I visited a few months ago to see a friend and for me my biggest reaction while riding my bike around the city was that there were too many bikes. It really did freak me out.

Just search for my name on skype and you’ll find me.

The point that Ryan makes is one that could cause a bit of indigestion for devotees of both Seattle “process” and Copenhagen’s deserved reputation for sustainability. Can you generate action across a wide front of civic issues while retaining a committment to political and cultural diversity? I’m starting to get the impression that much of Copenhagen’s success comes from not having to worry about the nuts and bolts of a representitive democracy – if we don’t have to worry about minority viewpoints, I suppose it IS easier to get things done…but at what cost?

Does “Copenhagenize” mean ignoring minority viewpoints or the passive suppressing of ideas that don’t necessarily correspond to what “we” think?

Ryan, tell us more…

Unfortunately there are more non-black jackets than trees in the photograph. If urban density without trees is desireable, amenities like a green infrastructure need to receive at least equal emphasis as those fire hydrants, streetlights, signposts, and other sterile streetscape fixtures.

The almighty dollar has supplanted the urban ecosystem that is absent from the photo. For example, a streetlight costs about $10-15,000. The appraised value of a tree is about the same. When a tree is removed, it is often never replaced. If a streetlight were knocked over by a car accident, it would automatically be replaced without a second thought as to its essential nature.

Treesneed to be thought of as essential fixtures in the urban ecoystem.