What happens when a municipality decides to entrust entire residential areas to a single company, one that is moreover known for its opaque operating practices? Disaster follows, and the very inequalities between citizens that the municipality claims it wants to combat are instead created. And this takes to issues like parking in Ørestad and Nordhavn, two areas where parking spaces are only controlled by By & Havn or subsidiaries, with prices 8 times higher than the rest of the city, which can count on the normal 1,800 DKK/year fee, since the average price is, for example, 1,200 DKK/month in Ørestad.
This problem is more and more at the centre of the political debate, but not all the parties agree on that.
Hey! Did you know we have a Telegram channel? You can subscribe here to remain updated with all the last news from car and tech industries.
Politics meets the law
Several political parties have argued that this disparity undermines Copenhagen’s ambition to remain a socially balanced city. With the municipality owning the vast majority of By & Havn, the development company responsible for large parts of Ørestad and Nordhavn, the assumption was that City Hall could intervene and bring parking prices down.
That assumption has now been challenged by the city’s own administration. According to legal assessments presented to politicians, By & Havn is bound by law to operate on commercial terms. Parking revenue is not an incidental side activity, but part of a broader financial model designed to fund urban development, infrastructure, and long-term investments in the harbour areas.
In practical terms, this means that politicians cannot simply order cheaper parking without conflicting with the company’s statutory purpose. Even a full municipal takeover of parking operations would face legal hurdles, as providing parking spaces is not generally considered a core municipal task unless traffic safety or flow is directly at stake.
SF, Social Democrats, Conservatives and Venstre want to investigate, but Enhedslisten, Alternativet and Liberal Alliance don’t
In September, the Conservatives and Venstre returned with a more radical proposal, supported at the investigation stage by the Social Democrats and the Socialist People’s Party (SF), but opposed by the Social Liberals, the Red-Green Alliance (Enhedslisten), the Alternative and Liberal Alliance.
If the city cannot influence By & Havn’s pricing, the argument went, it could instead take over the company’s parking activities and set prices directly. Once again, the administration poured cold water on the idea, this time after consulting its legal adviser, the law firm Horten.
The legal assessment was unequivocal: providing parking facilities is not, in itself, a municipal responsibility unless it is necessary for traffic-related reasons. The city’s role is to ensure that developers establish the required number of parking spaces, as defined by the municipal parking norms. In the development areas, this obligation is currently fulfilled through By & Havn.
Moreover, Horten concluded that reducing parking costs solely to make life cheaper for residents does not constitute a legitimate municipal interest. Parking prices were known when residents chose to buy or rent their homes, and a municipally mandated price reduction would amount to an unlawful financial benefit for specific individuals.
In other words, the vision of cheaper parking achieved through a municipal takeover appears to run up against clear legal barriers.
Empty garages, expensive spaces
The situation is made more complex by the reality on the ground. Despite high prices, Ørestad in particular is home to numerous large parking structures, many of which are only partially used. Good public transport connections, especially the metro, have reduced dependence on cars, raising questions about whether the number of parking spaces planned for these areas was ever justified.
Urban planning decisions have oscillated in recent years. Rules on how many parking spaces must be built in new developments have been tightened and relaxed in turn, reflecting changing political priorities and unresolved disagreements about mobility in a growing city. Attempts to repurpose parking facilities for housing have also met resistance, illustrating how politically sensitive the issue has become.
More than a parking debate
What makes the conflict particularly contentious is that residents moved into these neighbourhoods with full knowledge of parking costs. From a legal perspective, this weakens the case for public intervention. From a political perspective, however, it raises uncomfortable questions about whether market-driven solutions in urban development inevitably create unequal living conditions.
For now, the city appears stuck between political ambitions and legal constraints. Any reduction in parking prices would require By & Havn’s board to conclude that lower fees make economic sense—a difficult argument to make in a system designed to generate revenue rather than provide subsidies. Basically, the only way to reduce parking prices would be to dismantle By & Havn, as several parties promised during the municipal elections and as many Copenhagen residents hope.
