The Cherry Orchard Shared Living Project: Architecture for Inclusive Public Space

On the outskirts of Copenhagen, the Cherry Orchard project introduces a new model of shared living. It occupies a transitional space between the urban core and suburban areas. Modest brick facades and timber accents reflect the city's design language. Its innovation lies in arrangements that blend privacy with community, addressing urban loneliness and environmental sustainability.

Located in Valby, a district with industrial remnants and emerging residential zones, Cherry Orchard integrates into a grid of pedestrian paths and public gardens. The ground floor features shared amenities like a communal kitchen, co-working spaces, and a children’s library. Above, thirty private dwellings surround a central courtyard, serving as a meeting point and venue for community events.

Urban Societies, led by Pia Sørensen and Michael Anders, articulates its vision clearly. “We wanted to create a place where the boundary between personal and public life is fluid,” Sørensen explained at the Danish Architecture Centre. Rising housing costs and high single-occupancy rates motivated the design’s social goals.

The architecture supports this fluidity through various thresholds. Each apartment entrance features a semi-enclosed porch, inviting occupants to engage with neighbors. The courtyard avoids the sterility of many modern complexes by incorporating diverse textures. Paved paths weave through native grasses, while clusters of seating encourage informal gatherings. The firm chose not to over-program, trusting residents to create their own communal rituals.

This trust reflects a broader ethos in contemporary Danish architecture: enabling rather than prescribing use. Yet Cherry Orchard addresses critiques of this approach. The shared spaces are not mere aesthetic gestures but social mechanisms. By clustering private units around communal infrastructure, the architects aim to counteract the isolating tendencies of conventional urban housing. The courtyard, Sørensen argues, is not just a garden; it’s an antidote to the “corridor living” model prevalent in many apartment blocks.

The project’s funding is as unconventional as its design. Backed by a public-private partnership involving the Municipality of Copenhagen and housing cooperatives, Cherry Orchard benefits from subsidies promoting affordable housing. Residents pay rents below market rates (approximately 8,000 DKK per month, or $1,130 USD), with participation in community events encouraged. This model raises questions: can such projects scale in cities less willing to subsidize them?

Cherry Orchard’s first year of occupancy has been the subject of a preliminary ethnographic study by scholars at the University of Copenhagen. Early findings, presented at the International Social Housing Forum in September 2023, suggest the architecture is achieving its intended effects. Residents reported increased neighborly interaction and informal childcare networks. However, the study also identified challenges, including noise complaints and tensions over shared spaces, highlighting the friction inherent in communal living.

Are these frictions flaws or signs of success? Jury chairperson Bodil Rasmussen, who awarded Cherry Orchard the Nordic Urban Living Award, noted that the project’s tensions are “evidence of a space being lived in,” a quality absent from more rigid designs. Yet she also pointed out that the project raises unresolved questions about inclusivity. With a relatively homogenous demographic—middle-income professionals aged 30–50—Cherry Orchard reflects broader issues of socioeconomic stratification in the Danish housing sector. Urban Societies acknowledges this limitation, suggesting the project serves as a prototype rather than a solution.

Prototypes must navigate urban policy realities. Even in progressive Denmark, funding models for shared living are exceptions. Sørensen and Anders express cautious optimism that Cherry Orchard might influence future municipal strategies but warn against over-idealization. As Anders stated in a recent interview with Politiken, “Architecture can nurture community, but it can’t manufacture it.”

Nurturing rather than manufacturing is the lasting impression of Cherry Orchard. The project neither romanticizes communal life nor disregards personal privacy. Instead, it offers a spatial framework that facilitates social interaction without coercion. Whether such frameworks can thrive beyond Copenhagen’s unique conditions remains an open question, one that developers and policymakers globally should consider.

For now, Cherry Orchard stands as both an architectural experiment and a social statement. Its courtyard, alive with conversation and activity, reminds us that designing public space is inseparable from urban living dynamics. The project highlights architecture's potential not only to reflect society but to reshape it.