What If Copenhagen Implemented Different Urban Planning Strategies?

The Actual History

Copenhagen's evolution into a global model for sustainable urban planning and cycling infrastructure has its roots in the post-World War II period, when many European cities faced crucial decisions about their development paths. In the 1950s and 1960s, Copenhagen initially followed the common trajectory of many Western cities by beginning to adapt its medieval street layout to accommodate increasing automobile traffic.

The pivotal moment came in 1962 when the city implemented a bold experiment: converting its main thoroughfare, Strøget, into a pedestrian-only street. This 1.1-kilometer stretch became one of Europe's longest pedestrian shopping streets. Initially met with skepticism—with critics arguing it wasn't in the "Danish character" to enjoy public life in urban spaces—the transformation proved immensely successful. Pedestrian traffic increased by 35% in just the first year, and the area quickly thrived with economic activity, demonstrating that human-centered urban spaces could be both popular and profitable.

This successful experiment inspired Danish architect and urban planner Jan Gehl, who began documenting how people used public spaces in Copenhagen. His groundbreaking 1971 book "Life Between Buildings" helped articulate a new philosophy of urban planning centered on human needs rather than vehicular efficiency. Gehl's systematic studies of public life became influential globally, offering a methodical approach to creating people-friendly cities.

Through the 1970s and 1980s, in response to the oil crises and growing environmental awareness, Copenhagen continued expanding its pedestrianized areas and began deliberately reducing parking spaces by 2-3% annually. The city simultaneously embarked on developing a comprehensive cycling infrastructure network. Rather than treating cycling as a recreational activity, Copenhagen positioned it as a practical transportation solution, creating protected bike lanes separated from both pedestrian walkways and vehicular traffic.

The 1990s and 2000s saw Copenhagen formalize this approach with a series of strategic city plans. The city implemented the "Green Bicycle Routes" network, connecting parks and quiet streets to create pleasant commuting alternatives. In 2002, Copenhagen launched its first "Bicycle Account," a biennial report measuring progress in cycling infrastructure, safety, and user satisfaction, establishing clear metrics for success.

By the early 2000s, Copenhagen had developed the concept of "Copenhagenize"—a design philosophy emphasizing simple, straightforward cycling infrastructure integrated with public transit. The city continued innovating with features like "green wave" traffic light timing for cyclists, dedicated cycling bridges, and expanded bike parking facilities. The result was impressive: by 2020, approximately 49% of all trips to work or education in Copenhagen were made by bicycle, with over 350 kilometers of dedicated cycle tracks.

Copenhagen's transformation wasn't limited to cycling. The city also pioneered car-free zones, harbor swimming areas in its cleaned waterways, and innovative public spaces like Superkilen park, which celebrates the city's diversity. The "Five-Minute City" concept ensured essential services remained within a short walk for residents.

This human-centered approach to urban planning has yielded significant benefits beyond transportation. Copenhagen consistently ranks among the world's most livable cities, with high quality of life measures, strong social cohesion, and relatively low carbon emissions. The "Copenhagen Model" has become influential globally, inspiring cities from Paris to Bogotá to reimagine their urban environments with human needs rather than automobiles at the center of planning decisions.

The Point of Divergence

What if Copenhagen had rejected pedestrianization and cycling infrastructure in favor of car-centric development? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where Copenhagen's pivotal 1962 Strøget experiment never occurred, or worse, failed dramatically after implementation.

The divergence might have happened in several plausible ways:

First, the Copenhagen City Council might have been swayed by more traditional traffic engineers and business owners who feared pedestrianization would reduce commercial activity. This perspective was common globally in the 1960s, when urban planners typically prioritized automobile efficiency. Without the political courage to attempt such a radical experiment, Copenhagen could have continued widening roads and demolishing historic buildings to accommodate more cars, similar to what occurred in cities like Detroit or Houston.

Alternatively, the Strøget pedestrianization might have been implemented but failed to gain public support. If the city had executed the project poorly—perhaps with insufficient amenities, poor maintenance, or inadequate public transit connections—the pedestrian street might have become underutilized or attracted antisocial behavior. Such a public failure would have reinforced the narrative that Danes weren't interested in Mediterranean-style public life, effectively killing future pedestrianization projects.

A third possibility involves the oil crisis of the 1970s leading to different conclusions. Rather than seeing the fuel shortages as a reason to reduce car dependency, Copenhagen's leaders might have doubled down on automobile infrastructure, believing economic recovery depended on increased mobility via private vehicles. This approach would have aligned with countries like the United States, which responded to the energy crisis with eventual deregulation rather than systemic transportation changes.

Perhaps most consequentially, the influence of Jan Gehl might never have taken root. Without the successful Strøget example to study, Gehl might have focused his research elsewhere or found his human-centered urban theories marginalized by the prevailing car-centric paradigm. Without his methodical documentation of how people actually use public spaces, the entire field of human-scale urban design might have developed much more slowly.

In this altered timeline, Copenhagen's development from the 1960s onward would follow a dramatically different path—one where the private automobile, not the bicycle or pedestrian, became the central consideration in all urban planning decisions.

Immediate Aftermath

Urban Development Patterns (1960s-1970s)

Without the Strøget pedestrianization experiment as a successful counter-example, Copenhagen's urban development through the 1960s and early 1970s would have continued along patterns common in North America and parts of Western Europe. The city would have focused on accommodating increasing car traffic through infrastructure expansion projects:

Road Widening Programs: The narrow medieval streets of central Copenhagen would have been systematically widened, requiring the demolition of historic buildings. The characteristic intimate scale of the city center would have been gradually lost as blocks were redeveloped with larger setbacks from widened thoroughfares.
Inner City Ring Road: Rather than preserving the Lakes (Søerne) as recreational areas, planners might have implemented proposals to convert these historic water bodies into sections of a comprehensive ring road system. Similar projects occurred in many European cities during this era, often destroying natural features and historic neighborhoods.
Parking Prioritization: Instead of gradually reducing parking spaces, the city would have mandated minimum parking requirements for new developments and constructed large municipal parking garages throughout the city center. The Kongens Nytorv and Rådhuspladsen (City Hall Square) might have been partially or completely converted to parking facilities.

Transportation Policy Shifts (1970s)

The global oil crises of 1973 and 1979 would still have impacted Denmark severely, forcing some reconsideration of transportation policies. However, without the pedestrianization momentum already established, Copenhagen's response would have differed substantially:

Highway Expansion: Rather than questioning automobile dependency, the city might have accelerated plans for a comprehensive highway network. The existing "Finger Plan" of Copenhagen's regional development would have transformed from transit-oriented corridors into highway-served sprawl, similar to Stockholm's more car-oriented development during this period.
Neglected Public Transit: Without the complementary relationship between cycling and public transit that developed in our timeline, Copenhagen's bus and train systems would have received less investment. The S-train network might have stagnated, with funds diverted to road projects instead.
Bicycle Marginalization: Cycling would have been increasingly viewed as impractical and dangerous in a city redesigned for cars. Without protected infrastructure, bicycle use would have plummeted as it did in many other Western cities during this period, reduced to primarily recreational rather than practical transportation.

Economic and Social Consequences (1970s-1980s)

The different development path would have created cascading effects on Copenhagen's economy and social fabric:

Retail Transformation: Without the pedestrianized shopping district, downtown retail would have struggled to compete with emerging suburban shopping centers. Many small specialist shops would have closed, replaced by larger chain stores in suburban malls accessible primarily by car.
Residential Patterns: The inner city neighborhoods would have experienced more severe decay and potential gentrification cycles. Middle-class families would have accelerated their exodus to car-dependent suburbs, while central neighborhoods might have faced either abandonment or eventual luxury redevelopment, but without the mixed-use vibrancy they maintained in our timeline.
Tourism Impacts: Copenhagen's appeal as a tourist destination would have diminished as its historic character was compromised by car-oriented development. The city would still attract visitors, but would have lost much of the distinctive charm and livability that makes it a top destination in our timeline.

Environmental and Public Health Effects (1980s)

By the 1980s, the environmental and public health consequences of these different choices would have become increasingly apparent:

Air Quality Issues: Copenhagen would have experienced significantly worse air pollution problems, with frequent smog events similar to those in other car-dominated cities of the era. The absence of comprehensive cycling infrastructure would have meant thousands more daily car trips within the city center.
Public Health Challenges: The population would have experienced higher rates of sedentary lifestyle-related conditions as daily active transportation declined. The mental health benefits of human-scale urban environments and regular physical activity would have been diminished.
Harbor Pollution: The rehabilitation of Copenhagen's harbor waters, which in our timeline allowed for swimming and recreation by the early 2000s, would likely have been delayed by decades as stormwater runoff from expanded roadways continued to pollute waterways.

Urban Planning Profession (1980s)

The field of urban planning itself would have evolved differently without Copenhagen's human-centered example:

Jan Gehl's Diminished Influence: Without the successful pedestrianization projects to study and document, Jan Gehl might never have developed his systematic approach to studying public life, or might have found his ideas marginalized within the profession. His influential books and methodologies might never have gained international recognition.
Lost Leadership Position: Copenhagen would not have developed its global reputation as an urban planning innovator. The "Copenhagenize" concept would never have emerged, depriving other cities of this influential model for human-centered urban design.

Long-term Impact

Transformed Urban Landscape (1990s-2000s)

By the turn of the millennium, alternative Copenhagen would present a drastically different physical environment:

Infrastructure and Spatial Organization

Highway-Dominated Cityscape: A network of elevated highways and cloverleaf interchanges would have carved through formerly cohesive neighborhoods. Critical crossing points like Dronning Louises Bro (Queen Louise's Bridge), which in our timeline became a celebrated cycling artery, would instead be congested automotive bottlenecks.
Parking-Oriented Development: Underground and multi-story parking facilities would dominate the urban core, with buildings designed to accommodate cars first and people second. The requirement to provide extensive parking would have made housing more expensive to build, exacerbating affordability issues.
Fragmented Public Realm: Public spaces would be diminished and fragmented, with plazas like Gammeltorv-Nytorv functioning primarily as traffic roundabouts rather than gathering places. The continuous pedestrian network that makes Copenhagen's center so walkable would not exist.
Lost Historic Fabric: Significant portions of Copenhagen's historic architecture would have been demolished to accommodate widened roads and parking facilities. The cohesive historic character that makes the city distinctive in our timeline would be substantially compromised.

Transportation Patterns

Modal Split Reversal: Instead of the nearly 50% cycling commuter rate achieved by 2020 in our timeline, bicycle transportation would likely remain below 5%, similar to car-oriented cities elsewhere. Private automobiles would account for 60-70% of trips, with public transit capturing most of the remainder.
Traffic Congestion: Despite extensive road infrastructure, Copenhagen would experience severe traffic congestion problems. The phenomenon of induced demand would ensure that each new road expansion project would quickly fill to capacity.
Diminished Public Transit: The Metro system that opened in our timeline in 2002 might have been delayed significantly or implemented with a more limited scope, as political support for public transit investments would be weaker in a car-dominated culture.

Environmental and Social Consequences (2000s-2020s)

The environmental and social implications would become increasingly pronounced as the 21st century progressed:

Environmental Impacts

Climate Goals Failure: Denmark would struggle to meet its climate commitments, with transportation remaining a major source of carbon emissions. Copenhagen would not achieve its carbon neutrality goals set for 2025 in our timeline.
Urban Heat Island Effect: With more asphalt and concrete and fewer green spaces, Copenhagen would experience more severe urban heat island effects, with summer temperatures averaging several degrees higher than in our timeline.
Biodiversity Loss: The green corridors and urban nature that characterize Copenhagen today would be significantly reduced, hampering biodiversity and reducing ecosystem services like natural storm water management.

Social and Health Impacts

Socioeconomic Segregation: Car dependency would exacerbate inequality, as lower-income residents would face disproportionate transportation costs or difficult commutes. The egalitarian mobility that cycling provides in our timeline would be absent.
Public Health Crisis: Physical inactivity would contribute to higher rates of obesity, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. Studies indicate that Copenhagen's high cycling rates prevent about 1,000 premature deaths annually in our timeline—these health benefits would be lost.
Diminished Social Cohesion: The vibrant street life that fosters social interaction in Copenhagen would be significantly reduced. Research shows that car-dominated environments lead to less social connection between neighbors and lower levels of community trust.

Economic Consequences (2000s-2020s)

Alternative Copenhagen's economic development would follow a substantially different trajectory:

Tourism Impact: Copenhagen would still attract tourists, but would not enjoy the same reputation as one of the world's most livable cities. Tourism revenue would likely be significantly lower without the city's distinctive character and active public realm.
Talent Attraction Challenges: The city would struggle more to attract and retain international talent in competitive industries, as quality of life factors would not compare as favorably with other global cities.
Higher Transportation Costs: The average Copenhagen household would spend significantly more on transportation than in our timeline. Studies from our reality show that Copenhagen's cycling infrastructure saves residents approximately €235 million annually in healthcare costs alone—savings that would not materialize.
Real Estate Development Patterns: Property values would follow different patterns, with premium pricing focused on suburbs with good highway access rather than walkable central neighborhoods. The "missing middle" housing typologies that maintain Copenhagen's affordability and density in our timeline might be largely absent.

Global Urban Planning Influence (2000s-2020s)

Perhaps the most profound long-term impact would be on global urban planning practices:

Lost Model City Status: Without Copenhagen's successful example, the global urban planning profession would lack one of its most powerful case studies demonstrating the viability of cycling and pedestrianization at a citywide scale.
Delayed Cycling Revolution: The global urban cycling movement would have developed more slowly without the "Copenhagenize" concept. Cities like Paris, Barcelona, and Bogotá, which have been influenced by Copenhagen's example in our timeline, might have pursued different urban mobility strategies.
Weaker Data-Driven Approach: Jan Gehl's methodical approach to studying public life, developed through observing Copenhagen's transformation, contributed significantly to making public space design more evidence-based. Without this influence, qualitative studies of how people actually use cities might have remained marginalized in a profession dominated by traffic engineering metrics.
Dominant Auto-Centric Paradigm: The car-centered approach to city planning might have maintained its dominance in professional practice for years longer without Copenhagen demonstrating a viable alternative at city scale.

Contemporary Copenhagen (2025)

By 2025, alternative Copenhagen would present a vastly different reality than the city we know:

Physical Environment: A sprawling metropolitan region crisscrossed by highways, with a downtown characterized by wide arterial roads, parking facilities, and office towers with limited ground-floor activation.
Air Quality: Significantly worse air quality, with relatively high rates of respiratory disease and regular air quality warnings during summer months.
Livability Rankings: Rather than consistently ranking among the top cities for quality of life, Copenhagen might place in the middle range of European capitals, with particularly lower scores in environmental quality and public health metrics.
Identity and Reputation: Instead of being known globally as a cycling paradise and urban planning innovator, Copenhagen might be viewed as "just another European capital"—pleasant but unremarkable in its approach to urban design.
Future Trajectory: Rather than leading the transition to post-car urbanism, Copenhagen would likely be struggling to begin implementing the kinds of pedestrianization and cycling projects that, in our timeline, it pioneered decades ago.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Mikkel Jensen, Professor of Urban Planning at the University of Copenhagen, offers this perspective: "What makes Copenhagen's actual development path so remarkable is how it challenged prevailing wisdom about what was 'practical' or 'realistic' in Northern European cities. Had the Strøget pedestrianization failed or never been attempted, we would have lost not just a pleasant shopping street but the entire paradigm shift it triggered. The demonstration effect of seeing pedestrianization succeed economically was critical. Without this proof of concept, I believe Northern European urban planning would have remained in the car-centric mindset for at least another two decades. The thousands of lives saved through active transportation, the millions of tons of carbon not emitted, and the immeasurable quality of life benefits would all have been sacrificed to a vision of modernity that we now know was deeply flawed."

Alexandra Williams, Senior Transport Economist at the International Sustainable Mobility Institute, provides an economic analysis: "The Copenhagen model has demonstrated that cycling infrastructure delivers approximately €1.22 in social benefits for every kilometer cycled—benefits that would be entirely foregone in an alternate car-dependent Copenhagen. What's particularly striking is how the economics of urban space would differ. Each car parking space requires about 15 square meters of valuable urban land. Copenhagen's decision to gradually reduce parking rather than increase it preserved urban density and proximity, creating the 'five-minute city' that makes daily life so convenient. In the alternate timeline, land use economics would drive dispersal and segregation of uses, creating a fundamentally different social and economic geography. The city would likely have 35-40% lower density and significantly higher transportation costs as a percentage of household budgets."

Henrik Sørensen, Director of the Danish Urban History Museum, considers the cultural implications: "The cultural consequences of Copenhagen choosing a car-dependent path would extend far beyond transportation. The distinctive Danish design tradition emphasizing human scale might never have found its powerful urban expression. The concept of 'hygge'—that specifically Danish sense of cozy conviviality—would be more confined to private homes rather than extending into the public realm as it does today. Most significantly, I believe the Danish identity would be less distinctive globally. Copenhagen's human-centered urbanism has become a source of national pride and international recognition—a tangible manifestation of Danish values prioritizing quality of life, sustainability, and social equality. Without this aspect of its identity, Denmark might be viewed more as simply another prosperous but unremarkable Northern European nation."