Talk:Freetown Christiania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article covers subjects of relevance to WikiProject Urban studies and planning, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
Flag
Portal
 Freetown Christiania falls within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a project to create and improve Denmark-related Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, all interested editors are welcome!

Satellite Image of Denmark
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ).
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.(March 2008)
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.
This is not a forum for general discussion of Freetown Christiania.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

I suppressed the last part. Seemed out of place and utterly useless. Correct me if I'm wrong... ^_^

In danish the name is 'Fristaden Christiania'. The 'Fri' part means 'free' and 'staden' means 'The town'. A more appropriate translation would be 'Free town of Christiania' not 'Free State of Christiania'.

However they may themselves translate it in that way, making my point moot - I don't know

--

Just popped over at their webpage - they call it 'The Freetown Christiania' - I corrected the article - but I don't know how to rename the page, or even if that is a proper thing to do...

It is. Just use the 'Move this page' link on the left. Check with the help pages for more details (I think it's "How to rename a page"). However you do need to be logged in with a user name to do this - if you are not then it doesn't appear. If you don't have a username its easy to create one - again see the help pages for details. Also it's a good idea to sign your name on talk pages. Use ~~~~ (four tildes) to give your username and the time and date. Three tildes just gives your username.

DJ Clayworth 19:33, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Police Brutality

Police brutality in Christiania and related research/evidence deserves a section here. Why is there such a lack of even mentioning the biggest problem in Christiania today? 85.82.195.131 20:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, would you mind adding information about this in the entry? -Teetotaler —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.68.22.207 (talk) 05:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] tracking this story on a continuing basis

Christiania is obviously engaged in a fight for its life at the moment. See (or I suppose hear) for example, these two recent radio stories: [1], [2]. Does anyone know of an English-language news source that is specifically tracking this story on a continuing basis? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:43, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Haven't found English-source, Developers are clawing to turn the village into another highrent underbuilt YADA-YADA. Sadly even the the two bike companies have moved to Cope' and I hear the stove company is leaving too-no more Pusher Street with "stalls" anymore. People still "sell" but its word-of-mouth. The only events on the agenda is Spring Equinox until at least summer, as long as you're cool the men in blue won't give any fat, rather cheery lads...July is another judicial hearing and the campaign is upbeat, but "When Quinn the mighty eskimo gets here, everbodys gonna run to him..." (Bob Dylan) Schlüggell 01:10, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] government now wants to demolish and put up condos

I am not sure how to properly update the page but there is now news the government wants to demolish the area and put up condos. http://www.cphpost.dk/get/93464.html

[edit] Should the title for this article be changed?

Is "Freetown Christiania" the correct name for this district? I actually has a great deal of difficulty finding this article. I used the name Kristiania and then Christiania and it came out nothing. Perhaps titling it "Christiania Copenhagen" might be better?Piercetp 22:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsolved murders?

My wife, who lived in Copenhagen for a short time, told me that Christiania had an unsavory reputation as being a place not to go at night and that locals would kill people they do not know and who did not belong there. She made the comparison this area as being like a housing project in a major US city. Although it was perfectly safe to go there during day time as long as you stayed on the main drag. Is there any truth to this? Is it possible that part of the anger that the Danish government has towards the Freetown has to do with people ending up dead?Piercetp 03:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I live in Copenhagen and have never heard anything to that effect. I suspect someone was pulling your wife's leg. There has been one murder in Christiania that I can think of, when rivalism between two drug gangs resulted in the killing of an innocent bystander. Some believe this was an effect of the reorganization of gangs that followed the normalization policy of the current administration. Prior to that, I cannot recall any major incidents. Mikkel 13:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I think it was actually my wife's sister who was pulling both of our legs since she lives there now. We will be heading there at the end of this summer (YEA!!!) and I will find out for myself.
Denmark sounds like such an awsome country. I might go and end up staying (though I heard there is a big crackdown on immigrants lately.) Piercetp 04:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Christiania is perfectly safe during the day, as long as you are part of the tourist crowd or contribute to the economy, or the least look empressed by the local artwork. Start asking questions or take photos and you will see the true nature. Dont go there at night, it is not dangerous, but neither safe. A lot of strange people under the influence of drugs and alcohol are using it as a playground.

[edit] Other places like this?

Maybe it would be a good idea to put some links of other squatter communities like this in a "See also" section? There's something a bit similar in my home city of Toronto as well, although without the hippy culture and drug trade - see Toronto Islands. Basically, it's a rather prosperous community of squatters, whose families were there for a hundred years in some cases but who for a long time had no legal right to be there. There was a big hoopla a while back when the government threatened to demolish their homes, but finally they made a deal - they now lease the land from the government for $1 a day for 99 years (so they're safe until the year 2094). There are no cars there (except for the fire truck) and it's a great place for biking and walking. Anyone else have anything like this in their own cities? Esn 16:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion in correct English it should be Free town Christiania or Free town of Christiania. Regarding this sentence: "Christiania had been self administrative, meaning no permit was needed to 'build' new property or have trailers parked up on its grounds." This is not quite correct. It might have been like that in the beginning, but not for some time, I would say. To be able to build there, one has to be part of the society and know people.


[edit] POV section

I have put NPOV dispute tag on Future of Christiania. Quote: "This is part of the government strategy to undermine the collective self-government of Christiania, as they plan to sell out building rights to private enterprises, in an attempt to force the freetown to accept the paradigm of private ownership and market capitalization of private property". Come on *sigh*... And there are other POV and weasel words here and there... 22:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Leaving aside that it is incredibly poorly written, is it not pretty much the case? Is there something inaccurate or misleading in this statement? Sunray 06:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
"as they plan to sell out building rights to private enterprises, in an attempt to force the freetown to accept the paradigm of private ownership and market capitalization of private property" - how about some citations or proof for these allegations? 217.85.253.48 13:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
This statement is opinion, thoug widely aproved as fact by moast people in and around Christiania this is not a fact!. Coax 13:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I have edited the paragraph to make clear the POV. Drjon 12:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hash sale Christiania

One week ago I've been to Christiania and talked to a guy who is living there for thirty years. He said that the native inhabitants of Christiania are not happy with the drug sellers on the Pusher Street which is the main street there. Sure, they like hash but they don't like to buy it from the newer drug sellers on the Pusher Street. The man who is a musician said to me that he does not buy this drugs from this sellers. Also, the sellers on the Pusher Street are the guys who don't allow visitors to take photos. Inhabitants of Christiania haven't any problems with taking photos in the towm. But the seller are scared that they could snapped by the police. So they get very angry if they see somebody taking photos near to the Pusher Street. It's not a problem if visitors take photos on other places in Christiania than Pusher Street. I've taken a lot photos there and no inhabitant said anything to me.

The Christiania/drugs relationship is a love/hate relationship. The residents might not like the "very focused" crowd that sels hash, but the whole community benefits from the hash economy, both from danes buying the happy meal and during the summer a lot of tourists still think it is legal to buy and try hash in there. Tourist beware that arrested, prosecuted and convicted within days, and you will be expelled from Denmark and the other nordic countries. Quite a few american graduates have ended their european-trip-graduation-prize early, when arrested and put on a plane back to US.

[edit] Neutrality

For stuff like "Nils Vest, a film director resident in Christiania, has accused the TV programme of being tendentious and biased [3], whereas others have taken the episode as a proof of faded collectivist ideals and bigotry within Christiania." this. - FrancisTyers · 14:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I added the section. My purpose was to tell about the interesting dispute arising from the tv documentary. The very existence and purpose of Christiania is a controversy in itself, and in some cases it is not possible to come down to ONE objective description. To compensate for this, I tried to add a double subjectivity, countering two points of view to each other. I think it is a reasonable solution. Please explain what you think is wrong with it. For most other parts of the article, I agree that they are ridiculously biased and belong more in a campaign folder.

--Sasper 05:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how outlining two opposing opinions and clearly stating them as such is a Neutrality problem. I've cleared the flag. Drjon 12:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Private and Collective Ownership

As a regular in christiania i have followed the debate about it for a long time and just wanted to say that the statement that the government is trying to undermine Christianias collective ownership by introducing private ditto IS accurate. Numerous politicians have argued for the normalization of christiania with exactly these words. It is explicitly said that the absolute collective ownership model should NOT be allowed, (and this is by the way nothing new, several governments have attacked Christiania on the ownership model) not EVEN as a social experiment. The statement is not an allegation, nor POV, but reflect the official government policy on christiania, which is to convert ownership to private hands as opposed to common ones. Through out all of Christianias history there has been collective ownership, but recently the government literally forced every inhabitant to submit a claim of private ownership to where they lived. It was said that if the inhabitants did not do this, they would not be granted a permission to stay from the municipality, but would be removed and their houses torn down. So the christianites submitted the claims. As it happened none of the christianites that live at the beautiful area voldene (the lakes) were granted permission to stay. They have in other words not been allowed to remain there, and all their houses are to be torn down, even though the inhabitants submitted their rights as ordered. By comparison, all the old weapons-sheds (only just large enough for one and to stand tall inside) were all deemed worthy of preservation. This IS in other words an attempt to force through a new paradigm for Christiania.

Also, as we speak, apartments for around 400 new residents are schedualed to be constructed in the middle of downtown chistiania and then sold to whoever wants to pay the (high) price (a price ordinary christianites will not be able to pay). By comparison, in the entire history of Christiania not one building has ever been sold, or could be, since nobody has ever before owned a building there. If this is not an attempt to openly undermine the collective ownership model by introducing a private one which will follow the known capitalistic dynamics (price inflation etc), I dont know what is. And, mind you, such a claim does not necessarily entail that the private-capitalist model is a bad thing as one above seems to think. Although it is not my view, im sure you can find people who, like the Fogh-government, consider undermining Christianias collective model a good thing because they find the purely private model better, inherently good, useful, etc etc. So to summarize, i think the statement is valid.

This leads me to a little criticism of you, my fellow-editors. Please think twice before putting NPOV dispute-tags on discussions, one thing is to point out false claims, another is not knowing (or wanting to accept) all the facts surrounding the situation. ML 19:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Quotes from the government concerning Christiania:

Christiania-spokesperson for the Conservative (governmental) Party, Christian Wedell-Neergaard:

"Christiania is a dwelling for people who wish to live in a different manner...But it is crucial that varied ownership-models are introduced, so that there will be both private and partially owned houses."

and

"(Christianias) demand that there be a collective fund is not fair, It doesnt meet the wish for a normalization. We (the government) have emphazised that there should be varied ownership-models, such as private ownership."

and

"...it is natural that there are also privately owned buildings in an area like Christiania...Because it is the case for the surrounding society in general, that there are variety in the ownership." (all quotes from Politiken,29.january 2006, pg.6, my translation)

and

the Minister of Finance, Thor Pedersen, from the government-party Left (Venstre), who to the question in parliament whether the new buildings at Christiania were only economically motivated, answered:

"It is a political priority that there be build new houses as suggested, to ensure a development of the Christiania-area with varied ownership-models." (Information, 6.june 2006, pg.3, my translation)

Two things are important to note here, one is the recurrence of the phrase "varied ownership-models" from both politicians, the other is Thor Pedersens claim that it is a political priority. Regarding the first aspect, then the fact that the two politicians in effect sound like the echo of one another shows us that this is a keyword in their argumentation to the public and thus reflect their political priorities. HOWEVER, even though it may sound very liberal to demand "varied ownership-models" we should realize that there is, of course, no such thing as collective ownership of an urban area in the entire state of Denmark - EXCEPT in Christiania. This means that what the government means with variety is, in effect, as Thor Pedersen phrases it "the development of Christiania" towards opening up to private ownership - effectively REDUCING the total variety of ownership in Denmark. Of course, if what the government really wanted was variety, then there should be no problem in allowing collective ownership in Christiania (or for that matter in other areas in Denmark), but, of course, this will not happen. As Wedell-Neergaard says: A collective fund doesn´t meet "the wish for normalization" - the wish presumably being held by him and the governmental politicians - and private ownership should be introduced in Christiania because "it is the case for the surrounding society in general". This argumentation is interesting to put it mildly, because in order to reach his conclusion, Wedell-Neergaaard motivates changing the ownership-model first via "a need for variety" (i.e. enter private ownership in Christiania), then by what might be dubbed "a wish for conformity" (i.e. the normalization of Christiania to match the rest of Denmark) - two terms not easily fused together.

The issue of Christiania as a SOCIAL EXPERIMENT with collective ownership, it seems, is simply not allowed in the governmental discourse and this reflects the "political priorities" that Thor Pedersen speaks of. This is particularly odd since Christiania actually already HAS been approved as exactly a social experiment by a Danish socialdemocratic government (in 1973). When a conservative government won the election the year after, it subsequently cancelled all agreements with the christianites who nervetheless stayed since public support for the freetown mounted. Just as we in a discussion should grant that some find private ownership valuable or inherently good, the same ought also to be the case when assessing the collective ownership model. However, what we DON´T find in the governmental argumentation about ownership in Christiania is even the notion that collective ownership can be good, or should be allowed experimental status. Instead, as we have seen, all changes are motivated by either variety or conformity - with the value of collective ownership being excluded from BOTH categories. Of course, one could be forgiven for thinking that in this context the true million dollar question - what ought to be examined before any legislation is suggested - is whether private or collective ownership really IS the best thing - for Christiania, taking into consideration that the christianites themselves definately do not want private ownership, and also the fact that the collective model already has been applied there for soon 36 years. Unfortunately, the very framing of the argumentation by Wedell-Neergaard and Pedersen, does not allow for this question to be asked. ML 13:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


Interesting, but wrong. Collective ownership is quite common in Denmark, it exists in many types of Coops, such as andelsboliger, andelsbevægelser, andelsbrugsen, kolonihavehuse, strandret, skovret, kollektiver, etc. The idea is very intergrated in danish laws, and has been upheld often in Danish courts. Carewolf 13:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Interesting but also wrong. You confuse a different principle of ownership with the collective one. Share-owning (andele) of houses or estates is not the same as collective ownership. Share-owning only gives you ownership over your own share, while collective ownership gives everybody the same unrestricted ownership of the entire area (as it is in Christianias case). You are right pointing out that beaches, parks, forests in Denmark have common ownership, and it was inaccurate of me not mentioning them, but I was referring to the fact that in all of the Danish urban city development, the option of a collective ownership-model like Christiania is strangely missing.
Given that there do exist natural areas or parks which are owned collectively by the people (many more areas like this used to exist), it is relevant to enquire whether these places are successful, loved and used by the people, and in the Danish context I this idea is very popular - you mention the beaches and forests yourself. So the question is how the government in its argumentation can assume that collective ownership doesnt meet the demand for normalization, and will not allow the only city/nature-variant of the principle we have - Christiania - to remain collectively owned, when other areas owned like this are popular indeed?

ML 13:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map is wrong

The map is inaccurate. The two northernmost bastions on the western side of the moat, as well as the square just east of Torvegade and the strip including to small bastions from Torvegade and almost up to the little bridge over the moat are not part of Christiania. I'll go and check where the accurate borders are one day. My own street is visible on the map though I am (luckily) not a direct neighbour.

--Sasper 05:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


---When i was there, i thought that christiania is the safest place in copenhagen, cause noone locked the doors or all precautions were simbolical. I think that thats the way world should be. I dont know where is your problem.

[edit] Cleanup for formal encyclopedic tone required

Added the template to this effect. See Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles WP:BETTER. -- 201.50.248.179 15:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

POV template also added. Many parts of this article are flawed. Sidar 01:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


Hey guys could you please justify and argue for your choices? Give us examples of what works and dont work, and lets engage in a discussion about them. It seems like you´ve just entered and added the tags on your own. Until you engage in a discussion and reasoning for these choices, I have cleared your tags.

87.59.71.19 19:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)ML

The caption all the way at the bottom on the photo, "Christianians defending their property", seems biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.74.206 (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 shooting and murder

The section is confusing. The first sentence talks about the murder, the rest of the section talk about the aftermath of the crackdown of hash sale on Pusher Street. What came first, and are the two connected? And the actual crackdown is never mentioned, only the aftermath. The section need to be rewritten, and perhaps split into two. If it remains a single section, the crackdown should probably be the main event, and used for the section name.--Per Abrahamsen 18:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried to clear up the section a bit, and explain the relationship between the shooting and the feud over the hashmarket, so it should be more accessible now. Nevertheless, I think youre right, perhaps the section should be split into two: the history and development of the hashmarket and the shooting-incident itself.

19:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)ML

[edit] Inappropriate infobox removed.

I've removed the infobox as I consider its inclusion here inappropriate.

  1. The area in question is not legally distinct from the rest of Copenhagen Municipality but including an infobox conveys such an impression.
  2. The information in it isn't sourced and I doubt that we can find proper sourcing stating the population of the area.
  3. The area listed is subject of dispute. Some Christianites "claim" all of the former bastions of the Copenhagen fortress, but AFAIK this is not universally accepted, in particular relating to the section facing Amager.
  4. The flag is not official. Using it in an infobox of this type gives such an impression.
  5. "Legalized: 1995" is a very broad statement. The successive governments have not recognized the claims of the Christianites that they legally own the area, and such claims are clearly refused by the current government.

All in all, the infobox is inappropriate and looks like an attempt to convey the view that Christiania holds any universally recognized status. No such consensus exists in Denmark. Valentinian T / C 16:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality-- again

Information like this:

"According to Dunst, however, neighbours would never readily accept them and the newcomers were accused of not understanding 'the Christiania lifestyle.' Dunst claim they received verbal abuse, threatening letters and were even, at one instance, threatened with a baseball bat. Some disliked Dunst's loud parties, their contemporary electro-punk style music being described as techno."

may admit its point of view, but it is still heavily one-sided. Because claims of verbal abuse etc. are obviously only going to come from the victims and yet need to be included, this one-sidedness is necessary and appropriate. However, the article's tone and it's continuing journalistic elaboration contribute to the imbalance. Misidentifying "contemporary electro-punk style music" as "techno" hardly seems indication of dislike, for example; this connection is speculation presented by the syntax as objective fact rather than part of Dunst's claim. Ideally we'd see a direct quotation or citation of some other source here. This article seems to me to be written with inappropriate and misleading flourish.

Also, there seems to be a lot of POV apologism going on on the discussion board. Surely any reasonable and critical person could identify this article as informally written at the very least.

Bleedingcherub 09:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

I rearranged some sections and tried to re-write som obvious POV. There are still many POV sequences, and will probably be for a long time, even after future edits, so I re-added the POV tag for the whole article. Just as a help to readers unaware of the conflict. --Sasper (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions about Freetown Christiana

Reading the article I have several questions:

1) Can one / How does one actually "move into" Christiana? Is there some way to apply for permission to live there, or is that restricted to just the original founders, or do you basically have to muscle your way in?

As a long-time inhabitant told me, there is currently no way to move in, as all free housing will be reserved for inhabitants whose self-constructed houses are demolished by order of the Danish government. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

2) Markets - Can one sell something in Freetown, other than drugs? Could an outside come and set up shop and stand to sell something?

3) Electricity, Water, Sewer and other utilities -- how does Christiana obtain these services? Do they pay for them as other Copenhagen residents do? Any attempt to provide utility services itself?

4) Drugs - Why the focus on drugs, if allowing drugs to be openly sold has led to so many conflicts? Do Christiana residents just like to do drugs?

Drugs are not being openly sold and drugs other than cannabis have been banned by the inhabitants for nearly 30 yers or so now. EconomicsGuy (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

5) Form of Ownership - are Christiana reseidents generally happy with the "status quo" of basically being squatters? Do any residents seek a change of ownership structure, so they could, say, sell of trade their residence?

6) Given all of the above, does anyone think Christiana offers more "freedom" than living in mainstream Danish society? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SONORAMA (talk • contribs) 14:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Not relevant as this is not a forum about Christiania. Do you have anything to say about the article instead? EconomicsGuy (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)