A common refrain about Europe is that “it’s always been this way,” and that the “culture is different,” or the “city design is different.”  This notion has been written about and debunked by many ex-pats living in bicycle-friendly cities.

When you’re visiting Copenhagen, you notice that the city is vibrant, well-functioning and easy to get around.  But it wasn’t by accident and it wasn’t necessarily because of historic design or a “different culture.”  When big changes (like pedestrian streets) were proposed in Copenhagen, many thought they would fail because of the weather and culture, but they were hugely successful.

Many of the aspects of good design are subtle – you don’t notice them if you’re a regular resident going about your daily life.  But you’d notice if they were missing or if it was harder to get around.  For example, have you ever had to carry your trash around because there aren’t strategically places trash cans around the city?

As we’ve been living in Scandinavia, we’ve come to appreciate these subtle elements of city design that just make things nicer and smoother. In attending lectures, I’ve been struck by how conscious many of these decisions were.  The work of Gehl observes human behavior, measures it, and offers strategic visions for planning cities for people.

Some other examples I noticed:

• If we want people to bike, we make it the fastest, easiest and safest way to get around. Bike parking should be close and easy. Taking a car should be a bit more difficult. Instead of having cars parked directly outside of homes, Copenhagen uses centralized parking hubs that require walking across a quad to get to the car.  That makes it less enticing to use for short trips.  In this example, it also gets people to walk through shared public space which activates community interaction.
• If we don’t want people to drive out of the city to recreate at beaches, we clean up the harbor by removing industry and combined sewage overflow into the harbor, and we create nice places for people to enjoy the water. This makes it possible for people to bike and walk to swimming areas after work.
• In studying urban space, Gehl realized that buildings that 5-6 stories are ideal for urban life – people interact with public space. If they live in taller buildings, they live in the sky and don’t interact with public space. This level of density is similar in Paris, Copenhagen, Malmö and many other cities. After living in this level of density, I agree that it’s ideal – it’s dense enough to have a population to support neighborhood scale retail but can still be quiet and calm without the feel of a huge city.
• In redevelopment areas like Nordhaven, city plans integrate the concepts that work well in other parts of the city for new development. The height is mostly 5-6 stories except some landmark pre-existing buildings. Parking is in hubs rather than adjacent to homes. The concept is based on an idea of a 5-minute neighborhood, but the shops are local rather than large international chains.

Nordhaven – playground on top of parking garage

Nordhaven – side of parking garage with greenspace

Ideal density (and lovely garden!)

Islands Brygge Swimming Area in Harbor

I’ve been struck by how the forces that make these decisions difficult are the same as we face in U.S. cities.  People fight for street parking, existing residents are against new development, and everyone is against change.  But these cities have the political will to overcome these forces of change and make a conscious choice to take a different path.  Andreas’ advice about navigating the political realm, forming relationships across siloes (at a local level and across levels of government) really resonated with me.  To overcome these issues, it’s not just about trying to get them to care about climate change – it also has to be communicated related to quality of life, air pollution, and noise. And most of all, you can’t convince people to ride bikes if the network isn’t well-connected, and it isn’t easy and fast to do so.