Ewa Westermark, Gehl

What Fascinates You About Streets?

Streets are generally a highly underutilized resource. Around 80% of what we call open spaces in cities are streets and roads. Imagine if we broadened our perspective and saw streets as urban spaces or resources in a broader sense. The possibilities would be enormous! Right now, streets mostly serve the same function everywhere—transporting people from A to B. But there’s an opportunity to create a system where streets play different roles. One street could be very green, another could be designed for social activities, while a third might have a clear function within the mobility system.

Another fascinating aspect of streets is that they are part of a tangible, physical system. Systems thinking can often feel abstract when trying to grasp how everything connects. But a street system is easier to understand—if you change one street, the whole system changes. This makes streets incredibly powerful, especially as spaces for innovation. Streets are also highly visible in cities and significantly impact people’s daily lives—not just for those who live there but for everyone who uses them.

What Role Does Design Play at Gehl?

For us, the value lies in the methodology, not in the exact labels we use for the processes we work with. It’s important that each step aligns with the context and that the methods capture both people’s needs and the specific conditions of a place. I believe architects should borrow processes from other fields, such as product design or urban development. We’ve benefited greatly from doing this.

One tool we’ve borrowed from product design is Measure, Test, Refine. It’s all about structuring a process that fosters learning. This is where things often fail. In some projects, we see great intentions and a strong will to improve urban environments for people, but without a proper structure or strategy. Often, people manage to test their ideas, and if they’re lucky, they might have measured beforehand. But it’s far too common to skip the refine phase, where you gather insights and scale up.

Regardless of the process, Gehl always focuses on people. Humans are not a single type or defined solely by one need; we’re complex. This realization forces us to think holistically and incorporate multiple perspectives into the design process. One technique we often use is working with reference images to concretize and understand what people think, feel, or dream about. We have an exercise called Postcards from the Future, where participants use eye-level reference photos to visualize the atmosphere or identity they want to create, either for themselves or another persona. It’s particularly fun when politicians take on children’s perspectives—it forces them to set aside their positions and try to see the world through different eyes.

Recently, we developed a beta version of an app called Gehl – Eye Level City. It allows users to photograph places and describe their experiences. We use these images and descriptions to foster more qualitative discussions about the city, based on personal perspectives. Borrowing methods and seeking new viewpoints enable us to ask complex questions, like how urban environments can naturally encourage healthier eating habits. Questions like these can’t be answered if we all work in silos—they require cross-disciplinary collaboration.

What Opportunities Do You See in Working with Smaller Municipalities?

I’ve worked with and collected examples from smaller towns for many years. For instance, I collaborated with Hamar Municipality in Norway, a town of about 30,000 residents. Since 2012, we’ve been working on their urban space and city life plan, focusing on encouraging more walking, cycling, and activity in the city center. Hamar has implemented the plan and made significant changes, particularly in their public spaces, emphasizing play and physical activity.

The results are evident in our measurements. Entirely new user groups are now in the city center compared to the first analysis. It’s rare as a consultant to return and measure the effects of your recommendations—it’s often a matter of resources. When I revisited in 2019, people had forgotten what it looked like in 2012. Showing before-and-after photos shocked them. It was amazing to see a completely transformed city—not just visually, but also in measurable terms. For example, there was a 250% increase in children in the city center. Slightly more people were walking, but the biggest change was the number of people staying longer. Getting these concrete results on paper helps both the municipality and policymakers. Measuring before and after allows us to say, “We invested, and it worked.”

What Makes a Place Feel Alive?

There’s a misconception that urban life is about the number of people—that it’s all about having as many pedestrians as possible. But it’s more about how long people spend in a place. Take Ørestad in Denmark as an example. Around 8,000 pedestrians pass through each day near the Fields shopping center and Metro station, yet it feels empty. Compare that to Strædet, a side street off Strøget, which has the same number of pedestrians but feels vibrant and alive.

Why? If we analyze stay activities—things like sitting, standing, talking, and playing, rather than just passing through—Strædet has about 280 stay activities, while Ørestad has only about 19. The key is that people stay longer on Strædet.

What Makes People Want to Stay in a Place?

It’s very basic. At Gehl, we use 12 quality criteria for creating great places, divided into three categories: Protection, Comfort, and Enjoyment.

First and foremost, the place must feel safe, secure, and offer Protection from weather and traffic. Then comes Comfort—the ability to walk, manageable noise levels, a good view, places to sit, and varied activities. Finally, Enjoyment—a pleasant scale, sensory experiences, good microclimate, beauty, and a sense of identity or history.

Often, the focus is on aesthetics, but if the basic criteria aren’t met, the place won’t work. If it’s not safe, it doesn’t matter how beautiful it is. And there should be a balance between commercialized streets and public spaces.

What Are the Challenges and Opportunities of Streets as Systems?

If you look at a street cross-section, different departments often manage different parts—trees, cars, or buildings. These silos make it hard to create cohesive solutions. Budgets often focus on permanent changes, while less funding goes to temporary or process-driven work, despite cities constantly evolving. For the person on the street, these divisions don’t matter—they just want a place that works holistically.

Prototypes are fantastic tools for helping both municipalities and residents experience and discuss change. But they must align with long-term visions to avoid becoming just a fun experiment.

A common barrier is the belief that culture is static, whether it’s workplace culture or how people move through a city. For example, 50 years ago, Copenhageners thought they were entirely car-dependent. Today, it seems absurd. Culture is not fixed, and physical changes can drive cultural shifts.