supertanker in search of urbanity

Urban life suggests meetings, the confrontation ofdifferences, reciprocal knowledge and acknowledgement(including ideological and political confrontation), ways of living, patterns, which coexist in the city.1

Supertanker came into being in 2002 in Copenhagenharbour. A diverse group of people embarked on ajourney that was driven by the wish for a moredynamic, open and unpredictable city. This articlewill describe a number of our activities and thelessons learned from exploring urbanity in aCopenhagen setting: how to act while keeping ahigh level of integrity in the power game betweendevelopers, planners, local residents and media; howto create new types of dialogue; how to be locallyembedded and still challenge the local agenda andhow to work in space and time to create a moreporous architecture.

An urban experiment: terrain vague as a launch padOne defining moment that led to the formation ofSupertanker was a public meeting arranged by anorganisation of people living mainly in houseboats inthe harbour. The format was that of a classic publicmeeting with a panel that consisted of people inpower: a leading politician, the director of the PortAuthority of Copenhagen, the chief city architect, andone grassroots representative as an exception. Thewhole process and physical set-up of the publicmeeting produced a very simplified (but strong)reaction against the panel that prevented aconstructive exchange of arguments betweenmutually recognised adversaries. Supertanker wasformed after this meeting with the aim of working fora more constructive and creative dialogue regardingthe harbour development. As such we placedourselves from the beginning in a position that

urbanism arq . vol 12 . no 2 . 2008 173

urbanismLessons learned exploring urbanity and questioning approaches

to redevelopment, through dialogue, public meetings and citizen

participation, in Copenhagens inner city and deprived suburbs.

Supertanker: in search of urbanityJens Brandt, Martin Frandsen and Jan Lilliendahl Larsen, Supertanker

1 The popular beachbar in the centralharbour terrainvague area was animportant part ofthe self-growncommunity thatalso gave room toSupertanker 1

received some limited financing from a developer,the Port Authority and the city of Copenhagen,combined with a grant from a large foundation. Inthe process of applying for funds, Supertanker wasset up as a non-profit association. The moneyenabled us to start experimenting withinterdisciplinary workshops for students, a range ofdifferent types of public meetings [2], boat-rides,exhibitions and concrete proposals for the area.

The diversity of our team, the locally embeddedworkshop and exhibition space were all linked to theidea of exploring urbanity as a creative force that canemerge from a diversity of people living in the sameplace. As implied in the introductory quote fromHenri Lefebvre, our version of urbanity embraces thephysical and social diversity, density and changeacknowledged in classical sociology, as well as theability to act in an urbane way under theseconditions.2 A central aspect of our take on urbanityis therefore that it should embody an open, equaland respectful form of interaction between people.As we saw (and still do), the life of the city and itsability to renew itself depends on new ideas,networks and other entities that emerge from thisurban encounter between different people.

Polarisation: stereotypes in and urbanity out The Supertanker area in Copenhagen Harbour wasalso the focus of a popular movement against theplans for a new and very expensive housing project,

arq . vol 12 . no 2 . 2008 urbanism174

Brandt, Frandsen and Larsen Supertanker: in search of urbanity

2 The space ofSupertanker was arough old warehousethat was ideal forpublic meetings,workshops,exhibitions, partiesand table tennis

3 Nej (no in Danish).As an illustration ofthe height of theproposed project byErick van Egeraat, asign saying no wasput high up in the air

2

challenged simultaneously the positions of the localcitizens and the politicians, planners and developers.

Supertanker was, at the beginning, a symbol of theconstructive debate relating to the Harbourdevelopment in Copenhagen and was received withopen arms including investors, planningauthorities and citizens. Its primary aim was tofacilitate an open and worthwhile debate about thedevelopment of the harbour.

Supertanker was closely connected toLuftkastellet (the pipe dream) [1], which was a verypopular beach caf in the sunny and central part ofCopenhagen harbour known as Kryers Plads.Luftkastellet, and later Supertanker, was situated insome old wooden warehouses, which had previouslybeen used to house goods waiting to be sent toGreenland. As such, the land had been off limits untilthe shipping activity was relocated, making itpossible for people with little money and good ideasto move in on temporary leases.

This area was developed in many ways in responseto criticism that the harbour was turning into alifeless part of central Copenhagen reserved only forbig business and expensive housing. Apart from thebeach caf and Supertanker, a number of other smallbusinesses settled in the old warehouses: clothesdesigners, video production companies and so on. Italso became a popular place to stay for backpackers.It was here that Supertanker first had the chance toexplore the validity of its hypotheses first-hand bysimultaneously practising what we preached.

From its spontaneous start Supertanker includedpeople from a great variety of backgrounds: smallentrepreneurs, academics (geographers, architects,lawyers), designers, sailors and so on. Most of thesepeople were working voluntarily for the cause. Thepositive response to our initiative meant that we

Kryers Plads, designed by the Dutch architect Erickvan Egeraat. From the beginning, Supertankers aimwas to consult widely and hold public meetings thatmade sure that everybodys voice was heard. Thismeant that we had good contacts with both partiesin the conflict that slowly emerged betweengrassroots opposition to the plans for the area andthe developers as well as their backers in themunicipal planning office.

In this polarised climate we nevertheless managedto involve not only opponents but also a range oflocal landowners, citizens, stakeholders and othersin surprisingly positive and constructive discussionsregarding the future of the site. This provided prooffor us that it is possible to be constructive even in asituation like this, but only if you manage to set upan arena for discussion that is open to all parties inthe conflict. Our dependence on a variety of differentfunding bodies meant that we were perceived to beimpartial, a necessary prerequisite for successfuldialogue and intervention.

In spite of our activities the public debate becamemore polarised either the project was to be built orshould be scrapped [3]. One very active group ofcritical citizens went ahead with their campaignagainst the project, exploiting the medias taste forsituations of conflict to bolster its arguments, while,on the other hand, the municipal authoritiessupported the Egeraat project in a way thatinfuriated many citizens.3

The politicians eventually abandoned the plans forKryers Plads. Supertanker was put on the black list(by developers and planners), and held partlyresponsible for the biggest popular opposition todevelopment plans in Copenhagen to date. Bysupporting Supertanker in the beginning, theplanning authorities and developers had sent a

signal that they desired an open dialogue. However,the following turn of events showed that this wasonly the case as long as the overall agenda was notchallenged. This was a lesson learned anddocumented by Supertanker in Jan Larsens PhDthesis.4 It seemed that the formal, and in many wayscorrect, procedures of public consultation inplanning almost inevitably lead to polarisation andforce the people involved in the process into muchmore stereotypical positions than necessary. One ofour conclusions was that it is necessary to engage innegotiations at an earlier stage, long before anyconflict has developed, and long before the mediahas reduced the discussion to its lowest commondenominators, in order to retain the urbanity, theopen interaction between participants. We saw aneed to devise new and inclusive ways in which todiscuss the future of the city, leading us to developthe concept of the Free Trial for a discussion of theChristiania area of Copenhagen, which we organisedin collaboration with the international studentsassociation, PlaNet.

Free Trial: agonism, advocacy and animation The idea of the Free Trial was to construct a publicmeeting combined with a workshop, allowing forthe creation of a more nuanced picture of thedifferent views in a potentially conflictual situation,thus avoiding the usual black and white tactics.Christiania is an alternative community right in thecentre of Copenhagen that has been a controversialpart of the city since it was established more thanthirty years ago. It now faces the threat ofnormalisation (in particular the legalisation of self-built physical structures) by the present Danishgovernment.

One of the basic ideas was to challenge the status


Supertanker: in search of urbanity Brandt, Frandsen and Larsen

3

quo in Christiania while simultaneously criticisingthe governmental approach to regeneration in thearea. We decided to use a court case as a frameworkfor the public meeting in order that both positionscould be presented and discussed on an equal level.However, instead of lawyers, we chose to usejournalists to represent two opposing positions theposition of the government and the position ofChristiania. By picking some of the best Danishjournalists we achieved a discussion that becameboth very precise and dynamic. They would eachpresent their witnesses experts that we had pickedto ensure that a range of issues was discussed. And ofcourse there would be cross-examinations, whichensured that many of the different angles of theargument were presented [4].

After the two lawyers (journalists) presented theircases to the jury (the audience) the court case wasfollowed by a workshop where all the argumentspresented in the trial allowed the jury to form not averdict, but a set of proposals for the future, theChristiania Charter. It is all the more remarkablethat the Christiania Free Trial was such a successgiven the innate conservatism of many of itsresidents who were very determined to defend theirexisting and threatened way of life.

The underlying idea was linked to thecombination of three concepts: agonism, advocacyand animation. By using the two lawyers (journalists)and their witnesses (experts and central actors) topresent two very opposing views on the subject, theagonism was taken almost to the point of caricature.On the other hand, the defence lawyer in presentingthe viewpoint of the less powerful party (typicallycitizens), combined advocacy with agonism. Mostimportantly, the theatricality and playfulness of theevent gave both the audience and the participants onstage a certain critical distance, in this way enablingthem to review their own tenaciously guardedopinions. A crucial factor in this success was the

three As of the court case format, which allowed theadversaries to loosen up and be relativelyconstructive with one another.

The versatility of the Free Trial was tested when werepeated the process with a different topic: the futureof a former shipyard in Copenhagen harbour. For theKroner og Kreativitet (Cool Cash and Creativity)conference, members of the Building Society anetwork of some of the most established agents inDanish urban development complementedstudents and residents, but again the aim of the courtcase was to challenge the position of the stakeholdersof the established urban development in order tofind openings and cracks where new ideas could takehold.5 The following workshop showed that in manycases the developers and investors involved knewquite precisely how to apply more creative strategiesto develop urban brownfields by minimisingspeculation and encouraging experiments. Again aCharter and a publication were produced.

Whereas the Christiania Court Case was a low cost(grassroots) arrangement with almost no budget, theKroner og Kreativitet conference was financedmostly by members of the Building Society, meaningthat our own position was not one of completeimpartiality. However, this did not pose as much of aproblem as it did later when we were asked to do asimilar court case where the topic was a high-risestrategy for the city of Copenhagen. In this case wewere commissioned directly by the city ofCopenhagen, meaning that we became advisors tothe city, our client. This proved especiallyproblematic when it turned out that the mayor of



4 Free Trial in action the lawyer(journalist) isinterrogating awitness (expert) inthe upper rightcorner

5 Interdisciplinaryworkshop in the SouthHarbour participantsfrom all over Europework with the localneighbourhood withStreet Creativity asthe theme

6 Public meeting inthe South Harbour trying to createan informal andinclusiveatmosphere

4

Copenhagen (or her advisors) were very reluctant toallow challenges to the decision to have high-rises inCopenhagen, causing our impartiality and integrityto be jeopardised. As a result, we only now work inthese traditional client/adviser relationships wherewe are given a guarantee that we can challenge theclients point of view.

South Harbour: Fingerspitzengefhl and integritySupertanker was invited by the Port Authority ofCopenhagen to take part in an event marking theopening of a new development in the South Harbourof Copenhagen. Supertanker was not really aware ofthe commercial character of the event and eventhough the discussion that we arranged (the courtcase method described above) was supposed to be

impartial and critical we felt the consequences for along time after. People began to see Supertanker as aconsultant working for the Port of Copenhagen andone of our main assets our integrity was calledinto question.

Supertanker became a looser network and insidethis network emerged Urban Task Force or UTF (alsoformally a non-profit organisation). This change inorganisation and setting gave us a more academicprofile (architect, geographer and social scientist)but also more precise work with methods ofengaging with a local community. The aim was to seeUTF as catalyst between the academic and the realworld, still arranging interdisciplinary workshopsfor students [5], and using their ideas and energy as apositive input in the local area. During this period



5

6

we had no funding, meaning that we had a lot offreedom, but our activities were confined to smallpilot projects.

UTF chose to settle in the South Harbour ofCopenhagen. The choice was based on a wish to workwith an area without any immediate conflicts, butalso on the fact that the area was planned to becomea huge new part of a Copenhagen harbourdevelopment. The new area was to be a duplicate ofSjoerd Soeters mid-90s plan for the Java Island inAmsterdam harbour and was planned toaccommodate approximately 25 000 citizens. It is agood example of an urban development where astrong social segregation is not only tolerated butactively promoted.6 The new and attractive part oftown is separated from existing and poorneighbourhoods physically, socially and culturally.One of our main concerns here was to work onmethods to bridge the gap between the existing andthe new part of the South Harbour.

The method here could be described as deepimmersion or fingerspitzengefhl. Once we had movedinto our office in the area, we began interviewinglocal citizens, stakeholders and holding publicmeetings [6] to build up a relationship of trust. Werepeatedly had to reassure people that we were not aconsultant working for the Port Authority, seen as athreat to many people living in the area.

The existing part of the South Harbour isstatistically the poorest area of Copenhagen, but italso contains a lot of self-organised and self-builtallotment areas. These have only just been given legalstatus and are, for this reason, sensitive to criticism.Nevertheless, in one interview, one local person froma self-build area near the harbour described hisfellows as no less greedy (in the sense that theyspeculated about the price of their plot going up invalue) than any other normal neighbourhood.When asked why he had made such an observationhe pointed out that if we had come from someauthority municipality, developer or the PortAuthority he would have given us a speech on thewonderful atmosphere and the good relationshipbetween neighbours. Here we have a goodillustration of the way in which our status gave usaccess to a more precise and nuanced picture of anarea than that usually gained by other agencies suchas municipal planning or its consultants.

Maintaining an organisation with a high degree ofintegrity is a delicate matter. The financing and theconditions of the financing play a key role in thisissue. A major priority for UTF is that financing has tocome from more than one source, making it multidependent meaning that no one organisation hasdirect control over our work, a situation that needsreinforcing through various firewalls, or conditions,in our contract with any given financing party.

Carlsberg: architecture and/or urbanityArchitecture is a highly visual discipline. Projects areoften presented through seductive imagery that iseasily accessible to a wide audience. The drawbackwith this is that because projects are so oftenpresented in their final form, people are given very

limited opportunities to influence their eventualdirection. People automatically feel excluded fromthe decision-making process if the project appearsalready to be complete. The challenge is tocommunicate ideas visually in a way that allows foran inclusive process.

Another and maybe less obvious quality ofarchitecture or perhaps to be more precise, ofarchitects is that they work very directly towardssolving a given problem. This means that moresensitive analysis especially that of the non-physicalaspects of context is sometimes overlooked. Thechallenge here is to make this problem-solving energyconnect to the more reflexive character of otherprofessions such as sociology and urban geography.Being an interdisciplinary organisation, Supertanker/UTF provides a forum for exploring this issue.

The Supertanker mix was put to the test when wedecided to participate in a more traditional urbanplanning competition for one of the largestbrownfield developments in Copenhagen the siteof the Carlsberg Breweries. The area is very attractive,situated close to the centre of the city and some largeareas of open space. As is typical of many brownfieldsites it contained several old buildings, which couldpotentially be used for temporary activities. Theproperty development division of Carlsberg stated,in the competition brief, that they had somethingvery special in mind. They wanted to createsomething rather different from the recent urbandevelopments in Copenhagen, something notdissimilar to Christiania, the self-organised and self-built part of Copenhagen.

We thought that this would be the perfectoccasion to use our ideas about urbanity toformulate a plan for the site. We began the processby walking around the area, doing mappings,workshops, brainstorms and so on. Here it quicklybecame apparent that the architects among us hadalready developed very specific tools and methodsfor contextual analysis. This led us to start workingin fast forward with little sensitivity to the verydifferent approaches taken by other members of thegroup. We quickly learnt that interdisciplinary worktakes a high degree of patience and a level ofconsideration that surprised us even though we hadworked together for years. We were reminded of ouridea of practise what you preach since this highdegree of patience and awareness of the other inour interdisciplinary work is in many ways similar tothe description of urban life in the quotation fromLefebvre at the beginning of this paper.

Our main goal was to make sure that the agendafor the Carlsberg area remained as open andinclusive as possible; and that all the little mutationsand hybrids stemming from the positive andconstructive meeting of people would be thelifeblood of the project. The process part of ourproject involved a mix of old and new methods. Weused a lot of energy to define three overall goals:Playful Participation, referring to the Situationists(such playfulness is also central to the Free Trialmentioned above); Inclusive Diversity, referring toSocial Innovation; and finally Dynamic Porosity,



referring to a text by Walter Benjamin that we willintoduce later.

The project operated in four phases. The first twophases were On the ground, where we embeddedourselves in the area in order to get as close to theeveryday life there, talking to old employees,neighbours and so on. By setting up office in thearea, we gained a presence in a similar way as we didin South Harbour. In phase two Wild West [7], thearea was opened up for appropriation, especially bywhat we call the Truffle Pigs (in Berlin they arecalled Urban Pioneers).7 These are people who comeinto a terrain vague and start to appropriate an area,thereby testing the ground for unseen possibilities.8

These two phases can be seen as a social and culturalpriming of the area in a way that parallels themanner in which the site for an urban developmentis prepared by putting in the necessaryinfrastructure energy, roads and so on.

The underlying idea of urbanity tapping into theenergy of this porous and unplanned appropriationof old buildings and open land made it impossible topredict what would come out of the two first phases,on which the next two (more formal/spatial) phaseswere to be based. The third phase involved theevolution of a set of rules for Urban Gameplaythrough a series of public discussions. The idea ofGameplay comes from the film world, where it refersto a way of directing actors that lies betweentraditional direction (go there, say this and so on)and pure improvisation. Two examples of rules inthe Urban Gameplay are the level of the rent and

the length of the leases. These rules could be used tomake sure that informal tenants (artists, small start-up businesses and so on) are able to stay in the area.Then in the fourth phase Urban Gameplay can beplayed out to create a flexible and dynamicalternative to the traditional masterplan that definesthe physical aspects (and the architecture) of thisnew part of Copenhagen.

The dilemma was whether to resort to usingdiagrams to explain the process, or to use scenariosto illustrate how our project for the Carlsberg areamight look in the future. The problem is that imagescan function as self-fulfilling prophecies andbeautiful images produced by very skilled architectsare in themselves a sign and a tool of power.Alternative agendas pushed forward by non visuallyskilled citizens have none of their resonance.

Our experience from this process is that thearchitects in our mix could have been more awareof the power games that are at work, especially onthe large scale, when the architectural professionacts in a manner that is, albeit unknowingly andunintentionally, exclusive (as in the fast forwardmode of collaboration or the use of beautifulimagery mentioned above). An alternative approachbeginning with new forms of organisation and usingunfinished structures, instead of only visual andabstract modes of communication, is thereforenecessary in order to create a more inclusivearchitecture that allows appropriation and a moreopen agenda, in a way that combines architectureand urbanity we call it a porous architecture.



7

7 Wild West phase inour project for theCarlsberg area opening up the areafor appropriation bythe Trufe Pigs

Charlotte quarter: porosity in time and spaceAfter years of insufficient funding, Supertankers UTFwas, in 2007, given the green light for a five yearexperimental and research-based social housingproject in the suburbs of Copenhagen withapproximately 2000 residents. The focus was onsocial and preventive measures that could bringabout a positive change to the area. As such weproposed to work with media, set up a local TVstation and work with school children to discovertheir views on the green spaces in theneighbourhood. Our project was not supposed tofund any physical initiatives unless they had a socialaspect, for example enabling citizens to build theirown gardens. Yet we did have one building project inthe scheme design our own base where we couldmake a physical mark in order to be visible in theneighbourhood.

Local interaction, as the project was called, set outto research the possibilities for design as a positivecatalyst in an everyday context. We began by holdingworkshops with local children, the focus of ourresearch, to find out what they wanted from the area.As we might have expected, they wanted more placesto meet small shops, markets, an outdoor cinema,more sports facilities, and not least of all, a place forgirls to be on their own. These findings were thentaken into a more international context in aworkshop to which we invited architects and artistsfrom Denmark and all over Europe. The wishes of thelocal children were then translated into three

alternative design solutions for our base, each ofwhich would allow it to be moved around the area toattend or spark events, and be easily accessible forpeople to drop by.

These three mobile scenarios were presented at anannual street party where the residents could votebetween the different options. However, althoughmany people attended the party, and were happy totake part in a drawing workshop for children and avideo workshop, almost nobody wanted to discussour carefully presented drawings for our future base.With no real vote having taken place, we chose to goahead with a mobile structure anyway, and ended upbuying an old circus wagon that needed repair andtotal interior refit before it could function as thebase for our activities.

When the circus wagon was initially placed in anopen area on the centre of the site it was broken intoon the first night. However, nothing was stolen orruined. Clearly the local youth were just checkingout the wagon. We immediately improvised byinviting a group of local children (we dont know ifthey themselves had anything to do with the break-in) who wanted to create their own place in which torepair bikes and mopeds. As the local planningauthority would not agree to such a thing we askedthese children to become the design team, workingon both the renovation and the final redesign, forthe circus wagon.

As a result of the design teams input the circuswagon was refitted with a caf at one end, enabling itto function as the meeting place identified as a needin the first workshop with local children. The roughcircus wagon facilitated interaction in a concreteway, thus attracting this group of children whopreferred to work with their hands rather than takepart in a workshop. Instead of letting the base bedesigned as a result of an abstract and traditionalconsultation process we now used a concrete butunfinished structure as a catalyst for involving a verydifferent group of people, a group who would beunlikely to turn up to workshops and discussions. At this point it is not only local children who areinvolved in the wagons development, local people electricians, welders and so on have started to assist with the building process and have helpedmake connections with the local businesses whohave donated building materials, safety shoes andother necessities to the people working on thewagon.

In a normal result-oriented project with tighttimelines and benchmarks, this would never havebeen possible. Our experience shows that anunfinished and open structure lends itself toappropriation and experiment. These spatial andphysical aspects of a porous architecture interactingwith, and being produced by, the social wereformulated well by Walter Benjamin when hedescribed his impressions of Naples in 1925:

At the base of the cliff itself, where it touches the shore,caves have been hewn [...] As porous as this stone is thearchitecture. Building and action interpenetrate in thecourtyards, arcades, and stairways. In everything theypreserve the scope to become a theatre of new, unforeseen



8

8 The design team young local kids areinvolved in bothdemolishing anddesigning our futurebase in the Charlottequarter

constellations. The stamp of definitive is avoided. No situation appears intended forever, no figure assertsits thus and not otherwise. This is how architecture, themost binding part of the communal rhythm, comes intobeing here [...]9

ConclusionSupertanker tries to see urbanity as a creator of new,hybrid and challenging agendas, especially thosethat grow out of the terrain vague and the cracks ofthe city where more formal kinds of urbandevelopment have not yet arrived. It is in these areasthat a more inclusive type of coexistence is possible,

often helped by the structures of old industrialbuildings (or in one case a circus wagon) that areopen for new uses in the sense that rents are cheap,or free, and regulations are close to non-existent. Inthis spatial and socio-cultural condition that we calla porous condition, the urbanity starts to interact,mutate and create new types of urban life forms.From a traditional point of view (planners, investors)this is just a temporary state that comes and goes,but we see it as the task of Supertanker to tap intothe energy and innovation that happens in theseterrain vague areas, and use it proactively in a processof urban innovation.



Notes1. Henri Lefebvre, Writings on Cities

(Oxford: Blackwell, 1996), p. 75.2. Jan Lilliendahl Larsen, Martin

Frandsen and Jens Brandt, UrbanInnovation in Planlgning i teori ogpraksis (Planning in Theory andPractice) (Roskilde: RoskildeUniversitetsforlag, 2007).

3. For example, the City Architect ofCopenhagen claimed that thesignatures (14 000 of them) on thepetition against the project werecollected in the local pubs.

4. Jan Lilliendahl Larsen, PolitiskUrbanitet (Political Urbanity), PhDthesis (Roskilde University, 2007).

5. Supertanker, Hvidbog om kroner ogkreativitet (Cool Cash and Creativity)(Copenhagen: Supertanker, 2005).

6. See also Anders Lund Hansen, EricClark and Hans Thor Andersen,Creative Copenhagen in European

Planning Studies, 9.7 (2001).7. Klaus Overmeyer, Urban Pioneers,

Temporary Use and Urban Developmentin Berlin (Berlin: Jovis Verlag, 2007).

8. Willy rskov, Udkanter, TerrainVague og simple organiseringer inSamlet (Copenhagen: Borgen, 1999).

9. Walter Benjamin, Selected Writings, Volume 1 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), pp. 41421.

Acknowledgements This paper was originally presented atthe Alternate Currents symposium atthe school of Architecture, Universityof Sheffield, November 2007 and wewould like to thank the organisers ofthis symposium, Professor Jeremy Tilland Dr. Tatjana Schneider. Also it isimportant to thank all the colleagueswho helped the development of thistext with their comments.

Illustration creditsarq gratefully acknowledges:Jens Rex, 7Supertanker, all images

BiographyJens Brandt (architect), MartinFrandsen (sociologist) and JanLilliendahl Larsen (urban geographer)have been part of Supertanker since2002 and have carried out a largenumber of urban projects involvingnew forms of dialogue, publicmeetings, citizen participation and soon. Many of these projects have beenpart of research done at RoskildeUniversity Center.

Authors addressJens Brandt Christianshavns Voldgade 491424 Copenhagen K [email protected]

supertanker in search of urbanity

Documents