When it comes to contemporary architecture in Copenhagen, everything starts and ends with the city as an instrument for a better quality of life. During the first leg of the Dulux Study Tour 2025, discussion between the winners consistently circled back to the very Danish idea that architecture must return to the public what it takes, offering value in exchange for space and presence.
Any conversation about Copenhagen would be incomplete without acknowledging Jan Gehl, a Danish architect whose influence on the city’s urban planning has been profound. His written works, Life Between Buildings (1971) and Cities for People (2010), have significantly shaped a contemporary Copenhagen that prioritises pedestrians and cyclists over cars, along with opportunities for social interaction through the provision of public space. In 1962, his theory that vehicles were dehumanising the city and fostering social isolation was put to the test when the city’s main street, Strøget, was pedestrianised as an experiment. The outcome was deemed a success after data demonstrated a significant increase in foot traffic, leading to the explosion of people-centric projects that we see today.
During a visit to Lundgaard and Tranberg Arkitekter’s practice, architect and CEO Peter Thorsen shared that at their firm, there is an emphasis on thinking beyond the building program to create architecture that contributes to broader society. Reflecting on the Royal Danish Playhouse project, he explained, “Far more people will pass by the playhouse than purchase a ticket to attend a performance. And that is why the public space element is the most important part of the project.” Consequently, their approach for the project was to include a waterfront promenade that could serve as both an everyday space and, when necessary, as an outdoor event venue. Publicly-oriented thinking also shaped their design for the circular Tietgen Dormitory, where private rooms are arranged on the perimeter and shared common spaces face toward a central courtyard. Though the two projects differ greatly in scale, both emphasise the role of architecture in enhancing social connection.
One of the five tour winners, Gumji Kang, stated that her favourite project from the Copenhagen tour was the city itself: “just the whole orchestration of how everyone [in the industry] inputs into the overall growth and the development of the city. It really goes back to this idea of humble architecture. Everyone’s a bit unfussy and it seems like they are saying, yes, we could make really beautiful buildings, but we also don’t need to have really fussy, beautiful buildings; they can just be quietly beautiful. As long as they’re doing well at the street level,” said Kang.
While Copenhagen is frequently held up as the global benchmark for urban planning, it’s clear that no city has all the answers when it comes to the most successful architectural outcomes, and Australia, in its own way, offers many advantages that Copenhagen doesn’t, proving that context matters.
Tour recipients Marni Reti and Nicholas Souksamrane observed that, in the portion of Copenhagen they explored, there appeared to be a lack of multicultural representation in the architectural landscape, especially when compared to cities like Sydney and Melbourne, where entire neighbourhoods reflect diverse cultural identities. They both acknowledged, however, that this observation was based on only a small glimpse of the city.
“That’s not to say that multiculturalism doesn’t exist here, because it does and we’ve seen signs of it. But it does seem that multicultural evidence is largely absent from the architecture and in the built environment,” said Reti. “There’s nothing wrong with that, and maybe that’s how Copenhagen wants it, but there is a cohesiveness to the city. And something that came across in the practice visits, to me, was that there is a Danish architectural setting or character that people seem to be trying to hold on to.”
Souksamrane echoed these sentiments, noting that Copenhagen’s architecture seemed to reflect a more culturally unified architectural identity in contrast to Australia, which wears its cultural layers more openly. “In Australia, you can see the grit and the mix of culture, and sometimes it is quite a beautiful thing to see, whereas over here [in Copenhagen], everything blends in perfectly,” he said.
In conversation with one another, tour participants also remarked that while the contemporary buildings they had visited made a strong and positive contribution at street level – thanks to plazas, harbourfront promenades and other external spaces – the buildings themselves often didn’t always stand out in terms of aesthetics or functionality. In some instances, the internal spaces felt underwhelming in comparison to the attention given to the external environment.
Certainly, architectural beauty and magnificence still exist, as exemplified in Grundtvigs Kirke, a sacred space that was completed in 1921 and took 19 years to construct from a single, handmade material: pale yellow Danish clay bricks. Legend has it that every detail was carefully inspected by the architect P. V. Jensen-Klint, who designed the church, and later by his son Kaare Klint, following P. V. Jensen-Klint’s passing. The tour participants unanimously expressed their admiration for the project’s impeccable attention to detail. While the building may not be particularly old in the context of Denmark, it predates many of the sites visited by the tour, most of which were built in the 2000s–2010s. The admiration the tour participants felt for this particular project, compared to some of the newer projects, may highlight a broader shift in society and the times from fine craftsmanship and aesthetic detail toward sustainability and public benefit.
Sustainability is inevitably part of any conversation about Copenhagen. Kang shared how impressed she was by the way material considerations underpin every stage of design thinking, not only in emerging studios but also among well-established practices. Across the board, architects spoke about working consciously with materials, whether by preserving and reusing what already exists, sourcing locally, or investing resources in research for the development of new materials. A standout example was Thoravej 29 by Pihlmann Architects, a former factory now serving as an arts space. The project repurposed more than 90 percent of the materials found on site, setting a high bar for adaptive reuse.
Kang reflected on the frequent justification that Denmark’s small population makes systemic change more achievable. “I know that everyone keeps saying that ‘Denmark is a small country and there aren’t that many of them’ and that’s why they can make these changes when it comes to materials and sustainability,” she said. “But Australia doesn’t have a huge population either – it’s just that we’re geographically dispersed. I feel like we need to stop making excuses and just do it.”
Tour participant Kate Shepherd pointed out that Denmark’s success isn’t due to unlimited resources either. “They were able to source the manufacturing of materials locally,” she said. “It’s not like they have an abundance of trees or an abundance of people to make this happen. They’ve found companies within Denmark that can recycle and reuse materials.”
Adair Winder is travelling with the 2025 Dulux Study Tour. Follow #2025DuluxStudyTour on social media and the blog.
Source: Architecture - architectureau
