Copenhagen: bathhouse in Christiania

tobixen (62) in travel • 6 years ago (edited)

TL;DR: I did enjoy Badehuset in Christiania. I went there together with some people from the Shtandart ship.

Photo taken by tobixen - position: geo:55.673789,12.602089 - 2018-08-12 14:29:25 localtime - CC BY-SA 4.0 - full quality

It says on the entrance door that it's for Christianites - so we politely asked if it was space for us before we entered. My first reaction is that it's a cheap offer - it's an excellent offer for any backpacker that is desperately in need of a shower, as well as any Russian, Finn, Estonian or other sauna-lover that is desperately in need of a sauna, no matter the size of the wallet, anyone should afford 35 DKK for a sauna session. It's also a good offer for anyone else that would like a sauna session, even when not being desperate nor broke.

I even regret bringing my own towel - I had just done all the laundry on the ship and intended to leave the ship without any laundry bag to the borrowers, now I got this wet towel that first has to be dried and then stored somewhere and then washed. I would gladly have paid 10 DKK to borrow a towel if I had known about this offer. I also think it's very good that they have soap/shampoo in the shower - I think it's a bit of a hassle to bring your own, and I do have sort of a handicap when it comes to such things - the probability that I will either forget to bring my own or that I will forget to bring it home is high.

Photo taken by tobixen - position: geo:55.673786,12.602198 - 2018-08-12 14:30:26 localtime - CC BY-SA 4.0 - full quality

Another complementary thing was a reusable plastic cup. I didn't feel much thirsty, but considered that it was a good idea to drink some water after sweating a lot in the sauna.

That's all the photos I have - for one thing, one may be frowned upon for taking photos in Christiania at all, the people (and staff) in the bathhouse may mind if I take photos on the inside, and I also don't want to use the NSFW-tag on the post. If you do mind undressing in front others, the bathhouse is not the right place to go to. Clothes goes off, that's even explicitly written in the rules. Of course one may cover up a bit with a towel - but nobody does. It's not a big problem. For the first ten minutes I actively avoided staring at the ladies, after that it all felt just natural and relaxed.

Badehuset is no luxury spa - but it has the essentials; sinks, mirrors, showers with thermostat, showers with cold water, sauna, possibility to go outside for some fresh air, a cold-water pool for cooling down. It also has some toys and some small pools/buckets for the smallest children to bath and have some fun. There was no thermometer on the wall of the sauna, but it was hot enough. Nobody threw water on the oven to produce Löylya, but there was some facilities for it. The sauna was wood-fired, with the opening on the backside of the sauna so the staff could throw in more wood into the oven without having to enter the sauna. Staff was friendly.

Of course, this is Christiania - one shouldn't be surprised that people are drinking beer or smoking a joint in the staff area - there were also one or two customers firing up a joint, I observed one joint being lit up inside the bathhouse and one outside.

Selected photos available in original quality on IPFS QmQssA1fwTU3bSLznngh1NWwsH3xrrhifpKVpAueL1EoHS. All photos taken available in original quality on IPFS QmVDfMJh1YMmW3ScUyHhUet2Aefzq6w4hHE6MXiJeQ1tgN. The CC BY-SA 4.0 license applies on both photos and article

travel copenhagen sauna christiania blog

6 years ago by tobixen (62)

$1.06

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!

Sort Order:

Trending

[-]

glenalbrethsen (68) · 6 years ago

Hey, @tobixen.

A public bathhouse and sauna would take some getting use to for me, but I've heard that many people enjoy them. As you say, it would be a great place for the backpacker at that price. Any reason why they keep things so low, or is it because it's specifically for the locals?

When you say it's Christiania—does that mean the laws there are more lax than they would be elsewhere in the area, or for that matter, in Denmark? Or are people just more discreet/professional/polite—whatever the proper term would be. :)

$0.10

1 vote

[-]

tobixen (62) · 6 years ago

Christiania is a self-declared freetown. Mission statement:

The objective of Christiania is to create a self-governing society whereby each and every individual holds themselves responsible over the wellbeing of the entire community. Our society is to be economically self-sustaining and, as such, our aspiration is to be steadfast in our conviction that psychological and physical destitution can be averted.

The residents consider themselves to be on the outside of regular national laws and regulations. There has been some noise and problems with police and politicians though.

One thing I found intriguing - I read their internal newspaper, it was quite much about the governance and economics of Christiania - but one thing shocked me a bit: the Christiania office of economic matters wanted house rent money paid "electronically by bank" if possible.

$0.00

[-]

glenalbrethsen (68) · 6 years ago

Self-declared. Hmmm. Okay. You say there's resistance from both politicians and police, but apparently not enough to get them shutdown. Interesting. So, essentially they're governing themselves based on whatever rules each individual wishes to follow?

Yeah, the banking part would be a red flag, I would think. Unless they somehow have their own bank and it's not based on normal banking rules.

Very interesting place.

$0.00

[-]

tobixen (62) · 6 years ago

So, essentially they're governing themselves based on whatever rules each individual wishes to follow?

They do have some kind of governance there, as I could read in their local newspaper, I guess it's some democratic or consensus-driven processes.

As per the wikipedia article there is no private "ownership" in Christiania, it all belongs to the community. Except, it is a squat after all, officially the property is still owned by the military.

You say there's resistance from both politicians and police, but apparently not enough to get them shutdown.

I guess Christiania has become too big and too established to just shut it down. By now it's one of the biggest tourist attractions in Copenhagen. I suppose approving a long-lasting violent campaign to "clean" Christiania would come with a very high political cost.

The weed sales have been shut down some few times, either by the Christianites themselves because things have gotten a bit out of hand, or by brute police force, but only for short periods.

There has been lots of negotiations. The Christianites have earlier accepted that they are dependent on water and renovation and should pay for that. According to the Wikipedia article (and I also so it referenced in some grafitti text on the wall) the latest news is that the Christianites should purchase the land, for a price that is considered below market price. Again according to the Wikipedia article, up through the times there has been many politicians insisting to push private ownership onto the people of Christiania - according to the last agreement it's the Christiania community as such that buys the land. There are worries that there would be class divisions and generally that the community would fall apart if people would be allowed to buy and sell their properties in Christiania.

$0.00

[-]

glenalbrethsen (68) · 6 years ago

It's quite amazing that this place exists at all, and somehow manages some kind of self-governing. I've never really understood what rights squatters truly have, but that comes from a mentality that you can buy property and use it for what you will. I guess if you believe that whatever you want can belong to you, or you can just sit on land someone else isn't actively using, then it's all fair game.

I can't blame people for wanting to be free. But I'm not sure I'm all that thrilled with the way they go about it, either.

$0.00

[-]

tobixen (62) · 6 years ago

I've never really understood what rights squatters truly have

There is the difference between juridical rights, moral rights and de-facto rights. Laws varies from country to country, ethics and moral reasoning varies from person to person as well as culture to culture ... but in the end of the day, I guess what matters most may be what it's possible to get away with.

or you can just sit on land someone else isn't actively using,

That's the most important moral reasoning, I think. Property market is hot, housing costs more than people can afford, and at the same time there are buildings decaying from disuse simply because the owner doesn't care. If the owner anyway doesn't care about the property, then he also shouldn't really care that someone is using it.

There is also the socialistic aspect. Some people are so rich and so greedy that they buy property just as a speculation object without any intention to utilize the property, others have to sleep out in the rain because they cannot afford property. It is not much hard for the poor, wet person to justify the act of squatting the empty house.

Standing on the barricades, demanding to continue living on the place that isn't yours. and even getting prepared for fighting with the police over the eviction, that's another story, I find it much harder to justify that.

Some may think that property rights is an artificial construction that has no moral right. On a related note, I've seen it being argued that property right is just a means to efficiently utilize resources when there is a scarcity of said resources.

While it's possible to own a forest or a mountain in Norway, the commons still have rights to utilize the land. I think the current laws are beautiful as they strike a pretty fair balance between the rights of the property owner and the right of the commons. Some few examples:

The commons pretty much have the right to walk around wherever they want as long as it's wilderness. Exceptions apply, for instance if it's considered to be in conflict of the property owners right for privacy.
A property owner can only build fences in the wilderness for controlling animals, not for keeping people out.
The commons generally don't have rights in farmland, as that may interfere with the production. However, when everything is covered with snow and ice it's not considered to be an economical burden to allow the commons access to the farmland, hence the farmer has limited rights to keep the commons out during the winter time.
The commons can freely put up a tent almost wherever one likes - but one cannot stay for more than three days in the same place. Also, one cannot do it too close to buildings, and there are some other restrictions.
The commons generally has the right to pick berries and mushrooms - but exceptions apply, the law is explicitly putting cloudberries in parts of the Northern Norway as off-limits to the commons, as the property owners typically have commercial interests in picking those berries themselves.

$0.00

[-]

glenalbrethsen (68) · 6 years ago

Well, so I generally look at things this way.

Would I be okay with someone coming and using my things while I was away, without permission, just because I wasn't using it for a period of time. In that case, there's all kinds of things I have that I would have to give up because they weren't being used on even a fairly regular basis.

The answer is, probably not, and even with folks I may know, including my own children. With them, I'm going to let them know I'm not happy about it and I would make it known that there may be some things I don't mind them using if they let me know, but some other things I would rather they don't touch.

I also find it interesting that these folks that are doing all of this aren't trying to remunerate. They exist, they are in need, and because they exist and are in need, they get. They law allows for them.

Now, I don't know what their circumstances are. I don't know what's happened to them. And I feel I do have some kind of moral duty to aid. I also think I should have a say. I don't feel like I should be compelled.

If people want to work off the time they're staying doing something to at least show a good faith gesture, I can see that. But there's a thin line in many cases between the haves and the have nots, and if society is going to go this route, it needs to be a case by case basis.

I may have a building I'm not occupying, but I have plans for it. I've bought the structure while I can because if I didn't, someone else was going to come along and buy it up. It's going to take me time to do what I need to do with it, but I'm saving money, I'm working on it when I can, and I'm working to make money so I can do more. I'm really putting in an effort and the law allows me that.

In come the squatters. They want to stay there because I'm not occupying it. I don't want them. Maybe I have materials I'm keeping there. Maybe I don't want to clean up after them after they leave. Maybe I'm trying to pre-sell parts of the building to tenants. I don't know.

I don't see me being a part of the fat cat rich people in this instance. And I'm sure there's all kinds of these scenarios that could be played out.

The point is, we may not be all be responsible for where we are at. We may well be a victim of circumstances. By and large, though, there are decisions that are made. There is personal responsibility for ourselves. We might need the help of others and hopefully we can get it, but to basically move in like it belongs to us, like we have any right. I think there's a discussion that needs to take place long before that, and I think there's the desire of the owner that needs to be considered. Otherwise, you'll end up with no one ever wanting to own anything because they get nothing but grief out of it.

$0.00

[-]

tobixen (62) · 6 years ago (edited)

In general, I tolerate people borrowing things from me if they handle it well, put it back where they found it, ask in advance if possible, and show some gratitude. I also find it completely natural to borrow some item if I need said item, if I'm pretty sure the owner will not be missing it while I'm borrowing it, and that I will be able to deliver back the item in the same condition as it was when I borrowed it.

I generally don't like things to stand unused. Things tend to deteriorate, and it's often better that someone lives in a house or a boat than that nobody cares for it. At the other hand, quite some of the squatters tend to not care about the property at all - and it doesn't need to be squatters even. Sometimes they believe they are doing a pretty good job "improving" the place, though the owner may disagree a lot. I do remember one guy living for free at a cottage (not squatting, there was an agreement), under the condition that he would take care of the cottage. He thought some insulation under the ceiling would be a good idea. I think he did some job insulating it - it looked quite horrible the way he had done it, but to his defense, he had done it in such a way that it could very easily be rigged down. He got thrown out immediately after sending pictures to the house owner asking if it was an acceptable solution ...

I rented out my old place far too cheaply to a lady that didn't care much. Part of my idea of renting the place out very cheap was that we could have someone we could trust to take care of our property and belongings. Unfortunately, she was the wrong person. "I've just gone home to Germany for Christmas, I turned off all the electricity". Thank you so much! Of course before I managed to come there (living 1600 km away) all the water installations were frozen. There was a dripping tap in the bathroom that hadn't gone frozen (since it was dripping), however the outlet tubes were frozen, the sink was filled up with ice, the water had been running out of the sink so there was a heap of ice on the floor even. "I told you I turned off the electricity, didn't I? Then it's your responsibility ...". Worst thing was that she was sort of living in a symbiosis with the local mice, who found plenty of food in the garbage that she never took out. The place got really stinky. She had thrown quite many of our possessions that didn't tolerate humidity, i.e. books, into some outdoor sheds. She would always call me and claim it was my responsibility to fix things if anything were wrong, even if the house rent she paid was really insignificant. In the end I found it was a better idea to sell the place to property developers and let them tear down the building. We had way too much stuff to get rid of up there, I was trying to sell and give away as much as possible, but eventually the time cost of putting out ads and communicating with people was too much compared to the money I got back from this activity. I did ask if there was anything she would like to keep. It was my intention to offer her a quite nice price on the items - I wrote and asked her how much she would be willing to pay. The reply? Since we were filthy rich and she was poor, she deserved to get them for free. Some of those things she wanted went to the thrash - normally I'm very happy to see things utilized rather than being thrown ... but I digress again.

Now we do have a garage that we don't use ... and we're having tenants currently storing lots of things outside the garage, and even carrying heavy bikes up and down the stairs from the basement. I feel pretty bad for that, I do think we should offer them to rent that garage for a cheap price eventually.

Two personal stories from the other side of the table ...

Once from my childhood, when we were in the scouts. The scouts had a cottage not so far from an abandoned power plant - so once we decided to do some sightseeing inside the plant. We spent some few minutes opening the lock on a window and climbed through the window. We were obviously not the first to enter the power plant - because there was lots of broken glass on the floor from people that obviously had just broken the window rather than carefully opening the lock. There were also a heap of new window glasses nearby, they were obviously replacing the window glass on a regular basis. Funny that those details are sticking to my memory, while I don't remember anything about the rest of the power plant! Also, when leaving, we spent five times as much time closing and locking the window than what we had spent opening it!

Juridically, this was of course a very wrong thing to do, we had no rights to enter the abandoned power plant. It could also be dangerous. From a moral point of view, I think it was completely fine; we did no harm, and it was an experience - children grow on such kind of experiences.

Next, many years later, I was hitch hiking with my wife, and we got stuck in Finnish Lapland. There are three problems in Finnish Lapland in the summer time:

there is very little traffic there
only a very small percentage of the few cars that passes stops for hitch hikers (there is a French lady living in Kilpisjärvi ... she's a legend, always stop for hitch hikers, we've had friends visiting us in Tromsø by hitch hiking, and several of them got rescued by this lady ... but I digress)
There are mosquites. Lots and lots of them! And they are pretty nasty ...

We had travelled far without any stop, we were deadly tired. We didn't have a tent, only sleeping bags. It was raining, and despite the rain the air was thick of mosquitoes. We found one spot where we could sleep close to a building and stay reasonably dry, but we wouldn't be safe from the mosquitoes! Eventually we found this empty cabin, and we decided to squat. We (especially I) was desperate, the mosquitoes really love me, so eventually we broke the padlock and entered. Juridically a very bad thing to do, but morally ... this was clealy an unused cabin, there were no furnitures or anything - just the walls, ceiling and floor. Except the destroyed padlock we did no harm - but being able to stay inside and lock out the mosquitoes, it was a life saver for us that night. Well, eventually after a while we discovered there was a hole in the wall under the ceiling at one point, so we could as well have slept on the outside. I tried closing the sleeping back as much as I could, but I needed to breathe ... I had so many mosquito stings around my mouth and nose the next morning, I looked terrible in the mirror (plus that I kept my wife awake most of the night). But I digress again ...