Why Denmark Built a City With 24 Circles 

This is an allotment garden, not a regular residential area. It is meant as a supplement to living in an apartment. You are not allowed to live there year-round.

The round gardens in Brøndby are not permanent dwellings they are known as kolonihave. The English equivalent is an allotment garden. Allotments in and around Copenhagen are hugely popular as summer retreats for City dwellers who live in flats. There are about 60,000 allotment gardens in Denmark.

That one clip of the tall, white, twisty building at 07:00 is not Copenhagen, it is Malmö in Sweden, which is on the other side of the Öresund straight. The cities are connected by a bridge.

you need to look at the kolinihave idea.. this is not for living, this is for recreation while growing food these gardens was made for workers living in appartments it was never intended to have more then sheds, everything just evolved

In NZ we have papakainga where an extended family or sub tribe build a complex of houses and gardens on a single block of land. For example where i live my great grandfather built a homestead to raise my grandfather and his siblings and my grandfather built a house for my dad and his siblings blabla so now my family has 5 houses, 2 cabins, and a sleep out down our driveway. Idk who i would be today if i didn’t have my family around me, life is better growing up with your cousins

not dense, not enough sustainable transport and not enough traffic restrictions... seems to me this is still "typical suburban sprawl" in most relevant aspects, right?

It's not "a utopian example of urban living". It's a 'kolonihave' (allotment garden). You're not supposed to live there. It's a way for apartment dwellers to have a garden away from their home.

First and foremost, all suburbs have the roots in garden cities. They have always been attempts to create a garden city or a garden city inspired. There has never been a true garden city, because there's a lot more to it than design. I mean these are basically cutouts of the original design, but it was more of a concept. As far as this design goes, I don't really think this is the best suburban design to create density while maintaining single family houses. I would say that is more of a bungalow courtyard. Bungalow courtyards would do about the same. There is a reduce of car allotments, or you have a walkable common area. The thing that's great about it. It fits right into a more gridded pattern, although it doesn't have to be. Now I understand that some people say well. That's still not dense enough because well it's single family homes but single family homes are still very popular. And of course if you need even more density, you don't have to do courtyard bungalows as single-family houses you could totally do townhouses, duplexes, Semi-Detach homes.

It's not a city, just a series of allotments, and in my opinion, not even very successful. I am willing to believe the architect meant it to be a utopian community, but the grassy lawns between the built-out areas don't seem to be used often, and certainly not as a place where people meet. The problem with planned communities and especially 'utopian' ones, is that the planners think they understand human psychology better than those who live there. Where do we humans actually like to meet and get together? In a grass patch in the suburbs? No, we love to get together where there are lots of other people, in cities, on crowded streets and squares, surrounded by tall-ish buildings, or if in a village, on the main street. That's what makes us feel comfortable, and there's probably an evolutionary reason for this. On a wide open plain we're vulnerable, especially if we're alone, but with cliffs or trees nearby and with people around us, we have a place to hide and friends to help in case of danger. The 40s-70s were a time when planners and architects had good intentions, but unfortunately, they lacked understanding of human psychology and human needs. This community is best enjoyed from Google Maps, not from the ground.

No car garages? No thanks. Glad they enjoy it - nice video.

In what way is being smashed up against your neighbors a "utopia", sounds like a dystopian nightmare to me.

4:09 too bad that O3 road splits the two communities. Surprised there doesn't seem to be a Wikipedia article for this interesting place.

All this talk of a shared garden, and there is no one around?

Didn't see a single person walking or cycling around in this video, I guess due to the ridiculously low density. Looks like a ghost town. And all that boring grass! What an unsustainable waste of space.

Lush greenery? What a friggin lie.

That's a prison! A really big and fancy Prison. Controlled access, broad areas easily observable from a single location, with secure overlapping coverage from multiple locations. A panopticon scaled to a village size.

As others have said, they are allotment gardens, probably inspired by the oval gardens in Nærum: da.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Runde_Haver, where each garden has a rounded shape and the in-between areas are much smaller. The gardens in Nærum are really beautiful. That all said, AFAIK, many people live most of the time in the Brøndby gardens and there is a real sense of community. There is excellent public transport to the Brøndby gardens, you don't need a car to live there at all. We really need higher density and better public transportation on a global scale, but I feel a growing suspicion that the emphasis on density is too often used as a green-washing ploy. We do not need Singapore or Midtown Manhattan levels of density, Paris or Brooklyn are fine as 15-minute cities.