagen, but for contractors to make a lot of money on real-estate as many other places in Copenhagen. Without the island, Copenhagen cannot pay for the Metro. At the moment the government is moving mercury from the harbor to Øresund, and there is pollution problems already. There is nothing amazing about this build, and it is catastrophic for the climate.
Spiller du pik?
The decision to build a new district of urban land is very questionable to me. If it’s for flood defense, keeping it as a nature preserve focused on wetlands would be the best strategy. It’s asinine to me that they’ll build that and then destroy it to build more impenetrable surfaces. Seems counterintuitive.
@@victorzimmermann1 Den er finansieret af by og havn hvor de har lånt en hvis mængde penge fra staten (bemærk at det er lån som skal tilbagebetales), så nej, i jyder har ikke betalt for den ;)
Why can't Copenhagen expand inland?
Lynetteholm has a few argument going for it, and a lot af arguments against.
I'm surprised that the video doesn't even take the time to mention the part of the environmental impact assessment that is modeled on how the extremely important flow of salty oxygenated water from the Kattegatt into the Baltic sea, is effected by Lynetteholm. The inflow of water is important for the major parts of the Baltic sea. Lynetteholm will be placed partly on one of the deeper channels in Öresund, where water from the Kattegatt flows south towards the Baltic Sea. The whole model and its results have been critized and is now being assessed by a third part.
Furthermore, the full environmental aspects of all parts of Lynetteholm has never been revealed... because they don't exist. It's cut to pieces to match smaller parts of the bigger project. This makes it extremely hard to grasp the full picture of benefits versus costs and impacts.
And not to mention that the polluted dredged material from the building site, are being dumped as far away from the danish coast line as possible, and as close to the swedish border (with protected marine areas) as possible. Neither the affected danish municipalities or the swedish authorities are exited about this. And the whole project has there, once again been reported to the EU for breaking the rules of not having a proper trial and permit for affecting a Natura 2000 protected area.
And this is not even the full picture of the critique...
I had no idea this was even in planning. Very interesting!
Who know what the city's needs will be in 50 years. Similar with other very long-term projects, I wonder if it will be worth it. I kind of feel like a smaller barrier, with less building space, but keeping the focus on nature would be a better, faster and cheaper option, and moving the building development aspect elsewhere in the city (if such space exists.)
Me neither and I live here. LOL
I agree. If they really wanted they could just narrow the project and make a very long park for people to enjoy, while serving as flood defense
Hi, im Danish.
The genius is, that the housing will pay for the barrier. And in the future the plan to expand it with a highway south to the airport - along the coast, and build a barrier AND a coverd highway.
Copenhagen have had a building spree the last 20 years, and is running outof space to build in. Well, there is some flat lands to the south, but it is a cherised peace of nature that many love to walk in. So there would be an uproar it they took that.
Short term projects are almost never as good as long term projects. The only reason short term projects are popular is because we always want instant gratification. It's a failure of the human race.
It's terrible. It's ruining the city. This video is so biased.
Building more houses actually does help in bringing down cost, given it’s public housing. In the UK, the “Help to Buy” resulted in price increases for housing, and reports do suggest that increasing supply should’ve been the plan done instead.
The problem with Lynetteholmen is that the housing part is to cover expenses for the other 2/3 of the project. The tunnel underneath the harbor and a ringroad. The company behind is bound to a specific law as they sit on 33% of the debt from the Copenhagen metro construction. That law states that their projects have to result in maximal profit as they are still paying off on that debt
@@Danishsnufkin and also that at 35,000 people, thats only adding 700/people/year. Thats not even 700 units, 700 people. More like 300-400 units/year. Or 1 to 2 midrise apartment buildings.
It's a poor housing solution sadly. Europe is very anti-highrise but the real solution for Copenhagen is to build up and densely, not sprawl outward with reclaimed land that will take half a century to build and likely have no impact on housing.
@@ChoKwo There's also the matter of upzoning suburbs to tearing down lots of the parcel houses and villas out there and replacing them with dense 4-5 story buildings. That's how Copenhagen originally developed before WW2 but we rarely see anything like that in the suburban municipalities these days. Heck Copenhagen is one of the least dense metropolitan areas in Europe because of this. Compare that to something like Vienna which has dense 2-3 story buildings like whats out in Brønshøj, all the way to the edge of the metropolitan area. So we also need to take the existing neighborhoods and make them much denser to deal with this. Its just not sustainable for so many people to live in such parcel houses, taking up so much space, and spreading infrastructure wide across relatively few tax payers. It costs the municipalities tonnes, and its worse for the environment too, and for the housing crisis.
@@ChoKwo it's a real estate hustle. plain and simple. Some would even say a pyramid scheme with housing. Lord knows, that flood prevention is the last thing on the minds of the madmen behind this
2070?
The year I turn 95. Can't wait.
2070! A lot of the people with complaints will be dead by the time it's finished.
Great video as always!
Copenhagener here with large interest in urban planning.
Love the balanced approach in the video, showcasing the main pro's and con's of the project.
Keep up the good work.
What's your opinion on the project, if you don't mind me asking?
@@pangaea5258 Floodprotection and new living space are both important for Copenhagen, and combining them could produce benefits.
Ecological impacts are evaluated and in the end I expect nature go gain from the project.
There will be for a long time a huge construction side in front of CPH that will be irritating for the people linving there, yet this has been the case for the last decade with other projects anyways.
Financially it is ambigious - the apartments will be upper price range, yet if you get real estate developers to pay for flood protection and development while making money it can be a succesful public-private partnership.
In the end I think it's a great project if it will be developed correctly.
@@Truschny I like that Copenhagen has a long-term vision and isn't just focused on the short-term like many other cities. I'm from the Netherlands and people here really admire the Danish government in general. If only our leaders were as rational...
@@pangaea5258 danish government sucks though, believe me, it'll always look better from abroad
@@Truschny det er en virkelig dum idé
That "Apparently" in the beginning sounded a little salty there Fred.
Man, Copenhagen is absolutely stunning, please don't let it become the next Atlantis! 😂
@Grudon 57 no ;)
@Grudon 57 Cope ;)
MAMA I'M ON RUclips! I'm the guy at 4:19 walking around with a megaphone. I'm a spokesperson for the movement STOP Lynetteholm.
Very good video, and well produced, but I am sorry to say that it omits a lot of the issues with the island, which ultimately make it an awful idea which needs to be scrapped. I perfectly well understand that you can't include everything in a 6 minute video.
Here's a very incomprehensive list of the issues:
Lynetteholm DOES NOT defend Copenhagen against flooding. The risk of storm surges in Copenhagen is much greater from the south than the north (as in - water leaving the Baltic, rather than water built up in Kattegat). The island will form a lid in one end of the harbor, trapping a potential storm surge from the south, and causing more severe floods than would otherwise have happened. This is a concern shared by several independent hydrographers who have investigated the project.
Lynetteholm HAS NOT had sufficient environmental assessments made. The Danish Aquarium (Den Blå Planet) have had to stop taking water for their saltwater tanks from the ocean, despite reports from By&Havn (the developers) assuring them that it is safe to do so - i.e. some of Denmarks top marine biologists do not trust By&Havn's assessments. Likewise, independent experts in several fields have described the environmental impact assessment rapport as "a hackjob", and disputed many parts of it.
Lynetteholm IS NOT necessary for the city. The only reason the municipality really wants it, is so they can make money from selling lots in order to buy more Metro lines which seem to be a vote-getter. Currently, in Denmark, the municipality is responsible for taking on excess dirt from construction sites. Lynetteholm was made as a "two birds one stone" solution, except that there isn't enough dirt for the whole island, and the dirt it does use up would be better used building dykes around the island of Amager, and around the coasts north and south of Copenhagen.
Lynetteholm IS NOT necessary for housing. Rapports written for the ministry of housing in 2018 show that there is potential to develop a further 124000 90 sqm homes in Copenhagen by building denser in less-dense parts of the city. Another 10000 homes can be produced by building on the roofs of existing buildings according to private investment firms (Grundejernes Investeringsfond). Yet another 8400 can be built by repurposing the 5,7% of offices that are currently standing empty in the city.
So, in all, good video, but be careful to not glorify Copenhagen city planning. Our city used to be cutting edge, but in the last 20 or so years it has been falling behind by continuing to build for the rich, and to accommodate cars. Fortunately our most recent election (November 2021) showed a significant increase for one of the few political parties which have understood the need for more pragmatic and less flashy city planning philosophies.
As a Dutchman who loves land reclamation, I thought "who could ever oppose this ambitious project?". But now I understand that it just isn't because of flooding. Greenwashing indeed.
@@GodFirstnl Thank you for the sympathy. Unfortunately the company which owns the public properties in our city, By & Havn, acts more like a political entity in and of themselves, rather than a company owned by the state and municipality. The municipality made the grave mistake of handing over the purse to a separate entity, and they now own the politicians instead of it being the other way around.
Besides, how long do you think this project might have been debated? Considering it's the largest and most expensive construction project in the history of the Kingdom of Denmark a reasonable answer might be 25 years? But if we really lowball it might be 10 years?
And the real answer is...................................................................................................
2 years.
Tak Nicholas, jeg er fuldstændig enig med dig. Rigtig godt arbejde!
kæmpe spurgt bro
@@magnustoft9214 ok knægt
Time. Yes, it will take a lot of time, and yet, other than the threat of rising seas and more severe storms, the time spent will enable the project to be built correctly. There will be opportunities to assess the development, make changes, reduce the impact on the greater environment, and give a new generation time to build their life around it.
I do see a problem with the trucks. That's a lot of traffic, the trucks will be heavy and dirty, they're likely to wreak havoc with the roads. The city should look at ways of diminishing these challenges.
electric trucks may become popular in the near future which will probably be cleaner and quieter but weight im guessing will be similar especially loaded but they have time to increase road toughness if thats what u mean by wreaking havok on the road? or did you mean traffic congestion?
Watching this from Copenhagen 🤩
Mu condolences
As a Copenhagener I'm certainly glad you're covering the topic and in a way thats as nuanced as it is. There is definitely one thing to add to this though and that is Debt. More specifically Metro debt. By & Havn is in big time debt. The reason? The Copenhagen Metro. The whole of that transit system has been built without a single unconditional penny from the state.
The projects have received funds from the state but exclusively in loans. And its By & Havns responsibility to sell properties and collect funds to pay back the construction costs back to the state. Its what they did with the first 2 lines with the new district of Ørestad, but they didn't generate enough money to pay it all back. So they've become more controversial, including putting forward plans for lands which are nature reserves today and home to endangered species of animals and plants like on Amager Fælled.
There's also places like Nordhavn and Sydhavn which they've redeveloped but they can't redevelop or reclaim something that big without saying they'll provide transit to it. Which then creates another metro line which they'll get loans for and rinse and repeat.
Lynetteholm is the latest such case and I frankly doubt we'll see the affordable housing on it the city desperately needs. By & Havn only care about how much money they can make so they'll always sell to the highest bidder. Meaning the city itself doesn't get anything to develop affordable housing on. Add to that even more controversial ways of collecting money like how they in Nordhavn charge all homeowners and businesses per square meter if they live anywhere within a 600 meter radius of their 2 newest metro stations! All outside the tax system, no matter if the house is new or old. Some protestors took them to court over this and lost.
You have made me curious now. which endangered animals roam around in Amager fælled? I live right next to it. I have jogged inside it a couple of times.
@@sarthakbhole3724 IIRC one of the endangered species living there is a species called the large water salamander. Even beyond the rarer species the area is full of smaller wildlife.
@@drdewott9154 oh thanks I always thought that place just has some common vegetation as it was reclaimed from sea and why wasn't it developed after putting in effort and money to reclaim. But if it's home to endangered species well then nothing can be done now.
@@sarthakbhole3724 diffrint birds and reptiles
@@kasper41291 its amphibians but yeah
Meanwhile there is nothing to stop the flood of water in Miami FL ( U.S). Politicians keep buying those ridiculous water pumps that when the time to use them comes they never worked properly.
And not get me started with the traffic issues and the lack of transportation options.
*** Excellent video as always ***
While Copenhagen isn't as bad as Miami (i've listened to the "Because Miami" podcast), we can make some really harebrained decisions. And Lynetteholmen is in a safe first place on that list
Really enjoyed the discussion towards the latter end. Because this truly is one of the most polarizing subjects you can bring up in Copenhagen. I’d say the ‘doubters’ represent at least 30-40% of the city’s population - especially among the youth. This is mostly because the assessments of the project’s impact on the environment haven’t been done properly/at all. We’ll see how it turns out. As you mention, it’s not necessarily more housing that’s needed, it’s more affordable housing and this project for sure won’t bring that to the table.
Well. No one really knows what kind of housing it will contain tbh. Our legislation on affordable housing has been updated quite recently and I think sometimes people forget that it takes time to plan and build new housing.
Though I also consider it more as a traditional urban development project.
@@Kvadraten376 I think the objective is that the taxpayer doesn't have to pay 3 billion dollars for the project, but the housing development will pay at least part of it. It does not make sense to build affordable housing in a sea front location close to the city center, it's more efficient to build it elsewhere. A good compromise would be to include a package to build affordable housing elsewhere in the city with the project so that everyone's happy.
@@Maurazio but developers can, and probably will be mandated to do so, according to new rules.
I love your channel man the content quality is just amazing keep up the good work mate :)
Thank you so much!! 🙌
Just to add some context, alot of people Living in Copenhagen, are very much Against this project. Not only do we fear that this will be yet another “rich-mans ghetto”, with apartments that no one, with a standard income will ever be able to afford, and yet another, insanely overpriced area, with no actual locals living there.
Also, the issue with traffic is highly overlooked in this video.
Many reports have stated, that there will be a massive increase in traffic.
You cant compare to other projects around Tue city, because they have been able to use other, less busy roads.
This Project will have tons of trucks driving straight through the city, every day for years, there is no other way.
Copenhagen is an Old city and not built for this kind of traffic, there’s way to many cars etc as it is, so adding 100 of trucks a week, is a death sentence to the inmer city traffic.
Another factor is, the kind of people who will be able to afford living there, will most likely have at least 1 car pr household, adding even more to a clogged system.
Last, but certainly not least, the area of Refshaleøen, next to Lynetteholmen, will have to shut down/die, due to this project. This is a rare and extremely cool area, with tons of cultural activities, restaurents, music festival area, the list goes on.
They are killing that what is making Copenhagen attractive to begin with, to hell with the concrete jungle, to hell with Lynetteholmen.
Not to mention the devestating destruction of the sea emviroment surrounding copenhagen
Live opposite the sound from Copenhagen, in Malmö, but didn't know about this plans before! If it takes 50 years to build, perhaps it is too late. I agree that it would be better to build protective walls that take less time.
Look into it, it is hopeless
housing will be expensive but I guess the objective is to use it to pay for the project, not to solve the housing problem. there's cheaper places to build social housing.
In Nigeria they are building Eko Atlantic, it's a 10 km2 land reclaim, room for 250,000 people, and they're doing it in 10 years !
Remarkable & another great video 👍🙏
The sand and rock has to come from the sea, causing land erosion. Indonesia refuses to sell any further sand for Singapore's land reclamation.
No, they have to use polluted soil from the city. Because you have to pay to get rid of that. Otherwise the financing does not work. - if so much building activities go on are more needed? - good question-
I will be leaving this world behind forever by 2070 and I won’t be back. Bless you all.
if a 20 year old started working on this project today he would be past retirement age before its fully finished and populated
Truly incredible. Hopefully rising sea levels won’t be an issue.
It already is
Don't these artificial islands eventually sink
Oh it will
@@cjadventures8840 Hehehe Ph*
Hehe
This awesome to watch as someone living in Copenhagen
What do you think of the project?
@@pangaea5258 he thinks it sucks
I am danish and I had no idea this was even a thing! gosh this is crazy. thanks for the video
Finally I was waiting for a video on this!
A 50 year project implies how serious Denmark is towards environmental concerns.
Hats off.
Sorry no.
nah it's all a facade, saldy
Copenhagen is really beautiful. Nice layout.
For a project with a long lead time $3B seems way too low.... I bet you it will eventually cost at least 3 times that.
Thats very likely the case. Danish politicians (or just Danes in general) value one thing and one thing only above almost anything else, and thats the price! They do not like spending large amounts of money, even if spending more will yield a better result. if they can get it cheap they will get it cheap. Everyone here including many of the politicians always buy on the cheap. They likely underestimated the cost deliberately to try and make it easier to get approval. I mean this was proposed by Venstre, our big right wing liberal party, their entire stick is just cutting prices and expenses down wherever possible no matter what.
I concur.
I think it would be better with a regular flood barrier, with around 10-15 meters of land behind it, and then behind all of that, just build house boats. A floating district. A lot cooler, better for the environment and cheaper.
Something new like this could be a tourist attraction. Some reclaimed land wouldnt have the same pull (imo)
That's the point. If they wanted to protect the city from flooding, it could be done cheaper and easier. But the truth is that Lynetteholm is a real estate hustle, meant to "finance" a ring road and a harbour tunnel for traffic. I don't have a crystal ball of the future. But with the way they have exceeded their budgets so far, i feel pretty safe saying that there will be a heavy debt to pay, and the copenhagen children of today and their children will be saddled with the debt that comes from it. "Lynetteholm" is based on optimism bias, an economy where the foundation is resting on quicksand, and that is why they are in such a hurry with the project. They know the citizens have smelled the rat. This is why the citizens of copenhagen have had our right to appeal and insight into the project, revoked.
Quite the ambitious project and certainly long term, but at least they seem to want to address the issues. On another note, that's a nice looking spot at 3:50/6:37. Thanks for posting.
That is Trekroner Fort
@@jonasjascha Many thanks. I'll have to do a search and check it out.
what issues? There is still no flood protection. The project doesn't even have a dock gate in its budget. And Its the wrong end of the harbour, if avoiding flooding was really the motive
This is going to cost vastly more than $3 billion.
50 years just for 2.6 km² of land ? Jesus, that's excessive.
The artificial island of Odaiba in Tokyo is roughly 8 km² and they finished it in around 10 years.
Yeah, last 10 years have everything now too expensive for most
Great video, but I'm skeptical, sounds like a huge waste of time and money. I live close to the world's largest movable flood barrier at the time of construction -Thames Barrier(Dutch/British construction project) I've also been to the Netherlands too where they have roads over the sea and huge dams. UK works collectively with them to deal with flood risks. Shouldn't all countries in the Baltic and North sea prepare for eventual sea level rises already baked into the cake 21st century?
That's because it is a massive waste. They are planning to complete construction in 2070, with only enough housing for somewhere around 1.5-3% of Copenhagen's current population. This housing will be unaffordable to the vast majority of the city's population. And when there currently is a housing shortage, it is an absurd idea to solve it with an artificial island megaproject that won't include any housing for at least 20 years. Especially when they could just build slightly taller apartment buildings anywhere on the whole island of Zealand.
@@melonowl8737 i agree with you, and I'm British. You could create a buffer to rising sea levels for a fraction of cost and time! 😉
Copenhagen is not facing flooding, it's located on the part of Denmark, which is rising instead of sinking. About 1 mm every year. The West coast of the Jutland peninsular is sinking by 1 to 2 mm a year. The storm tide of 12th November 1872 was 2,4 m over daily level in Copenhagen, and the sea level will maybe rise to 33 cm by the year 2100. Building housing for 35,000 people on an artificial island isn't wise.
Ah, maybe that is why they don't build higher?
Actually Lynetteholm is not the largest land reclamation project in CPH. Vest Amager is larger, and there are others due to the shallow waters around the city. The coastline in the inner city has moved outwards to wards the island Amager in historic time.
I think they might speed up the deadline by some 45, 43 years
Normal high standard for filming and research, well done.
The city needs to grow otherwise property prices are just going to get worse.
Copenhagen Yesterday:- Cars
Copenhagen Today:- Bicycles
Copenhagen Tomorrow :- Boats
Actually Copenhagen never really went away from the bikes, if you watch documentaries from the 40's it looks remarkably a lot like today
@@bertrambolsingbruel3829 pedalboats
Amsterdam has a perfect balance between them all
@@RedRocketthefirst yes it does amazing city, and I was thinking of Amsterdam when I said pedalboats.
@@RedRocketthefirst Amsterdam is a Corona dictatorship hell hole.
The problem with the project is mentioned in the video, but the link isn't made by the narrator.
As mentioned the lawsuit was filled because the environmental impact wasn't investigated thoroughly enough. Later in the video it's said the actual developement of the housing on the island isn't yet know, and THAT'S the problem, as it's against EU regulations to approve a project in pieces. The rules clearly states a project needs to be assessed as a whole.
I don't think the fight is over about this island. Personally I don't even see how it's gonna solve a housing problem with "only" 30.000 apartments due in 50 years - the demand is here now, in 50 years the demand will have outgrown the supply of these 30.000 apartments anyway...!
I am stunned that something this ambitious is estimated to cost only $3bn, whereas something like HS2 in the UK could be anywhere between £50bn and £100bn!? I get that it's a larger scale but...how?
I think it’s really not possible to compare the Lynetteholm with HS2. And as any and all projects in Denmark like this for the last century have gone over budget, I would be surprised if it ends up on less than $6bn.
I have no idea where the got the $3 billion figure. the current estimate is around 80 billion DKK (over $12 billion), and you can pretty much guarantee that the cost will only increase over time.
Maybe the first amount is to build the foundations, and doesn't cover construction? Or maybe they plan to import workers? Wasn't the UK against that?
What's the issue with bringing the material with a boat, like Dubai or Balneario? Why do they need trucks?
Utterly madness. They are spoiling the environment in Øresund completely.
They will need to closely assess soil properties and compact everything very well to avoid uneven settlement of structures. The materials needed will likely be trucked in from a large region, because I can't imagine them digging out so many basements in the city to fill in a new island!
Even though it may seem big when it is told in terms of football fields, if you look on the whole map of the city it's somewhat same size as port area and dumping so much sand into ocean will definitely affect the aquatic life , however you put it , it is definitely not environment friendly and thirdly how does it solve sea level rising problem , will there be barriers like Thames or venice barriers
By consuming the dirt needed to build dikes were they are needed it does not help other than making the place for the lock gate narrower.
As one living in Copenhagen I can tell you most people HATE the plan, for hundreds of reasons - but the politicians doesn't give a shit, so they just do it anyway. :(
I understand the criticism with this specifically, but I find it ridiculous that so many in Copenhagen are for more and cheaper housing but are against all construction projects. It's nothing but delusion a wishful thinking.
We don't want land reclamation! We don't want you to build on Amagerfælled! We don't wan't you to build on Kalvebodfælled! We don't want skyscrapers! Well how the hell do you imagine we get any affordable housing then? Those are literally the only places we can build, Amagarefælled, Kalvebodfælled, out to sea, or we could just build taller. If you are against all of them you are against affordable housing, with the high demand there is no other way to get it than to just build more.
@@Neatling Well said. Affordable housing means increasing the supply. For most cities it's unsold land, owned by the city, used to build high rise buildings. It can run at a profit, but like state owned gambling it will have rules on how much. It also will need an organizational structure to prevent the city to sell these buildings due to corrupt leadership.
most is an overstatement. You also recently had a election where you could have voted for change.
I can only agree
@@Neatling Exactly.
It's mostly broke losers who always oppose infrastructure and development projects and then complain why is nothing happening.
Very interesting 🦋🦋🦋
B1M and this channel is all i neeeeeeeeeed
Just to be clear, at 4:00 you don't use clip from Copenhagen, but instead from a much smaller town called Randers (my home town btw)
super cool to watch this, can you make a video about Hong Kong's mega project similar to the called the Lantau Tomorrow Plan
Damn 50 years. I wasn’t sure why I was surprised it is a massive area being developed.
well, the "maasvlakte 2" in the port of rotterdam, The Netherlands has an area of 2000 hectares, or 20 km^2. this reclamation project started in 2008 and finished in 2013, so it took only 5 years instead of 50, with about 7.5 times the surface area. budget was also 3 billion, and they even finished with 150 mil to spare
The reason it takes so long is because of the water depth. It is up to 14m deep where it's build.
That is a problem for the Baltic Sea as that sea gets oxygen rich saltwater through the Sound. Now parts are being blocked by Lynetteholm.
If you don't know. The Baltic Sea is in very poor condition and a couple of months ago it was decided to ban almost all fishing to take care of that sea. Now Lynetteholm is threatening it's destruction.
@@tjibbeettema8759 holly molly. That’s massive that like A city 🏙 in Itself.
@@sebbeselvig3931 what country are you from? It’s pains me to see how humans are drastically changing the planet and ina negative way.
@@Thebreakdownshow1 Sebbe is from Denmark.
I hear New York wants to do the same. Can you make a video about that as well?
1:54: So did the Dutch. They’re WAY ahead in the land reclamation game.
sea level is rising
solution proposed : dump tons of soil, rocks, etc into sea
logic ...
The premise of Lynetteholmen is bullshit from start to finish.
- lots of contaminated seafloor is dumped in nearby Koge bay (close to not one, but two natura2000 areas). Said dumpings contain various pollution such as quicksilver
- When there is highwater it rarely if ever comes from the Oresund strait (because its a strait) it does however come from the south aplenty.
By and havn, the company behind is in debt and have been for many years. They sit on 33% of the accumulated debt from the construction of the Copenhagen metro. There is also a law in play that prevents by og havn from selling under the maximum value, due to their debt.
The Copenhagen citizens have been denied their democratic right to protest by the minister for transportation, who is keeping reports about the projects economy confidential.
Oh and the tax payers get to pay for
- polluting the eastern sea
- a "climate security" that doesnt secure shit
- more expensive housing that almost no one can afford
And down the line a tunnel and a freeway to the airport
Mercury isn't necessarily pollution, it depends on what kind. Wouldn't it have value if extracted?
Copenhagens issues started with the term "land reclamation". Doomed from the start.
The city looks beautiful !!!!.
In Total Recall, they just had boats at the street level
The bridge at 4.04 minuts is not Copenhagen but Randers 🤗
50 year plan lol, man, I hope we have half that time to twiddle our thumbs around
4:40 I somehow feel indecisive
So this little strip (in the grand scheme) is going to protect the city. But it doesn't have a large enough border to stretch from one end of the city to the other? Its just an island, am I seeing this right?
A dam will also be constructed between the two piers. Also another dam will have to be build to the south but we don’t talk about that
True. It won't give any protection. It even goes against recommendations in the officielt flood protection plan, that states that protection should be build from South before the north where Lynetteholm is planned.
Experts even warn that simulations of floods from the north has not been carried out and to their predictions, will cause floods of higher levels in the harbor of Copenhagen.
It's very interesting how Denmark is also in the works of building the worlds first energy island.
Damn, 50 years! Forget that! Just build a sea wall or something.
Why does it take 50 YEARS to make a 3sq kilometres island?? The Dutch made a 2400sq kilometre island in 70 years, while being hit hard in ww2, and having a major flood.
That seems like a small area to take that long to finish. By the time it is finished, those houses will probably be to expensive aswell.
this is only a greenwashed Premium housing project to get the more money for the in dept development company, by og havn(city and habour ) . this might actually make surge flooding worse as water has a more difficult time leaving the harbour and it obstructs the deep current flow within the sound.
I doubt we'll even have to worry about this.. even within the next 5 years with the world leaders/politicians we have!
By 2030 the population of Copenhagen is forecasted to increase by about 80 thousand. This will be done in 2070 and has room for not even 30 thousand. Even if we pretend the housing there would actually be affordable, this would still barely do anything to fix the housing problem, yet come at an extremely high cost financially, and for life in the ocean and life in the city... Not in favour. Thank you for including the criticism this project continues to be under.
That create more land, but how it will prevent already existing land from flooding?
The thing is that everybody only talks about Copenhagen and no other Danish city
I think more important to improving housing-affordability than a new landmass is the densification of the entire city; as unpopular as changes to low-rise development are in Europe, there's a great deal of industrial land on the water, which could be cleared for apartments, and buildings of five stories or more could make a significant difference across the less historically-prestigious areas of the city. Without such an initiative, people will continue to sprawl outward into the hinterland, eliminating large quantities of greenfield and exacerbating traffic, even in a country as well-served by transit as Denmark.
Problem is the harbour is By & Havns territory and they, by law, are required to go for profit maximization, to pay off their share of debt for the construction of the Copenhagen metro and other projects. So the harbourlands are sadly a no go for affordable housing.
And though densification in the suburban municipalities would be great, a lot of Nimbys here aren't exactly happy about such prospects, especially in the north of the city. In the west its easier but there's still lots of obstacles, plus the cities often don't have the financial means to buy back several plots of land, tear down the single family homes, and build dense development there instead
Affordable housing ended with socialism. With capitalism you can only dream.
this is more like a Real estate , disguised as a protection for rising sea level.
Might as well not mention the new housing at all if it's such a trivial amount that you won't even see until 2070.
Even if they did opt to make all the housing affordable on this new land, I wouldn’t feel good supporting an idea that gives MPs 50 years to push off affordable housing without addressing the current issue in more current times. More options should be looked at and researched, and ultimately I think the public should decide.
Dude it's not like this is the only thing they will work on for the next 50 years.
@@McNutty375 I hear what you’re saying but I think when affordable housing is scarce and will always continue to be scarce in a big city like Manhattan, projects that worsen the affordable housing problem is the last thing we need now and planned for the future.
I havn't watched the video but read the title. And the title is way off, the primary function of lynetteholmen is absolutely not to "save copenhagen from flooding".
There was absolutely nothing about how this is supposed to save Copenhagen from Flooding.
Let's hope it works
It's not clear from the video what its function will be. Only that a company has invested in the project long-term to sell housing.
football pitch... universal measurement of the anglosaxon world, and I have no clue how big one is.
Copenhagen is not known for its waterways. We are not happy. We never had a flood, and there is no danger of one occurring. There is plenty of room to expand in every other direction then this.
This is a project meant to line the pockets of those who build it.
WOW, TOP ONCE AGAIN !!!
I don't really like the use of the Undecided with Matt music towards the end... It hear it to much. Other than that another fantastic video, you're a charm to listen too.
Now we need a video on Seethenhagen
All that just to house 35 thousand? Yeah it's overkill
Can you make a video on Padma Bridge??
we'll see if they will complete it...
This project it totally crazy and I think this video does a bad job explaining what the problems are: 1) it has been made impossible to file a complaint 2) the real reason for the project is to pay the metro debt. 3) we we don't know anything about how many people will live in Copenhagen in 60 years. 4) we are in the mids of a climate crisis an mega projects like this isn't our way out - it's the opposite. 5) $3 BN is no where near the real price is $10 BN. 6) we do not know any of the consequences Lynnetteholm will have on the sea between Copenhagen and Sweden, many experts are extremely worried. 7) it's just not the environmental organizations who "believe" that the environmental assessments are lacking. They are and they are not finished, though they have started work. 8) the minister in question won't do an interview and that shows the real neglect of the general public.
How is it only a $3BN project but will take 50 yeas to complete?
Its actually not, that is a misplaced statistic, Its closer to 12 billion dollars
*_Nice videos_*