Share On:





3







7 Shares

Responding the recent call within the academic urban studies literature to carry out more empirical comparative research, this article comparatively discusses two historically unrelated cities, namely Montevideo in Uruguay and Copenhagen in Denmark. It focuses on the similarities, rather than the differences between these cities, in order to find out what could be learned from a comparative approach that crosses the North-South divide. It is furthermore argued that this approach allows one to reveal the global and multi-scalar relationships that exist between the two cities.

City Profile Montevideo

Prior to starting a comparative urban study, it is essential to get familiar with the cities’ historical-institutional context. The following parts therefore discuss a number of relevant contextual factors that determine both cities’ contemporary global economic, political and cultural positions.

Montevideo is the capital of Uruguay. With its 3.45 million inhabitants Uruguay is a relatively small South American country. It borders with Argentina in the west, Brazil in the north and east and is bounded by the Rio de la Plata in the south. It is at this river that Montevideo was established in 1725. In the 18th Century, the port of Montevideo grew in importance, enabling its development from a military fortification into a city. Significant immigrations, mainly from Spain and Italy, had a substantial influence on the urban landscape, reflecting a combination of various European cultures.

The economic success of Montevideo led to conflicts with the neighboring city Buenos Aires for control over the Rio de la Plata. This ultimately culminated into a wider war in the region. In 1828 the British Empire helped to create the ‘Estado Oriental del Uruguay’. In the decades following the independence, the city went through tumultuous periods of economic prosperity and crises. The 1860s and 1870s were characterized by a period of economic expansion. Large neoclassical buildings and a reinforcement of the rectangular city matrix are the footprints of this period in modern Montevideo. The turn of the century saw a wide-scale territorial development promoted by various urban plans and accompanied by radial roads. This extensive radial structure created a compact residential fabric in the center and peripheral outskirts along the roads leading to the city.

After the First World War Montevideo became the administrative center of the country. The following decades were defined by an interventionist state, supported by a strong army. Radical Master Plans further expanded the cities’ borders, while simultaneously privileging the best areas of the city.

Due to the growing (technological) gap with the developed world by the end of the 50s, the Uruguayan economy went into a long period of crisis. The social unrest that accompanied this crisis was countered by a military government, which maintained its power from 1973 until 1985.

Uruguay returned to democracy from 1985 onwards. A right-wing government ruled the country from 1985 until 2004. During this period, globalization processes continued to grow in influence, including structural adjustment policies that were influential throughout that particular period. This regime collapsed as a result of the extreme economic crisis, which struck South America in 2000-2002, eventually leading to significant reductions in public expenditure, a rise in informal settlements and increasing polarization dynamics. This thus clearly illustrates the strong interactions between local, national, regional and global pressures.

From 2005 until 2019 a leftist government, named the Broad Front, ruled the country. Their progressive socio-economic policies put Uruguay into a new direction. Because of a drastic package of social measures, the country became known as an egalitarian society with low levels of inequality, poverty and corruption. The municipality of Montevideo actively combats gentrification processes, promoting the right to the city. At the same time, and in some way paradoxically, a liberal approach was followed towards the world economy, effectively enabling foreign direct investment to find its way into the country. By 2017, the country maintained 15 years of economic growth. The city of Montevideo, nowadays home to 1,3 million people (more than one third of the country’s population) is consistently ranked on top of lists about the quality of life in cities in South America. Montevideo has also been recommended as a hidden touristic treasure by influential agencies, like Lonely Planet, The New York Times and The Guardian.

Despite these optimistic accounts on Montevideo and Uruguay, different stories have recently reached the news. Leading up to the elections in November 2019, fears of growing insecurity has risen, due to a shrinking economic growth and a number of global trade conflicts. Violent crimes also rose, reducing the public safety. The country’s high tax rates added to the discontent about the government, leading to a narrow victory for the center-right National Party, which ended 15 years of left-leaning governance. Luis Lacalle Pou, the new president, took office on March 1, 2020. This political shift might foreshadow a new, unpredictable future for Uruguay and its capital Montevideo.

City Profile Copenhagen

Copenhagen was established as a Viking fishing village around the 11th century. It was strategically located in proximity to the Baltic Sea and the northern German trading towns. Copenhagen became the capital of Denmark in the beginning of the 15th Century. The city flourished in the following centuries due to its trade and turned into the cultural and economic center of the Scandinavian World.

By the middle of the 19th Century, the city walls were opened since they became ineffective as a defense system. This caused an expansion of the city and a considerable population increase. The urban growth, combined with the Industrial Revolution, continued into the 20th Century, leading to the formation of city slums. In 1947, the Finger Plan was introduced, which aimed to create new housing and businesses around the S-train commuter rail lines, with large green areas in between, resembling five ‘fingers’ stretching from the ‘palm’, the center of Copenhagen.

From the Second World War onwards, Copenhagen managed to establish itself as one of the most dynamic, progressive cities in the world. The urban area of Copenhagen nowadays has around 1,5 million inhabitants, which is more than a quarter of the 5,8 million inhabitants of Denmark. Copenhagen possesses a highly developed service and trade sector. Nowadays, transport over land and in the air has become increasingly dominant. The prosperity of Copenhagen is closely linked with its approach to mobility. Since 2000, Copenhagen is connected to neighboring Swedish city Malmö with the Øresund Bridge. This effectively created one large metropolitan area, named the Øresund Region. The Copenhagen Airport is the busiest airport in the Nordic countries, while the Copenhagen Metro and S-trains connect the center of Copenhagen with the wider metropolitan region.

What has drawn most attention to Copenhagen, however, has been its high livability. Copenhagen consistently scores very high on every list related to livability and quality of life. It is seen as the leading bicycle-friendly city in the world, even inspiring a Copenhagenize Index. This positive branding of Copenhagen has been attracting tourists from all over the world, wanting to discover the secrets of this healthy city. Nevertheless, throughout the years some social issues have been addressed in urban studies literature, like gentrification processes and squatting. These articles are a reminder that even in cities like Copenhagen, social issues exist.

Looking in the mirror

Using this historical-institutional context as a backdrop, some compelling similarities between the two cities can be highlighted. Firstly, the position of Montevideo and Copenhagen on different scalar levels are strikingly similar. Both are the dominant city in their country. In Uruguay the second biggest city has around ten times less inhabitants, while in Denmark it has five times less inhabitants. Because of this dominance most of the investments, national as well as transnational, in both countries are drawn to their respective capitals, further stimulating the process of population growth. Many inhabitants move to its vicinity because most of the important institutions, in the economic, political as well as in the cultural domains, are situated in these capitals.

The dominance of both cities in their countries has also led to a rather high global connectivity, given the small scale of the countries. In the Globalization and World Cities Research Network (GaWC), Copenhagen is ranked as a Beta+ city, while Montevideo is ranked as a Beta city. Beta level cities are cities that link moderate economic regions to the world economy. Copenhagen can be regarded as the city that links the southern Scandinavian region to the world economy, as it has the busiest airport in the Nordic countries. Montevideo saw a growing global connectivity due to its relative stability in the otherwise tumultuous Southern American continent. The establishment of the headquarters of the Mercosur, an influential South American trade bloc, in Montevideo in 2001 has been crucial to this global connectedness. Montevideo became the administrative and political capital of the Mercosur, which rooted the city’s importance in South America.

Another similarity between both cities is the ascribed standard of living. Montevideo is seen as the most livable city in South America, while Copenhagen is at the top in the world rankings. Arguably, this could be linked to the progressive, social approaches that both cities have followed in the last decades. When compared with cities on the world scale, Montevideo and Copenhagen both have relatively low poverty rates and socio-spatial inequality. These statistics are in shrill contrast with prime examples of world cities like London and New York. A question for the future will be if Copenhagen and Montevideo will maintain these positive characteristics, or if they will go down the same lines as other aspirational world cities did before them.

Conclusion

For every similarity between cities, there must be at least ten differences, so to speak. When comparing two distinct, historically unrelated cities that cross the North-South divide, it is therefore more compelling to search for similarities that bridge all the physical and virtual boundaries between them. When the similarities between Copenhagen and Montevideo are examined, it is revealed that they have followed a comparable social, progressive development in the last decades. This has led to an urban situation characterized by a high quality of life and a rather low socio-economic inequality. When further referring to their similar position on different scales, it becomes clear that a comparison between the two cities is not something plucked out of the air. On the contrary, this applied case study illustrates that comparative urbanism can be a valuable research methodology in the field of urban studies. It is especially relevant in revealing global and multi-scalar relationships between cities.

Share On