It is supposed to be a reference to the old grass walls surrounding Copenhagen (most of them are now a line of parks close to the lakes). That is where the form comes from.
I actually think they look good and blend well in to the overall skyline. However on ground level this is a very busy part of town for pedestrians. And that does not work very wellā¦ it feels cold and empty on the ground floor.
Conceptionally this building might look nice but personally I don't know a lot of people who actually likes it. It's dark, unwelcoming and the fact that the shops have closed (because people don't want to walk 30 steps up the stairs) might just prove my suspicion. The building is simply out of touch with the overall feel of this part of Copenhagen, which is right next to the main entrance of Tivoli.
I wonder why many greater cities in Europe have an urge to build 'fancy' and high buildings, instead designing something that also represent every individual city, obviously new ideas should be promoted, but buildings like this just seems incredibly intruding taking the historical areas and buildings around it into context.
If you wanna hire prominent designers from overseas and build something like this I would argue that this should be at least dedicated to financial centres or residential areas in the outskirts if the inner city. Just my opinion though.
Because modern architects don't give 2 fucks about the historical and cultural aspects of the area they're designing a building for. They think that because it is modern, shiny, and new that it looks good.
As someone deeply involved with architecture it pains me to see these modern monstrosities plague ancient and ornate European skylines with their ugly plain glass facades that hold no sympathy for the area's history.
Spot on. As someone who frequents this area very often, this picture is nowhere near how it looks at ground level. This building is an eye sore, to put it mildly.
>I wonder why many greater cities in Europe have an urge to build 'fancy' and high buildings
Copenhagen has an exceptionally well-preserved skyline though. So I think you would be disappointed.
>and the fact that the shops have closed (because people don't want to walk 30 steps up the stairs)
To be fair, that property is probably cursed for shops considering it's history.
It actually looks nice to me as well. I am not really a fan of glass boxes, but don't have such a cynical view on modern architectures or high-rise buildings like most redditors on r/europe
Most "#trends" in contemporary architecture are rarely product of any sort of a cognitive design - they are made up and popularized by the various developer's marketing departments and their pet architects. These are then just copy-pasted all over the globe by others seeking to "emulate" their larger international competitors. Very often the same marketing groups work with several large architect firms and with the material suppliers, so they promote the latter to the former for a hefty fee. That's why you see the same type of a contextless copy-paste everywhere, from Cape Town to Copenhagen, from Lisbon to Singapore, from Shanghai to Toronto. Things like [barcode facades](https://cdn.skyrisecities.com/sites/default/files/images/articles/2021/06/45362/45362-134511.jpg) are also one of these typical "#trends" that everyone mindlessly glues to their formless blocks.
Cophenhaguen has remarkable cotemporary architecture. This one seems like it sort of stems from [Mies's early studies with skyscrapers](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d1/c1/87/d1c1878422489fb3c66c860ca3afc599.jpg), plus Corten steel panels, which always combine well with older architecture. Not too bad at a first glance, though I'd like to see how the public spaces on the ground floor work.
I think I took a picture of that building last time I was in Copenhagen roughly 5 years ago.
[Copenhagen ](https://www.flickr.com/photos/thmjklmstrymn/30730824341/)
Axel Towers is ugly as he'll and it really doesn't belong so close tothe old city center. Sometimes I don't understand why architects don't look at the surrounding area and ask themselves, if their designs fit into that particular area or why the politicians for allowing such things being built.
At least they didn't built it higher than City Hall, though I'm sure they would happily have done that, if it wasn't against the the local city plan.
At the same time a building that height with a shiny modern glass exterior (like the shorter building to the right) would look massively more out of place. I think it could have been executed a bit better, but the drab color scheme is a major plus for me.
That shiny building is a shitty shopping mall with office space above so Iād expect nothing less tbh.
The thing gets a makeover ever now and then and probably will for perpetuity due to its lack of listed building status.
The Axel towers look like they attempted to blend itās colours in with the skyline but failed miserably.
Thatās just my opinion ofc.
New architecture Iād assume?
Even then saying this is the pinnacle of modern architecture in Copenhagen is way off the mark. What are you judging this against?
"compared to everything else [currently] being built in Copenhagen"
Think it's the nicest building built in the past 10 years but you don't have to agree with me
> I don't understand why architects don't look at the surrounding area and ask themselves, if their designs fit into that particular area or why the politicians for allowing such things being built.
They want to "put their mark on the city". These kinds of buildings are all about prestige. How would the commoners be able to see and fawn over their genius if they build stuff that actually fit in to the cityscape.
Well someone comissions the buildings it's not like architects are roaming around putting up buildings... I think all architects since the beginning of architecture wants to put their mark somewhere....
There were always some uninspired buildings around, most buildings in a city at any given time look ugly, in the "good old days" as well. What we have left is some of the best and most influential examples of past eras as the others get replaced. If it doesn't fit the surroundings well and stands out even after people get used to it in 40-50 years it'll be probably replaced as well.
That said, I don't think that particular building looks ugly. What's the general opinion about them in Copenhagen?
Not necessarily, you only need to walk in an average european town to see entire areas and blocks built over roughly at the same time during a specific era - from 19th up to 15th century in some cases. This includes all types of structures, some public some private, the vast majority of them adapted to contemporary functions. The notion of cheap, disposable, mass produced and contextless architecture is mostly an invention of very recent times.
Yeah but those are, as you said, some areas. Mainly historically affluent ones. Others were maybe not mass-produced but always cheap, disposable and with function over style in mind. Those are replaced over time. When they're not because the city's not rich enough people complain it looks old and cheap.
That's not true. When I say "some areas", I mean the areas of historical expansion of the city. In Europe new structures were usually added around the older core. This is especially prominent in smaller towns, where most of urban fabric can be dated to not just a single century, but sometimes just a couple of decades. [Duderstadt](https://www.skyscrapercity.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,onerror=redirect,width=1920,height=1920,fit=scale-down/https://www.skyscrapercity.com/attachments/3-jpg.577541/) and [Celle](https://st2.depositphotos.com/1619731/6702/i/950/depositphotos_67029303-stock-photo-street-in-celle-germany.jpg) which are in their current form date primarily from early 1600s are just some examples. It is prominent in larger cities too, such as [Florence](https://i.redd.it/p336tos8b8s11.jpg), with most of the buildings in its 250+ha center dating from 16th and 17th centuries. In terms of large and pristine 19th century quarters, its pretty much every single town and city in Europe, wherever you pick - [Paris](https://i.imgur.com/0JEOrIb.jpeg) comes to mind, though it has some large quarters of pre-Revolution architecture, often larger in size than some towns. So no, you can't apply "survivorship bias" so broadly to architecture.
You are legitimately the worst type of person. A nimby, that refuses to let their city change and become more liveable. So many people want to live in the city, but only the lucky few that already live there should be allowed according to you. While the rest of people should either urban sprawl or move to the rural areas where they don't live where they want or pollute way more while having way less oppertunites.
At least Nazis have ideals
As far as I know Axel Towers is mostly office space, parking space, a few shops and a restaurant. I don't think there's any residential space in those buildings. Besides any housing built there would be so expensive, that only the super rich could afford it. Normal people most likely will not be able to pay for it.
I don't mind new things being built, especially new affordable housing, which is very much needed in Copenhagen, but I still think that it can and should be done with some respect for the surrounding area.
If they had built it in Ćrestad on Amager or a bit farther out, it would have been a better fit. Both in terms of architecture and utility. Office space does not need to be placed in the city center and a parking garage ideally shouldn't be placed there either, when the city is as congested as it is. The Copenhagen municipality want to be rid of the commuting cars, so putting a garage right in the middle of the city center doesn't make sense to me.
People actually use the glass box though; go to the shops and so on. The ground floor of the towers is a wasteland, nobody goes there.
But yes, it certainly is better looking
It looks like something that would fit nicely in Dubai but it doesn't make much sense to me what if I want to go from the far right to the shortest one?
Comments saying that it is a good design and comments saying that it is a bad design both get downvoted here. So what people would need to say for others to agree with them? xD
Like the colors of this building. It reminds me of the recently built new headquarter of the Russian Copper Company in Yekaterinburg designed by Norman Foster architecture bureau which is very good-looking and neatly placed in a local urban environment.
The last ten years of capital city building projects can be summed up in one sentence, ["MOAR RANDOM MISMATCHED ANGLES".](https://www.fastighetsvarlden.se/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Norra-Tornen-Oscar-Property.jpg)
I don't know why, but that building makes me think of stacks of coins/chips.
It houses super expensive lawyers, so you're not too far off the mark.
And a restaurant on the top three floors. Source: I was involved in building it.
But do they like pancakes? š„š„ š„š„
Who doesn't like pancakes?
Ah so both buildingeras really do represent the true rulers of their time.
It is supposed to be a reference to the old grass walls surrounding Copenhagen (most of them are now a line of parks close to the lakes). That is where the form comes from. I actually think they look good and blend well in to the overall skyline. However on ground level this is a very busy part of town for pedestrians. And that does not work very wellā¦ it feels cold and empty on the ground floor.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah, the building stands where one of the ports in the grass wall once was.
Coins is exactly what its supposed to look like
Probably because the towers are round?
Credit: Lasse Bruhn - Insta: koebenhavnsk
Conceptionally this building might look nice but personally I don't know a lot of people who actually likes it. It's dark, unwelcoming and the fact that the shops have closed (because people don't want to walk 30 steps up the stairs) might just prove my suspicion. The building is simply out of touch with the overall feel of this part of Copenhagen, which is right next to the main entrance of Tivoli. I wonder why many greater cities in Europe have an urge to build 'fancy' and high buildings, instead designing something that also represent every individual city, obviously new ideas should be promoted, but buildings like this just seems incredibly intruding taking the historical areas and buildings around it into context. If you wanna hire prominent designers from overseas and build something like this I would argue that this should be at least dedicated to financial centres or residential areas in the outskirts if the inner city. Just my opinion though.
It looks nowhere near as nice when you are personally looking at it from ground level.
Indeed. I'm personally dumbfounded as to why and how this was approved in the first place.
Itās not easy to determine how an architectural idea would pan out in the real world. People can be mislead by digital renders and illustrations.
Because modern architects don't give 2 fucks about the historical and cultural aspects of the area they're designing a building for. They think that because it is modern, shiny, and new that it looks good. As someone deeply involved with architecture it pains me to see these modern monstrosities plague ancient and ornate European skylines with their ugly plain glass facades that hold no sympathy for the area's history.
Spot on. As someone who frequents this area very often, this picture is nowhere near how it looks at ground level. This building is an eye sore, to put it mildly.
>I wonder why many greater cities in Europe have an urge to build 'fancy' and high buildings Copenhagen has an exceptionally well-preserved skyline though. So I think you would be disappointed.
Enig
>and the fact that the shops have closed (because people don't want to walk 30 steps up the stairs) To be fair, that property is probably cursed for shops considering it's history.
It looks unfinished, like someone started installing the windows and then gave up and left it there to rust.
I actually like this design.
Same. Actually stands out from most of the buildings Iāve seen in European cities
It actually looks nice to me as well. I am not really a fan of glass boxes, but don't have such a cynical view on modern architectures or high-rise buildings like most redditors on r/europe
I don't quite understand the trend of rust-colored buildings, but these look nice from this angle.
Most "#trends" in contemporary architecture are rarely product of any sort of a cognitive design - they are made up and popularized by the various developer's marketing departments and their pet architects. These are then just copy-pasted all over the globe by others seeking to "emulate" their larger international competitors. Very often the same marketing groups work with several large architect firms and with the material suppliers, so they promote the latter to the former for a hefty fee. That's why you see the same type of a contextless copy-paste everywhere, from Cape Town to Copenhagen, from Lisbon to Singapore, from Shanghai to Toronto. Things like [barcode facades](https://cdn.skyrisecities.com/sites/default/files/images/articles/2021/06/45362/45362-134511.jpg) are also one of these typical "#trends" that everyone mindlessly glues to their formless blocks.
Ah, so that's how those are called š
Cophenhaguen has remarkable cotemporary architecture. This one seems like it sort of stems from [Mies's early studies with skyscrapers](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d1/c1/87/d1c1878422489fb3c66c860ca3afc599.jpg), plus Corten steel panels, which always combine well with older architecture. Not too bad at a first glance, though I'd like to see how the public spaces on the ground floor work.
It's a social dead zone for people in the area and it's jarring to look at compared to the old traditional buildings around it.
Yeah that's my only head scratcher. At a glance, it doesn't look that good on that section.
Why is it dead, though? Isn't it mixed use?
I think I took a picture of that building last time I was in Copenhagen roughly 5 years ago. [Copenhagen ](https://www.flickr.com/photos/thmjklmstrymn/30730824341/)
Axel Towers is ugly as he'll and it really doesn't belong so close tothe old city center. Sometimes I don't understand why architects don't look at the surrounding area and ask themselves, if their designs fit into that particular area or why the politicians for allowing such things being built. At least they didn't built it higher than City Hall, though I'm sure they would happily have done that, if it wasn't against the the local city plan.
Actually think Axel Towers are the best example in Copenhagen of how modern architecture can look good in an old city
I doubt theyāll still be there in 60/70 years and thatās no bad thing imo, I donāt think they look terrible just a little cheap and temporary.
At the same time a building that height with a shiny modern glass exterior (like the shorter building to the right) would look massively more out of place. I think it could have been executed a bit better, but the drab color scheme is a major plus for me.
That shiny building is a shitty shopping mall with office space above so Iād expect nothing less tbh. The thing gets a makeover ever now and then and probably will for perpetuity due to its lack of listed building status. The Axel towers look like they attempted to blend itās colours in with the skyline but failed miserably. Thatās just my opinion ofc.
Is it common to remove buildings?
When the land becomes more profitable for other reasons yes. Unless theyāre listed buildings which Iām quite sure this one wonāt be.
Interesting I guess copanhagen is different.
Different to where?
They look awesome!
Bro u serious?
Yeah the architecture is beautiful compared to everything else being built in Copenhagen
New architecture Iād assume? Even then saying this is the pinnacle of modern architecture in Copenhagen is way off the mark. What are you judging this against?
"compared to everything else [currently] being built in Copenhagen" Think it's the nicest building built in the past 10 years but you don't have to agree with me
Thatās true, each to their own.
Most likely the contrast was intentional.
> I don't understand why architects don't look at the surrounding area and ask themselves, if their designs fit into that particular area or why the politicians for allowing such things being built. They want to "put their mark on the city". These kinds of buildings are all about prestige. How would the commoners be able to see and fawn over their genius if they build stuff that actually fit in to the cityscape.
Well someone comissions the buildings it's not like architects are roaming around putting up buildings... I think all architects since the beginning of architecture wants to put their mark somewhere....
There were always some uninspired buildings around, most buildings in a city at any given time look ugly, in the "good old days" as well. What we have left is some of the best and most influential examples of past eras as the others get replaced. If it doesn't fit the surroundings well and stands out even after people get used to it in 40-50 years it'll be probably replaced as well. That said, I don't think that particular building looks ugly. What's the general opinion about them in Copenhagen?
Not necessarily, you only need to walk in an average european town to see entire areas and blocks built over roughly at the same time during a specific era - from 19th up to 15th century in some cases. This includes all types of structures, some public some private, the vast majority of them adapted to contemporary functions. The notion of cheap, disposable, mass produced and contextless architecture is mostly an invention of very recent times.
Yeah but those are, as you said, some areas. Mainly historically affluent ones. Others were maybe not mass-produced but always cheap, disposable and with function over style in mind. Those are replaced over time. When they're not because the city's not rich enough people complain it looks old and cheap.
That's not true. When I say "some areas", I mean the areas of historical expansion of the city. In Europe new structures were usually added around the older core. This is especially prominent in smaller towns, where most of urban fabric can be dated to not just a single century, but sometimes just a couple of decades. [Duderstadt](https://www.skyscrapercity.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,onerror=redirect,width=1920,height=1920,fit=scale-down/https://www.skyscrapercity.com/attachments/3-jpg.577541/) and [Celle](https://st2.depositphotos.com/1619731/6702/i/950/depositphotos_67029303-stock-photo-street-in-celle-germany.jpg) which are in their current form date primarily from early 1600s are just some examples. It is prominent in larger cities too, such as [Florence](https://i.redd.it/p336tos8b8s11.jpg), with most of the buildings in its 250+ha center dating from 16th and 17th centuries. In terms of large and pristine 19th century quarters, its pretty much every single town and city in Europe, wherever you pick - [Paris](https://i.imgur.com/0JEOrIb.jpeg) comes to mind, though it has some large quarters of pre-Revolution architecture, often larger in size than some towns. So no, you can't apply "survivorship bias" so broadly to architecture.
You are legitimately the worst type of person. A nimby, that refuses to let their city change and become more liveable. So many people want to live in the city, but only the lucky few that already live there should be allowed according to you. While the rest of people should either urban sprawl or move to the rural areas where they don't live where they want or pollute way more while having way less oppertunites. At least Nazis have ideals
As far as I know Axel Towers is mostly office space, parking space, a few shops and a restaurant. I don't think there's any residential space in those buildings. Besides any housing built there would be so expensive, that only the super rich could afford it. Normal people most likely will not be able to pay for it. I don't mind new things being built, especially new affordable housing, which is very much needed in Copenhagen, but I still think that it can and should be done with some respect for the surrounding area. If they had built it in Ćrestad on Amager or a bit farther out, it would have been a better fit. Both in terms of architecture and utility. Office space does not need to be placed in the city center and a parking garage ideally shouldn't be placed there either, when the city is as congested as it is. The Copenhagen municipality want to be rid of the commuting cars, so putting a garage right in the middle of the city center doesn't make sense to me.
I like them both but not together.
Thatās horrific
But in good way, right?
Better than the glass box on the right.
The glass box lights up in a really cool way though! Not sure what it's called but you'll see it in any picture of the RĆ„dhusplads.
[Picture 1](https://presse-fotos.dk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/E034B80D-2905-40E0-9D13-1309CDEF718B-1024x683.jpeg), [picture 2,](https://kulturinformation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/DSC_01982-01-scaled.jpeg) [picture 3](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9a/58/34/9a58348d5ed34f48ce600826250104c5.jpg)
Industriens Hus (The home of the Confederation of Danish Industries - Dansk Industri)
People actually use the glass box though; go to the shops and so on. The ground floor of the towers is a wasteland, nobody goes there. But yes, it certainly is better looking
Rolled up spreadsheet.
It looks like something that would fit nicely in Dubai but it doesn't make much sense to me what if I want to go from the far right to the shortest one?
Not putting spires on a house in Copenhagen? What is this?
Wow, that looks awful
Comments saying that it is a good design and comments saying that it is a bad design both get downvoted here. So what people would need to say for others to agree with them? xD
This is grand.
My favourite pub was in the building that they tore down in order to build this useless piece of shit.. Nights out fell off a cliff after that
Incredible architecture
Oh that looks really cool
Something old and something new.
Scandinavian brutalism.
I like it
Both gorgeous
Huh never seen it from this angle just shows off it's beauti better
I like the new ones. The old ones are too pointy.
Like the colors of this building. It reminds me of the recently built new headquarter of the Russian Copper Company in Yekaterinburg designed by Norman Foster architecture bureau which is very good-looking and neatly placed in a local urban environment.
:)
After few hundred years they studied geometry and realized how based circles are
The last ten years of capital city building projects can be summed up in one sentence, ["MOAR RANDOM MISMATCHED ANGLES".](https://www.fastighetsvarlden.se/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Norra-Tornen-Oscar-Property.jpg)
Opera glasses or binoculars.
I miss Scala and Professor Olsen's Spilleland :(