Future Danish Winner Cities

[TH_DK]

Originally Posted by Christian347

You mean Q2 right? Since Q3 is by far the strongest quarter in terms of growth for Aarhus. Pretty much all growth is in Q3 for Aarhus. Anyway Growth is very centered around Copenhagen these days. Growth for Copenhagen metro area is 6,040 for Q1 + Q2.

Exactly, I think we can expect Aarhus to reach 317.500 inhabitants before new year 2012. So it seems like Aarhus will indeed reach 375.000 inh. before 2030, if population growth in absolute terms stay at least constant in the coming years.

Copenhagen growth is indeed impressive. But Aarhus should rather be compared with Odense and Aalborg, which are no match for Aarhus in terms of population growth in absolute terms.

[simondk]

The decision about which danish city that should be the European Capital of Culture 2017 is coming up shortly. And

as:

A 2004 study conducted for the European Commission demonstrated that the choice of European Capital of Culture served as a catalyst for the cultural development and the transformation of the city

We should probably care whether Soenderborg or Aarhus is awarded this 2017 status!?

So far, so good.
But, watched a piece about it on danish TV today - which was an excellent opportunity for confusion.

Back in 1996, when Copenhagen was awarded the capital status, the danish state (i.e. the Copenhagen government politicians) thought that was an excellent opportunity for tax payers from basicly ALL over Denmark to send 1 billion kroner to Copenhagen to promote that city. Now, it is apparently scaled down to 500 million kroner .... but on TV we were told that there will NOT be a state contribution....

So, the region of the country that is awarded this european culture capital status should finance it themselves....
And then you begin to wonder whether it is such a good idea....

Surfed the net for information on whether the investment will actually benefit the area - or if it is all forgottan in a few years time. Also, little consensus on that.
Only european-capitals-of-culture seems to push the idea strongly, that the socio-economic development and impact of this title is so beneficial that it warrants the investment.

Well, probably we will know in 2018 then .... :-)

[Asbjoern]

Originally Posted by simondk

The decision about which danish city that should be the European Capital of Culture 2017 is coming up shortly. And

as:


We should probably care whether Soenderborg or Aarhus is awarded this 2017 status!?

So far, so good.
But, watched a piece about it on danish TV today - which was an excellent opportunity for confusion.

Back in 1996, when Copenhagen was awarded the capital status, the danish state (i.e. the Copenhagen government politicians) thought that was an excellent opportunity for tax payers from basicly ALL over Denmark to send 1 billion kroner to Copenhagen to promote that city. Now, it is apparently scaled down to 500 million kroner .... but on TV we were told that there will NOT be a state contribution....

So, the region of the country that is awarded this european culture capital status should finance it themselves....
And then you begin to wonder whether it is such a good idea....

Surfed the net for information on whether the investment will actually benefit the area - or if it is all forgottan in a few years time. Also, little consensus on that.
Only european-capitals-of-culture seems to push the idea strongly, that the socio-economic development and impact of this title is so beneficial that it warrants the investment.

Well, probably we will know in 2018 then .... :-)

Aarhus will be the laugh of Denmark if it does not win. Sønderborg have a strong bid too though.

Denmark will only be the European Capital of Culture every 20 years so despite considering that the world is in an economical crisis and have been since 2008 then it is still no argument for not honouring the obligations that follow the title and the huge potential it can have for a city. The culture capital title helped spark new life and development in Copenhagen, and it would be unfair if Aarhus or Sønderborg is not given that same chance 20 years after. We are talking about max 200 mio. DKK in 2011-prices. If the national politicians truly want to find that money, they can. Furthermore Denmark and the world economy will in 2017 be different than it is now in 2012.

[simondk]

Originally Posted by Asbjoern

Aarhus will be the laugh of Denmark if it does not win. Sønderborg have a strong bid too though.

The confusion is over. And Aarhus was awarded the title of European Capital of culture for 2017.

Some of my thoughts on that, based on Knud Romers statements on danish TV.

I do enjoy a lot of what e.g. Knud Romer says (about advertising, culture) on TV2 News and elsewhere. But in the selection process listening to him has been rather confusing. Apparently, he wanted Soenderborg to win ''in order to spread cultural centers to the entire country, and in order to stop the urbanization trend that has been going on for the last 200 hundred years or so''.

I do have some sympathy for this viewpoint. And I think it would be wrong to say that e.g. Europe has 3 (major) cultural city centers (London, Berlin and Paris) - and the rest of Europe really doesn't matter.

But his rethink of urbanization in Denmark didn't include moving things out of Copenhagen, and it didn't include real ideas on how to make it attractive for young people to live in Soenderborg longterm. Simply put, where are the interesting jobs that would stop young people from moving out of Soenderborg, and how exactly would this European Capital project help with this (long term).

Reading the international media on Aarhus's new title it all makes much better sense, e.g.:
Aarhus to host European Capital of Culture 2017 .

Captures its strength and weakness, trying to balance itself between the feel of a provincial town and a contemporary international city. ECOC challenges this and stimulates a degree of “redefining the city”.
The visions for Aarhus 2017 also includes the region surrounding the city, where the region is set to play an important part in the execution of the project.

The following year, 2018, the torch will be passed on to Valletta (Malta) and say Utrect (?) or similar in Holland.

Which captures what Europe is really like. A lot of cities that are not that big internationally, but given the right infrastructure, and connected with each other, could be a brilliant basis for life in the 21st century.

So, well it is not the one mega city version of the Skyscrapercity slogan:

SkyscraperCity - In Urbanity We Trust

But the version where Europe has a lot of these medium sized cities, which given good connections between them could be Europes vision for ''one mega city'' - one ''euro city zone'' that you would actually want to live in, and raise your kids in (Not so sure about raising kids in say Shanghai ...).

And in that light, it makes perfect sense to award Aarhus the title for 2017, and invest money in this.

Originally Posted by Asbjoern

The culture capital title helped spark new life and development in Copenhagen, and it would be unfair if Aarhus or Sønderborg is not given that same chance 20 years after. We are talking about max 200 mio. DKK in 2011-prices. If the national politicians truly want to find that money, they can. Furthermore Denmark and the world economy will in 2017 be different than it is now in 2012.

Again, there is confusion on the danish level about this (Again, taking Knud Romer as an example of a person who has created confusion...).
Apparently, he doesn't want to see Aarhus strengthened, especially if some of this strengthening makes Soenderborg look relatively even weaker.
Apparently, imho, he would like to ''protect the size and influenze of cities in Denmark and Europe, as they were 50 - 100 years ago''. I.e. in his model there would be one capital in Denmark and then a lot of decent sized smaller cities, with their own e.g. regional newspaper, and lots of local job opportunities.
Basicly, imho, I think he wants to spend government money to protect this (outdated) model of Denmark 1940 (app) - and he certainly doesn't look at this from a european perspective - which was exactly what the competition was all about ....

Looking at the international media it does seem that Aarhus strikes a chord as the ''level of urbanization that makes sense in the beginning of the 21st century''. A city like Aarhus, with good connections to the surrounding region and to similar centers, it is basicly what Europe is like right now, and what needs to be further improved.

Then there are other concerns:
1) Do we need mega cities in Europe?
I.e. can we measure cities with other parameters than having the highest skyscraper and the biggest population?
The answer here is obviously, yes!
But surely, one needs to be very careful with measurements on things like "state of technology", "happiness" etc. So, thats where Aarhus Rethink 2017 comes into play !
(BTW. e.g. one danish government pamphlet on ''happiness'' two years ago was widely quoted in international media - but hopelessly flawed. It basicly said that danes were the happiest people in the world, but all the parameters it pointed to, are present in many other european countries - Social safety net, justice, rule of Law etc. Many other european countries have the same levels. So, honestly, why would danes be happier than say dutch people? Doesn't make any sense?).

2) What about all the really small places?
How small can you be, and still be an attractive place to live?
Hopefully, advances in technology will make it possible to create many great job opportunities in small places like Soenderborg. Using Skype version 67 ?
But somehow it does still seem somewhat out in the future. Technology needs to improve on a lot of parameters, and still, a city and its people needs to be connected to everything else in Europe. Not, just have one link to a local center.
So, even though Knud Romer wanted an answer to this question (2) in 2017, imho, it does seem a better choice to toss this question another 10 years down the road. Soenderborgs bid does need even more rethink and does seem out of scope for the current European Culture Capital title (Probably starting with the question abouts jobs. What jobs can be made available in Soenderborg, to improve the current situation. Create 10.000 new jobs in Soenderborg and the culture title surely follows in 2028?).

Which in the end also must have been what the jury decided?
Still, for now, it leaves the question about the really small european cities open. Probably, there should be a european title and competition for private sector job creation against the odds....?

[Xed]

Originally Posted by simondk

I do enjoy a lot of what e.g. Knud Romer says (about advertising, culture) on TV2 News and elsewhere. But in the selection process listening to him has been rather confusing. Apparently, he wanted Soenderborg to win ''in order to spread cultural centers to the entire country, and in order to stop the urbanization trend that has been going on for the last 200 hundred years or so''.

I do have some sympathy for this viewpoint. And I think it would be wrong to say that e.g. Europe has 3 (major) cultural city centers (London, Berlin and Paris) - and the rest of Europe really doesn't matter.

May I ask why? What is the problem with urbanisation? I can see some demographic problems, when young people move to the city and leave the old behind, but these are problems that it can't be that hard to solve, and there are much more advantages with urbanisation.

[simondk]

Originally Posted by Xed

What is the problem with urbanisation?

Well, where does it stop? What do you mean by urbanization?

The biggest cities in the world has more than 20 million inhabitants:

Tokyo, Seoul, Mexico city - 32 mill, 20 and 20 mill.
population density over 4000.

and skyrocketing populations:

Shanghai:
1982: 11 mill, 1990: 13 mill, 2000: 16 million, 2010: 23 mill.

Europe is nothing like this.

Still, we would need the connectedness of the big global centers.
One way of doing this would be to rethink European cities as
''neighborhoods'' in one big ''euro city''.

And being ''spread out'' have many advantages - For, say, those of us
who do like the occasional bike ride on a quiet road, fresh air,
etc. E.g. Modernity could easily look like Mountain View (Silicon Valley)
in California - Modernity doesn't have to be something like Shanghai.

With this realization, it changes the perspective on what you want
to achieve.
From the chinese perspective, bigger and higher,
to a perspective that deals with quality of living, level of technology,
level of infrastructure, possibilities for everyone, highlevel jobs.

And in this perspective - if you can achive all of this etc.
without clustering the whole of Europes population into
London, Paris and Berlin (and leaving the rest of Europe a back alley
wasteland (?) ...)
- Simply, it is just a more practical approach for the future of Europe. And Rethink 2017 fits in nicely here...!?
Shouldn't stop us building a skyscraper or two, but fitting into the overall picture of what we want to achieve.

[thomasKing]

Originally Posted by Xed

May I ask why? What is the problem with urbanisation? I can see some demographic problems, when young people move to the city and leave the old behind, but these are problems that it can't be that hard to solve, and there are much more advantages with urbanisation.

I think the problem is that its somewhat unclear what urbanisation actually means. If a student who lived in inner-city sønderborg and used to walk to university ended up moving to Albertslund, bought a car and drove on the motorway to his new job in ørestad every day is that urbanisation? Cars and motorways?

Many "urbanists" seem to look at ideals than reality. A lot of urbanising in Denmark, in particular in copenhagen, is about seriously over-priced houses in hollow sleeper suburbs relying on cars and motorways.

I think a much truer kind of urbanisation would be if more focus were put on the potential of the many 10,000+ towns and cities that there are in Denmark with their historic city centres offering homes of the kind that people actually want to live in and where its possible to get around in most of the city centres basically on foot. Crucially most of these towns in Denmark still have rail, though poor, slow and outdated. If we dared invest real money in developing rail, which is unique in the way it can potentially connect city centres then we would get a much more true and certainly better urbanisation than sad new suburbs outside copenhagen and Aarhus.

[ramblersen]

Only thing is that is not really the sort of growth we see in Copenhagen. People are not moving to Alberslund or other suburbs nearly as much as they are moving to more central parts of the city. Amd I agree with you that this is a good thing, although I find your comments about "hollow sleeper suburbs" tasteless since you are talking about other people's homes and lives and I basically think we should let it be up the each individual what sort of community and life fits their personal needs and priorities.

As for the future of the suburbs and your personal preference for "10,000+ towns", I think it would be nice if more suburbs developed lively "town centres". It would basically be like having your "10,000+ towns" lying side by side and while I am sure that is not what YOU want, I think it could offer "the best of both worlds" in a way that might appeal to a lot of people and in the same time secure the efficiency, flexibility and sustainability that our society and environment needs. Furthermore, the progress of LRT systems we fortunately see in all our largest cities will help combat the car usage and dependency which I agree with you isnn't a good thing. If we were smart, we also rewarded people for living close to their work place and taxed car usage rather than just having a car.

But fundamentally, I think it is important to remember that it is people who decide where they want to live and companies that decide where they want to be based - it is not something we plan or decide for them. I am sure you will claim that our system forces people and jobs to Copenhagen but fact is that the situation may just as well be that even more people would like to move to Copenhagen (or Aarhus) but are stopped by the level of particularly housing prizes. Fact is that relatively few people move over long distances in this country - except for a few hard hit areas such as Bornholm, Lolland and North Jutland Island - and those that do may simply want to. We have abolished "Stavnsbåndet" a long time ago and should not reintroduce it.

[thomasKing]

Originally Posted by ramblersen

Only thing is that is not really the sort of growth we see in Copenhagen. People are not moving to Alberslund or other suburbs nearly as much as they are moving to more central parts of the city. Amd I agree with you that this is a good thing, although I find your comments about "hollow sleeper suburbs" tasteless since you are talking about other people's homes and lives and I basically think we should let it be up the each individual what sort of community and life fits their personal needs and priorities.

As for the future of the suburbs and your personal preference for "10,000+ towns", I think it would be nice if more suburbs developed lively "town centres". It would basically be like having your "10,000+ towns" lying side by side and while I am sure that is not what YOU want, I think it could offer "the best of both worlds" in a way that might appeal to a lot of people and in the same time secure the efficiency, flexibility and sustainability that our society and environment needs. Furthermore, the progress of LRT systems we fortunately see in all our largest cities will help combat the car usage and dependency which I agree with you isnn't a good thing. If we were smart, we also rewarded people for living close to their work place and taxed car usage rather than just having a car.

But fundamentally, I think it is important to remember that it is people who decide where they want to live and companies that decide where they want to be based - it is not something we plan or decide for them. I am sure you will claim that our system forces people and jobs to Copenhagen but fact is that the situation may just as well be that even more people would like to move to Copenhagen (or Aarhus) but are stopped by the level of particularly housing prizes. Fact is that relatively few people move over long distances in this country - except for a few hard hit areas such as Bornholm, Lolland and North Jutland Island - and those that do may simply want to. We have abolished "Stavnsbåndet" a long time ago and should not reintroduce it.

I dont understand why you think I would be opposed to your idea of suburbs developing their own city centre? Its exactly what I suggest too. The only difference is that I see more potential in existing towns rather than ever more suburbs surrounding bigger cities which create problems that I think are generally underestimated. there are on-going infrastructure projects worth billions in copenhagen, yet the more that is built the more seems to be needed.

One big issue for city-suburbs is through-traffic. heavy lorries coming from other suburbs and bound for other suburbs yet creating local chaos. How on earth are you going to solve this? Ever more suburbs also means a bigger need to travel across rather just towards the bigger city centre. Again very difficult to solve. The only solution. Spend billions billions and yet more billions without really solving anything. Many existing towns simply dont have these problems. And yes, I think they also tend to offer a better environment for its people.

While you are right, that copenhagen is a lot more than Ørestad and motorways, it is certainly also that, and as Ørestad is a fairly recent development it must be considered quite relevant as to judge trends and thinking of city planners and to me that does not look promising. You do have Fields with its brutal couldnt-care-less-for-the-immediate-surroundings arhitecture right next to a motorway. Big money is now spent on further widening the Køge motorway to 64 lanes so everyone can drive there.

Anyway the point of my post was simply to question what urbanisation actually is. Is it just a question of the population of the bigger cities increasing or is it about denser poulation of city centres?

[ramblersen]

Originally Posted by thomasKing

I dont understand why you think I would be opposed to your idea of suburbs developing their own city centre? Its exactly what I suggest too. The only difference is that I see more potential in existing towns rather than ever more suburbs surrounding bigger cities which create problems that I think are generally underestimated. there are on-going infrastructure projects worth billions in copenhagen, yet the more that is built the more seems to be needed.

Well I just based my assumption on the fact that you advocated the 10,000+ town and criticized the suburb. I didn't say or assume that you are against local centres in suburbs to the extent that they (the suburbs) are there.

Originally Posted by thomasKing

One big issue for city-suburbs is through-traffic. heavy lorries coming from other suburbs and bound for other suburbs yet creating local chaos. How on earth are you going to solve this?

You are - of course - right that traffic is a challenge to our modern societies. But that is the case no matter what we do and how we live. And at the end of the day, we get less transport - of people and goods - with big cities than we do with small, spread-out ones. It is only along certain traffic corridors that traffic increases in the way you descripe, in general suburbs and inner city districts don't really become that much more traffic infested by being located next to other suburbs or districts. You keep talking about Copenhagen as this huge, terrible, malfunctioning city but get a perspective: Copenhagen is just a small city by international standards and while a lot of larger cities are absolutely terrible due to traffic there are also plenty of much larger cities out there which are not particularly hard hit by traffic probelms (although it is a challenge for all cities of course) and that most of us love (how you feel about them is your own business of course).

One of the solutions to traffic probelms that I propose is that we reward people for living close to their work place rather than for cimmuting as the system does now. Now there is a solution for you that doesn't require billions and billions in investments, it doesn't create traffic but reduce it and most often it is what people want - many just can't afford to. I have no problem with small towns if that is where people want to live and where the companies want to be located. But rewarding people for travelling over long distances is simply stupid. The intention is to create flexibility but what you really create is a market for an undesirable behaviour. And the thing is, neither people nor companies want to be located in the small towns. If we were to change that, it would require far more billions than those that are spend on updrading infrastructure in Copenhagen. And people would still travel much longer and not use public transport since it simply isn't feasible without the high density of a big city.

Originally Posted by thomasKing

Ever more suburbs also means a bigger need to travel across rather just towards the bigger city centre. Again very difficult to solve. The only solution. Spend billions billions and yet more billions without really solving anything. Many existing towns simply dont have these problems.

Again I can only agree with you that traffic is a challenge to all cities but it is a hell of a lot easier to make people grap their bike to travel across an urban area than to use it for travelling between spread-out settlements, and to implement efficient public transport which requires high density not to be outrageously expensive. Fact is that Copenhagen has been extremely succesful in making people choose their bicycle, the most used means of transport in the city accounting for 37 % of all journeys, and with the expansion of the metro and future lightrail, public transport is going to be the easiest option for a lot of people which is exactly what it takes to pull people out of their cars.

It is true that it is no problem to travel across many existing towns - let's say Hobro - but if the size in the same time means that you have to go to Randers or Aalborg to visit your sister, to Aarhus to see a decent, non-blockbuster film in the cinema and to Herning for a consert in Jyske Bank Boxen, I fail to see what you have gained. You end up travelling a lot longer and most often a car is your only option.

Originally Posted by thomasKing

And yes, I think they also tend to offer a better environment for its people.

Well you are welcome to think whatever you want - subjectively - but there is no objective, definitive answer to that question. I don't hope that the 'King' in your name implies a belief in absolutism and that you feel that you are in a position to decide what is best for other people? No need to pretend that we are all similar and want the same things. If you absolutely hate llife in the big city, a small town obviously offer a better environment. If you like life in the big city - or suburb - that is the better place for you. Some what the chouse that you only find in the big city, to have everything up close and enjoy the big city buzz. Others don't use offers you only find in the big city anyway and prefer to be part of a small community. To know what is the better environment for most people you have to study what they say and do. And fact is that your 10,000+ towns are not particularly popular these days. As for most people living in a big city or suburb in Denmark, it would be kn problem to leace it behind and instead settle in a smaller town. Not any small town (some are remote and it would be hard to find a job) but there would be plenty small towns to choose from. Fact is they don't. Therefore I don't think it is a valid argument to claim that it is society that forces people away from the small towns in favour of the big city.

Originally Posted by thomasKing

While you are right, that copenhagen is a lot more than Ørestad and motorways, it is certainly also that, and as Ørestad is a fairly recent development it must be considered quite relevant as to judge trends and thinking of city planners and to me that does not look promising. You do have Fields with its brutal couldnt-care-less-for-the-immediate-surroundings arhitecture right next to a motorway. Big money is now spent on further widening the Køge motorway to 64 lanes so everyone can drive there.

Get serious. Ørestad is constantly critized by media, local politicians, experts and citizens and used as an example of how not to do. And other major development areas such as Nordhavnen, Carlsberg, Sydhavnen or islands Brygge are nothing like it. Picking it out and claiming that it is representative for Copenhagen or the future development of the city - or big cities in general - is simply unserious and just shows how short of valid arguments you are. It would be like picking some small town out which didn't seem to function particularly well and then claim that all small towns are like that. That being said, Ørestad is well served by public transport and wheater you like it there is your own business. Not really my taste either But I don't really see what you or I think about the place really has to do with anything. I can assure you that people there also use bicycles and public transport.

Originally Posted by thomasKing

Anyway the point of my post was simply to question what urbanisation actually is. Is it just a question of the population of the bigger cities increasing or is it about denser poulation of city centres?

I get your point and agree that 'urbanization' can cover quite different demographic patterns. It is therefore important to be specific about what you mean and I have tried to be so.

[acebone]

The population in Copenhagen grew from 551.941 to 558.126 from the 1st of July to the 1st of October.

[Xed]

Where do you get the info? I don't see anything on dst.dk.

[LetMeLoose]

Originally Posted by Xed

Where do you get the info? I don't see anything on dst.dk.

http://www.kk.dk/FaktaOmKommunen/Koe...3%B8relse.aspx

[ramblersen]

Population figures as of 1 October 2012
population figures from 1 January 2012 and changes are listed in brackets.

Note: Figures are for selected municipalities, not cities/towns. Numbers can be hard to compare since most of the bigger cities see there largest growth in the in the second half of the year (especially Q3 due to student migrations). Therefore it had probably been more relevant to compare to figures from the same time last year. Apoligies for possible mistakes.

Denmark total: 5 599 665 (5 580 516 + 19 149)

Region Hovedstaden 1 729 952 (1 714 589 + 15 363)

København 557 920 (549 050 + 8 870)
Frederiksberg 101 951 (100 215 + 1736)

Helsingør 61 629 (61 493 + 136)
Hillerød 48 285 (48 203 + 82)

Bornholm40 844 (41,303 - 359)

Region Sjælland 816 670 (817 907 - 1 237)

Roskilde 83 448 (83 137 + 311)
Køge 57 676 (57 307 + 369)
Næstved 81 229 (81 012 + 217)

Region Syddanmark 1 201 547 (1 201 342 + 205)

Odense 193 174 (191 610 + 1564)
Esbjerg 115 139 (115 112 + 27)
Kolding 89 484 (89 412 + 72)
Vejle 108 625 (108 021 + 604)
Fredericia 50 275 (50 193 + 82)

Region Midtjylland 1 271 223 (1 266 682 + 4 541)

Aarhus 318 757 (314 545 + 4 212)
Randers 95 919 (95 756 + 163)
Horsens 84 247 (83 598 + 649)
Silkeborg 89 281 (89 328 - 47)
Herning 86 545 (86 348 + 197)

Region Nordjylland 580 273 (579 996 + 277)

Aalborg 203 201 (201 142 + 2 059)

http://www.dst.dk/

[LetMeLoose]

It's going too slow if we are to keep the Norwegians behind us! They reached 5 million earlier this year.

[ramblersen]

Development in rented-out hotel rooms in the (core municipality of the) 10 largest cities in Denmark in 1 January - 1 October 2012:

Roskilde, Aalborg and Esbjerg has seen the highest increase in the hotel market among the ten largest cities in Denmark so far in 2012.

1. Københavns Kommune: 2,504,631 (+ 6.2 %)
2. Aarhus Kommune: 277,076 (- 2.9 %)
3 Odense Kommune: 155,901 (- 2.0 %)
4: Aalborg Kommune: 232,379 (+ 7.9 %)
5. Esbjerg Kommune: 97,926 (+ 8.1 %)
6. Randers Kommune: 40.067 (+ 3.6 %)
7. Kolding Kommune: 118,641 (- 0.9 %)
8. Horsens Kommune: 72,602 (+ 6.5 %)
9. Vejle Kommune: 149,473 (- 3.4 %)
10. Roskilde/Lejre Kommuner: 54.320 (+ 16.9 %)

http://www.yourpropertyexpert.eu/TOP...20hoteller.pdf

[TVN]

Does someone have more data?

Vejle Kommune runder 109.000 indbyggere

Der bliver stadig flere og flere indbyggere i Vejle Kommune.

En foreløbig opgørelse viser, at der i 2012 blev der 882 flere indbyggere i kommunen, som ved indgangen til det nye år nu rummer 108.930 indbyggere.
Dermed fortsætter udviklingen fra de seneste år, hvor kommunen hvert år har fået 8-900 flere indbyggere; Vejle Kommune vedtog i 2011 en strategi om, at indbyggertallet i 2020 skal være vokset med 10.000.
Det voksende indbyggertal er et resultat af, at der sker noget i Vejle lige nu, mener borgmester Arne Sigtenbjerggaard.

- Selvom vi også har krise lokalt, så går det bedre i Vejle end så mange andre streder. Det er også resultatet af, at vi generelt gør alt vi kan lokalt for at understøtte vækst og jobskabelse, siger borgmesteren.


03-01-2013 07:00:00

[simondk]

Originally Posted by TVN

Does someone have more data?
Vejle Kommune runder 109.000 indbyggere

Well, there are lots of data out there :-)
I do agree that the statistics from "Danmarks statistik" are skewed
towards the Copenhagen area - so if you are looking for non-Copenhagen
statistics, it can sometimes be rather awkward and difficult to find it.

Nevertheless, it is possible to extract the data...

Generally, one reads:

Population - the entire country (Danmarks Statistik):
5 580 516

http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danmarks_demografi
Breakdown:
3.027.818 people in the western part of Denmark, and 45 %, 2.483.633, in the eastern part.

Population Jylland:
2 562 830

Population for the island of Sealand, including Copenhagen:
2.164.217
http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sj%C3%A6lland

Population for the island of Fyn:
484.430
http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fyn

But it was Vejle we were talking about:
In Vejle, ''Danmarks statistik'' sets the population to:
108 625

Ethnical danes in Vejle are:
98 668

Males in Vejle:
49 028

Unmarried women in Vejle are:
21 148

---

Personally I think infrastructure and job opportunities has a lot to do with population flows.
Here the danish government is investing massively in Copenhagen, metro ring, bridges etc. While politicians from other areas of Denmark are not so successful in attracting government funds, imho.

But, Vejle not only have a lot of unmarried women to attract people but also a convenient location in Denmark, and many industries that creates job.

So, the trend where people move from the remote, rural parts of
Jylland to city centers in Jylland are likely to continue.
But, surely, the future is not fixed, political decisions and new job centers
can easily change forecasts.

[ramblersen]

Originally Posted by simondk

Well, there are lots of data out there :-)
I do agree that the statistics from "Danmarks statistik" are skewed
towards the Copenhagen area - so if you are looking for non-Copenhagen
statistics, it can sometimes be rather awkward and difficult to find it.

Nevertheless, it is possible to extract the data...

I know you are just out to troll and derail the thread so I should probably just ignore you but why on earth would it be difficult to extract the date when there are numbers available for all municipalities and regions which can easily be summed depending on what areas you are interested in comparing?

If your comment is directed at the annual publication of population figures for cities, I suppose that you are aware that Statistics Denmark use a UN standard (200 m between buildings)? This standard was adopted by Statistics Denmark in 1999 (until then the number for Hovedstaden was some 300,000 higher) mainly due to requests from mayors in the periphery of the Copenhagen area - simply because it was not possible otherwise to extract local statistics in a number of cases. All your conspiration theories about Statistics Denmark and a wish to artificially boost population figures for Copenhagen way out which I am pretty sure you are well aware of. It would be the easiest thing in the world to give a higher population for Copenhagen since its urban area is in many places only separated from adjacent urban areas by tiny gaps which could easily be described as "offentligt anlæg". The only place this has been done to my knowledge was with some bog in Herning - for the pragmatic and sensible reason that it would get them over the magic number for building large stores. The so-called East Jutland Metropolitan Area is also a pretty inflated entity (area-wise the largest in the Nordic countries) but fine by me as long as it is clear what is included.

As for the rest of your post, it is so full of errors and ignorance that it is pointless to adress all of it systematically but here are a few comments anyway:

* The population for Zealand and Amager was 1 Janyary last year 2,370,000 (2,194,138 + 176,904)
* Your number for Jutland includes all surrounding islands and your number for Funen includes the South Funen Archipelago but Your don't include Lolland-Falster-Møn to the Zealand number eventhough they are just as much part of the economy or whatever you are trying to compare. Fine if that is what you want to compare but it is a very biased comparison and you still don't use updated data when it doesn't fit you agenda.
* You add Funen to West Denmark while it might just as well be added to East Denmark. It completely depends what you want to compare.
* As for the metro and bridges (I suppose that you are talking about the Øresund Bridge?), they are being paid for by the users and both are ahead of prognoses when it comes to traffic. That is the adventage of being a large population packed together in a small space - makes that sort of investments more viable.

Nowyou got your attention, please stop trolling. It is pointless.

[milipumba]

I think without being cocky that Køge also have been good to attract state funding.
For example there is 10,7 billion dkk to the new railroad, and 4 billion dkk to a new hospital. And it was after tough battle with Roskilde and Næstved

Køge municipality has also advocated strongly for the Fehmarn tunnel project.
Køge is not directly affected, besides electrification of the railway between Køge and Næstved.
But it is expected that there will be some investments in the long term(mostly in the private sector).

However, there is one point which has not succeeded yet, and it is the highway/railway project in the ring 5 corridor.
This project would cost about 20 billion kr, and will have a much greater impact than the Fehmarn tunnel.