How to make Copenhagen green again?
Urbcast is back after the summer break, tackling the burning issue of Copenhagen — how to make it more green?!
My guest is Viktor Forchhammer, an architect from landscape and urban design studio Kragh Berglund. One of Viktor’s recent projects, which we will explore in detail, is the Copenhagen Boulevard vision. This project reimagines one of Copenhagen’s largest roads, questioning how traffic space could be reduced and transformed into vibrant, green public space. But before diving into this vision, Viktor paints a broader picture of the current state of greenery in Copenhagen.
Copenhagen: Green image, blue reality
Copenhagen is often perceived as a sustainable and green city. Yet, according to Viktor, this image is somewhat misleading. The city is better described as “blue”, with strong connections to water through the harbor, beaches, and Amager’s coastal areas. While these blue elements are valuable, the green dimension of the cityscape is underdeveloped.
Classical features such as tree-lined boulevards, common in many other European capitals, are largely absent from Copenhagen. Statistics underline this: Copenhagen’s urban tree canopy covers around 16% of the city. In comparison, Berlin reaches nearly 50%, while Stockholm, Oslo, Warsaw, and Paris all surpass Copenhagen significantly. Oslo’s figure is exceptionally high at 80%, though this includes forested land within its municipality.
Despite such caveats, the comparison highlights Copenhagen’s lack of greenery. This has tangible consequences—not just for aesthetics and quality of life, but also for climate resilience. As the city experiences rising street-level temperatures, trees and vegetation could play a vital role in reducing urban heat islands.
Contrasts within the city
The difference becomes even clearer when comparing Copenhagen with its neighboring municipality of Frederiksberg (located in the very middle of the city but technically not a part of it). Unlike Copenhagen, Frederiksberg has long cultivated a strong culture of planting and maintaining trees. The municipality has an ambitious goal: every apartment should be able to see a tree from its window (personally love the rule as I live here myself).
This principle has shaped Frederiksberg into a greener, more livable district. Achieving something similar in Copenhagen would require immense investment—removing roadways, restructuring infrastructure, and planting trees at a cost closer to 100,000 DKK per tree rather than the 10 DKK per seedling sometimes budgeted in less central areas. Still, Frederiksberg demonstrates that it is not foreign to Danish urban planning to prioritize trees; Copenhagen simply has not followed the same path.
The “100,000 Trees” plan: a missed opportunity
In 2015, Copenhagen’s City Hall launched a bold initiative: planting 100,000 trees within ten years. The plan received wide political support across parties, and the target year—2025—is now here.
However, the implementation revealed shortcomings. Instead of being distributed across the city, most of the trees were planted on a former dump site by the highway on Amager. While this approach minimized costs (with small saplings planted at only 10 DKK each), it failed to meet the real demand for greenery within the urban fabric.
The results have been disappointing: nearly many of the trees have already died, due to poor soil and harsh conditions. Moreover, the location—under a highway bridge—makes the area largely inaccessible and unappealing to Copenhageners. The initiative therefore highlights a lack of genuine political prioritization. Planting trees within the dense city center would have been far more impactful but also much more expensive.
Viktor points out that this gap between political symbolism and practical investment reveals Copenhagen’s struggle to fully embrace trees as an integral part of its urban fabric. Unlike other European cities, where boulevards and large parks are seen as essential, Copenhagen still lacks this cultural and political foundation.
Towards a greener future: Copenhagen Boulevard
Amid these challenges, Viktor’s Copenhagen Boulevard vision proposes a bold alternative. The project reimagines one of the city’s most heavily debated and trafficked arteries—a road that stretches for five kilometers through the city center, connecting Amager to Nordvest. Known variously as Åboulevard, H.C. Andersens Boulevard, and Amager Boulevard, the road currently consists of three to four car lanes in each direction.
Viktor’s question is simple yet transformative:
What if some of this over-dimensioned road space was reclaimed for people and greenery?
A legacy of 1960s car-centric planning
The boulevard is much a legacy of 1960s urban planning. During that era, as in many other cities across Europe, planners envisioned Copenhagen as a Scandinavian version of Los Angeles: a city shaped around the automobile.
In fact, some of the city’s most cherished spaces were nearly lost to this vision. The historic Copenhagen Lakes, for instance, were once proposed to be covered by a major highway, cutting through what is today one of the city’s most beloved recreational areas. Fortunately, that plan never materialized, but the scars of the era remain—most visibly in the boulevard itself.
Originally, this street was designed as a grand Parisian-inspired boulevard: a promenade where citizens could stroll, meet, and enjoy a vibrant urban atmosphere. Architects designed iconic buildings along the road, with the expectation that tree-lined avenues would complete the setting. Instead, the boulevard was torn apart to make way for cars, leaving behind a noisy, polluted, and hostile corridor that divides neighborhoods rather than connecting them.
The removal of Copenhagen’s tram network during this same period further entrenched car dominance, eliminating a sustainable and human-centered mode of transport.
As Viktor reflected:
“It’s insane that we are still allowing this.”
Copenhagen Boulevard: A vision of transformation
Against this backdrop, the Copenhagen Boulevard project proposes a restoration of the boulevard’s original intent—to serve as a civic, social, and green space. Importantly, the project does not call for radical, expensive interventions such as tunneling traffic or banning cars altogether. Instead, it suggests a modest yet impactful shift:
Removing one car lane in each direction.
Widening sidewalks to create space for pedestrians and cafes.
Planting rows of trees to provide shade, beauty, and cooling effects.
This intervention is minimal compared to the massive roadworks often debated in Copenhagen. Yet, as Viktor argues, even a small redistribution of space could fundamentally transform the experience of the boulevard.
Currently, the boulevard is between 30 and 50 meters wide from facade to facade, leaving ample room for traffic flow while still carving out space for greenery and public life. The architectural backdrop is already in place, with historic and monumental buildings lining the street. What is missing is the public realm that allows those buildings and spaces to flourish as part of a lively, people-friendly city.
A street people (including myself) avoid
As it stands today, the boulevard is one of the least inviting places in Copenhagen. With three to four lanes of traffic in each direction, the corridor is loud, polluted, and overwhelmingly dominated by cars:
Tourists, unfamiliar with the city, often find themselves walking along H.C. Andersens Boulevard, only to experience a version of Copenhagen far removed from its sustainable reputation.
Locals, by contrast, actively avoid the street whenever possible. Sidewalks are narrow and unwelcoming, and walking there often feels unsafe and unpleasant.
For residents living along the boulevard, the reality is constant exposure to traffic noise, air pollution, and vibration.
Lessons from Paris
The Copenhagen Boulevard proposal draws inspiration from European models where traffic and people coexist in more balanced ways. Boulevards in Paris, such as Boulevard Haussmann or Boulevard de Sébastopol, accommodate heavy traffic but also dedicate generous space to pedestrians, trees, and public life.
These examples show that the challenge is not about choosing between cars or people, but about redistributing space more equitably. In Copenhagen’s case, where almost half of the boulevard is currently allocated to cars and parking, even a modest rebalancing could unlock enormous potential for urban life.
As Viktor emphasizes, the goal is not to erase the boulevard’s role as a transport corridor, but to restore its role as a civic space—a place where people want to be, not just pass through.
Rethinking street space: From cars to people
On the Copenhagen Boulevard project website, Viktor and his colleagues illustrate the imbalance of the current street layout with clear diagrams. Today, 56% of the boulevard is allocated to car lanes, plus another 3% for parking. In contrast, only 15% is green space, 16% is sidewalks and public space, and 10% is bike lanes.
The studio’s vision proposes a far more balanced distribution:
42% car lanes
22% parks and greenery
24% sidewalks and public space
12% bike lanes
This is not a radical redistribution!
It does not eliminate cars or dig costly underground tunnels. Instead, it follows the progressive urban planning approach of recent decades—incremental but meaningful steps toward making cities more walkable and livable, similar to what Paris has achieved over the past ten years.
How much would it cost?
Valid question. Of course, planting trees and redesigning a boulevard in a dense urban area is costly. Viktor and his team estimate the project at around 500 million DKK. At first glance, this seems like a large investment. However, when compared to alternative proposals—such as building a massive tunnel under the city, which could cost 10 to 20 billion DKK—the boulevard project emerges as a pragmatic and cost-effective solution.
Crucially, the project also aligns with many of Copenhagen’s political priorities:
Improving walkability and accessibility on foot.
Strengthening the city’s already strong bicycle infrastructure.
Introducing urban cooling measures to mitigate heat islands.
Creating high-quality public spaces for citizens.
Viktor stresses the importance of transparency when discussing cost. Politicians must be honest with citizens: investing in greenery is expensive, but it brings immeasurable long-term benefits for urban life, health, and sustainability.
Politics, elections, and pragmatism
With local elections approaching (fall of 2025), the question arises: will politicians gain support by prioritizing greenery and projects like Copenhagen Boulevard? Viktor admits uncertainty. While urban designers and architects may see this as essential, many voters might focus more on immediate needs such as schools and childcare.
Nonetheless, the project has gained broad political attention across party lines. Politicians are already discussing whether to include the proposal in the upcoming municipal budget. As Viktor notes, there is a hunger for realistic, pragmatic solutions rather than “grand visions” that never materialize.
2,000 trees that everyone can experience
The Copenhagen Boulevard project envisions planting 2,000 new trees. Though this number pales in comparison to the city’s previous target of 100,000 trees, the difference lies in impact and visibility.
The earlier plan placed most trees in remote, inhospitable locations where many died and few citizens ever see them. By contrast, 2,000 trees planted along a five-kilometer boulevard in the heart of the city would transform the daily lives of thousands of Copenhageners. It would create a green corridor comparable in scale and significance to the lakes or the city’s harborfront—a defining public space that binds the city together instead of dividing it.
Starting small, building momentum
Recognizing the challenges of large-scale urban projects, Viktor emphasizes the importance of phased implementation. The transformation could begin with the outer sections of the boulevard, where traffic volumes are lower and overcapacity is highest. This would minimize disruption to car flow while demonstrating the value of the project.
Even partial success could be transformative. If Copenhageners experience firsthand how rebalancing the boulevard improves livability without collapsing traffic, support for expanding the project would naturally follow.
As Viktor puts it:
“It’ll change, but it won’t break down.”
Inspiring change through vision
Ultimately, the Copenhagen Boulevard proposal is not just about design; it is about starting a conversation. In many projects, architects respond to commissions. Here, Viktor and his studio have taken the initiative to propose a bold vision for their own city.
They are aware that flexibility is crucial. Urban planning is inherently political, requiring negotiation and compromise. The strength of the Copenhagen Boulevard project lies in its combination of ambition and pragmatism—it presents a clear vision while remaining adaptable to real-world constraints. Maybe there will be fewer trees, but the main aim remains clear — inspiring political will and public imagination.
Recommended reading:
Copenahgen by Steen Eiler Rasmussen, and other books of his like: Experiencing Architecture.
