Landsbyggefonden job search
Recommending party The project has been submitted by: C. Address: Tambosundvej and Sallingsundvej, Aalborg. Promoter: Himmerland Housing Association with support from Landsbyggefonden and the Municipality of Aalborg Allotment rule: Flats are appointed to members of Himmerland Boligforening, by seniority as a member. Everyone can become a member. All is owned by these two departments, so there is no offices, businesses and alike.
We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
Content:
Jump the queue (flexible rental)
Demolition Blues. Resistance Agai The affordable housing estate Gellerup in Aarhus, Denmark, has been under transformation for the past eight years. Since the final adoption in of a Master Plan, implemented by the housing association running the estate and the Municipality in close cooperation, demolitions, infrastructural projects, and new constructions have been the order of the day.
New national political discussions in opened for local discussions on the future of the estate, resulting in a City Council decision to work towards further demolitions and transformations than initially agreed upon. The City Council decision aims at creating a different social mix in the estate by removing affordable housing units and building owner-occupied and private rental units, attracting affluent citizens.
The decision resulted in various responses from current residents. I relate the two cases to the ongoing development of the estate and issues of planning and the construction of a particular future for the estate.
The article is based on ethnographic research conducted from to Il complesso residenziale a prezzi calmierati Gellerup sito ad Aarhus, in Danimarca, ha subito ampie trasformazioni negli ultimi otto anni.
Alcuni recenti dibattiti politici condotti a livello nazionale dal hanno promosso un dibattito locale sul futuro del complesso residenziale, confluiti nella decisione del Consiglio Comunale di incrementare il numero di demolizioni e di trasformazioni inizialmente concordato. In questo saggio esamino due forme di resistenza — la protesta frontale e il rialloggiamento. Connetto i due casi allo sviluppo del complesso in corso, alla pianificazione territoriale e alla costruzione di uno specifico futuro.
The sun was baking as I moved down Karen Blixens Boulevard in the Gellerup estate in Western Aarhus, Denmark, along with a fellow anthropologist who had a work assignment in the estate. Now, we could walk along Blixen in a direct line from the Bazar to the north, where we had had lunch, walking towards the City Vest shopping mall south of the estate.
The estate was quiet and there were only a few cars on the boulevard. The landscape was dry as the Danish Summer had been unusually warm and sunny and what was previously a lush and somewhat overgrown and slightly unkempt park area was now concrete, asphalt and gravel, though the newly landscaped city park was visible to our left. Working at the counter was a local long-term resident, Petra 1 , who was very engaged in all matters concerning the estate.
We ordered cake and coffees and sat at the counter, chatting with Petra about what was new. Inevitably, the chat turned to the subject of the decision of the municipal council to work towards the demolition of a further nine blocks in the estate before At the time, five blocks had already been demolished and a sixth now had a gaping hole with what was to be a new road passing through it, all part of the initial Master Plan that had been adopted by both the municipality, the housing association and the residents in and Petra looked at me, and said: «Esben and Julie are moving out.
You know that, right? I shook my head. I had not heard that they would be moving away. Esben and Julie were a young couple with children that I had interviewed who had been staunch advocates of the estate, also in the press. Yet, the reactions from some of my resident interlocutors in were stronger than what I had encountered before.
In the following, I will first introduce the national Danish legislation and political decisions that have set, and continues to set, part of the agenda and the national context for the transformation of Gellerup, before moving on to examine some of the criticisms of the lack of resident involvement in the implementation of the Master Plan in the years before , and after that I will examine the situation following the Aarhus City Council decision in June and the reactions of some of my resident interlocutors.
The Danish affordable housing sector constitutes roughly 20 per cent of the Danish housing mass in estates that are run by the many Danish housing associations. The rent is based on the expenses of running the estate and the affordable housing sector is non-profit.
While filling out an important function in the Danish housing market, particularly in the Danish cities, the affordable sector has become the locus point of anti-ghettoization strategies and policies in Denmark in recent years. David Berliner describes how the future has invaded the present in contemporary politics: «In contemporary catastrophism the present is already invaded by a terrible future.
The worst case scenario is not a fantasy anymore […]» Berliner That seems to be true in the case of Danish ghetto policies. From I conducted research in Gellerup as part of my Phd-project 2 , examining the Master Plan Helhedsplan for the estate, which is aiming at transforming Gellerup «from a disadvantaged residential area into an attractive urban district» Helhedsplan Gellerup I was also present at both public and closed meetings, and at activities and events in the estate, researched the history of the estate and included statistical data in my research.
The scale of the transformations is unprecedented in recent Danish history and with the recent political developments in mind, the interventions in the lives of the residents from the municipality, the housing association and the state might become even more intrusive in the future.
As the plan also began to mutate and expand without any direct involvement of the residents, several of my interlocutors began reacting in new ways from what I had previously observed. In this article, I will examine some of these reactions in the light of the political developments that facilitated the Aarhus City Council agreement of June to work towards the demolition of an additional nine blocks in Gellerup and the privatization of a tenth.
I will also trace some of the critiques from residents of the development of the estate, that already occurred before the June decision, and examine some examples of resident resistance against the new plans.
Estate 4 and 5 of the Brabrand housing association respectively, together consisting Gellerupparken, or in short, Gellerup. The two have each their own operating budget and each their own residential board, elected by the residents. Every year, there are two estate meetings, one in Spring and one in the Autumn in each estate. At the Spring meeting, elections for the residential board are held, whereas the autumn meeting, in September, is mainly about the budget for the coming year — though it is also possible for residents to suggest changes to departmental regulations and ask questions to the board and the administration, whose representatives participate in all estate meetings.
I participated in both the estate 4 and 5 meetings in the Autumn of as an observer, though I was assigned to count votes at one of the meetings — apart from that I merely listened to the presentations and discussions and engaged in small talk with other participants. There was a week in between the meetings of the two estates, and though following the same regulations, they turned out to be completely different experiences.
Here, I will focus on the estate meeting in Gellerupparken, the larger of the two estates. The meeting had drawn out a larger delegation of representatives from the housing association administration, among them the CEO and the administrative executive, as well as the head of the main board of the housing association.
Around residents attended the meeting in Foreningernes Hus. There were repeated calls for translations to Arabic, and when a residential board member started translating to Arabic, calls to translate to Somali ensued, followed by translations from another residential board member to Somali. This naturally protracted proceedings and some confusion arose from the translations as they were conducted seemingly without prior preparation.
He was also booed by some of the attendants a couple of times during the three-hour meeting. This might be due to his role in the initial phases of the Master Plan, where some residents felt that he had promised that a mosque would be built, and they had voted in favor of the Master Plan because of that. Now that the mosque was off the table, some felt deceived by the municipality and housing association.
The estate budget for the following year was up for voting. The residential board, it turned out, recommended that the assembly should reject the budget, on the grounds that it would result in a rent increase, mainly caused by increased expenses for inspections of vacated apartments due to a change in procedure, according to the residential board.
The discussion about funding for the resident counselling office was also based on the expenses this would mean and their effect on the rent level. A counter proposal was put forth by a residential board member to maintain the current level of funding for the resident counselling office, but this was voted down by a small majority after some debate and a revote.
It was unclear whether all the attendees had understood the phrasing of the first vote and might have voted the opposite of what they wanted in the first round.
The result of the vote was much to the chagrin of several women seated near me, who had obviously come to the meeting to support the cause of the resident counselling office. My neighbor was soon engaged in discussions and additional translations with other people around us so I did not have the chance to follow up on his statement — yet it seemed clear to me that there generally was some confusion among the residents present as to what the details of the various proposals were and what they actually entailed.
The second vote of the meeting, though, on whether to accept or reject the budget, had a much more unequivocal result — only around ten of the approximately resident participants voted in favor of the budget proposed by the administration. Some of the residents in the back celebrated the result of the vote with loud cheering and dancing, while others quietly shook their heads in amazement or regret, and several of the administration representatives observed the proceedings with looks of exasperation, frustration or incomprehension.
Several of the residents seemed to consider the result of the vote as a victory over the administration, though, as an administration representative remarked to me shortly after the meeting, they might come to regret the vote, as it would mean that the municipal oversight would have to decide on the rent level, and they might decide on a higher increase than the one they had just rejected 4.
The point of the comment was that the conflict that had sprung out into the open at the estate meeting was not a new one — and was perhaps not so much about the small increase in rent, but more about the way the budget had been calculated and what expenses the estate should carry. For a long time, there had been disagreements over which decisions the residential board were entitled to be involved in, and at what levels, and over several of the sub-projects of the Master Plan.
A residential board member was quoted:. When we in engaged with the Master Plan we were told, that the changes should also come from the inside. And we, who reside in Gellerup, want to help make it an attractive neighborhood.
But the actions we have seen since, do not show co-creation and the will to cooperate. We experience that the administration of the housing association listens to us, nods, and then throws everything we have just said in the trash. We are appointed to be scapegoats and as people who can do nothing JP Aarhus According to the residential board member, a main cause of the disagreements between the residential board and the administration of the housing association was the lack of involvement of the residential board in decisions, while the residents saw the jobs generated by the Master Plan go to people who did not live in the estate.
The housing association and the municipality talked about «co-creation» and «cooperation», but the residential board member did not see it in reality — his experience was that everything they said was thrown «in the trash». The «co-creation» in Gellerup seemed not to contribute to a sharing of power and a broadening of involved perspectives, but rather served «to reproduce existing dominant rationalities» Ibidem : Other causes of discontent were the annoyances of construction work and solutions that appeared strange, in the eyes of the residents, as well as issues like trash collection and traffic adjustments, and concern over whether they would be kicked out eventually as new, more attractive residents, in the eyes of the housing association and the municipality, would start to take an interest in moving to the estate.
The estate was changing in front of their eyes, not always in ways they had imagined or hoped for. It is not the Gellerup I love. It is not the Gellerup I want to share with people», Rahman, an interlocutor of Somali origin put it. Another young man likened the transformations to memories being erased, a third considered the changing landscape «worse than a cemetery». What was new, was that the Aarhus City Council and thereby the municipality of Aarhus seemed to follow suit and come clean as hardliners.
The agreement contained a series of efforts and statements of intent focusing on «equal opportunities», particularly for children, through social mixing and a more equal distribution of «problematic» citizens across the neighborhoods of the city Aarhus Kommune In addition, it stated the intent of the City Council to work towards the demolition of nine blocks in Gellerup and three in nearby Bispehaven , in order to redistribute the residents of Gellerup and replace their former dwellings with privately owned housing.
For example, when council planners the promisors present their visions for a material improvement of the built environment to a public of residents and citizens the promises , they create a strong expectation that this promise will be fulfilled» Ibidem.
What promises do is that they produce relations between the promisors — in Gellerup, the Municipality of Aarhus and the Brabrand Housing Association — and the promises — primarily the residents of Gellerup. Understood in this fashion, the Master Plan for Gellerup can be understood as a form of promise. While there were parts of the Master Plan that had been finalized in , and parts that had not, the promise the residents felt was being broken was not so much about what had been or not been finalized in the current Master Plan, as it was about the new plans that had begun to surface without any of the involvement of the residents that have been part of the process leading to the original Master Plan.
But just the same, the interpretation of the promise of the Master Plan as broken hinged on what was being realized being different from what had been promised initially. Abram and Weszkalnys write,. There were people who probably did not care much about decisions affecting the estate perhaps 10 years into the future, as they saw themselves as short term residents, or to whom it did not matter whether they lived in Gellerup or somewhere else in Aarhus. There were people who saw the plans to demolish further as an opportunity for themselves and the estate.
There were people who resignedly accepted the decision and waited for the actualization of the plans to see whether they would be among the residents who would have to move somewhere else.
And then there were people who decided to protest in different ways. Whereas Simsek and his party had withdrawn from the current Master Plan because they thought it was not far-reaching enough, the majority of the City Council had kept to the original plan so far, though Mayor Jacob Bundsgaard had publicly suggested the need to update the original Master Plan for the estate. When the City Council decision was then published on June 19, , my interlocutors seemed surprised at the severity of the plans.
It also seemed to come as a surprise to the Brabrand Housing Association, who did not back the plans. Thereby the combined support of municipality, housing association and residents, that had been the basis for the initial Master Plan that was still in function , seemed to shatter. A kind of demolition blues, a feeling of sadness and disbelief, seemed to seep into the minds of some of my interlocutors in the estate.
When I was guiding a group of visitors around the estate a few weeks later in the Summer, we were interrupted by a young man who demanded to know more about the plans to demolish.
Companies categorized in: Engineering and technology
Try out PMC Labs and tell us what you think. Learn More. Data are contained within the article or supplementary material. The data presented in this study are available in [ Supplementary Table S1 ].
Management
Demolition Blues. Resistance Agai The affordable housing estate Gellerup in Aarhus, Denmark, has been under transformation for the past eight years. Since the final adoption in of a Master Plan, implemented by the housing association running the estate and the Municipality in close cooperation, demolitions, infrastructural projects, and new constructions have been the order of the day. New national political discussions in opened for local discussions on the future of the estate, resulting in a City Council decision to work towards further demolitions and transformations than initially agreed upon. The City Council decision aims at creating a different social mix in the estate by removing affordable housing units and building owner-occupied and private rental units, attracting affluent citizens. The decision resulted in various responses from current residents. I relate the two cases to the ongoing development of the estate and issues of planning and the construction of a particular future for the estate. The article is based on ethnographic research conducted from to Il complesso residenziale a prezzi calmierati Gellerup sito ad Aarhus, in Danimarca, ha subito ampie trasformazioni negli ultimi otto anni.
The energy consumption halved: The ugly duckling has become a beautiful swan
The pension fund also admits employees of businesses and associations in fields related to architecture. AP has approximately 10, members and total assets amounts to approximately DKK 10,5 billion. The pension fund is owned by its members, which means that the members and the owners are the same. There are no shareholders and any profits eventually go back to the members.
Jesper Nygård
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email. You can get a job based on these landsbyggefonden intewrview questions that were created based on the research and survey of the company. The first question in our mind is How to crack landsbyggefonden interview processed.
Career Opportunities within Power-to-X Industry - Europe
Get started for free, then add your whole team. Product About Create Free Account. Wrong Anita Pedersen? Anita Pedersen Konsulent at Landsbyggefonden. Professional Contact. Company Details. Work History. Update Profile View Full Profile.
Insert/edit link
Start your career today! Understanding your responsibilities as a Graduateland user 1. Graduateland may revise these Terms at any time by posting an updated version to this Web page. You should visit this page periodically to review the most current Terms because they are binding on You.
Anita Pedersen
Tell us a little bit about your self and help us match you with relevant jobs and career offers. What is your highest degree? If you are still a student, then specify your highest expected title and estimated graduation date. Your education and graduation date helps us decide the right types of career offers - for students, fresh graduates or experienced candidates.
Are you interested in testing our corporate solutions? Please do not hesitate to contact me. Industry-specific and extensively researched technical data partially from exclusive partnerships. A paid subscription is required for full access. Additional Information.
We use cookies to ensure that the website can function, to measure traffic and to to support the marketing of our services. Read our cookie policy for more information about our use of cookies. You can change your consent by rejecting optional cookies in settings or by blocking cookies in your browser. Required required Necessary cookies help make a website usable by enabling basic features like navigation page and access to secure areas of the website.
In my opinion the theme is rather interesting. I suggest all to take part in discussion more actively.
It is agreeable, this excellent thought has to be precisely on purpose