How would you describe your approach to urban planning?
Pro-people: based on raising the quality of life and improving physical surroundings, allowing children to be children and adults to be adults, and accommodating the elderly – a fast growing demographic.

Active cities are important, both for sustainability and for health. City planning which makes people sick is expensive. If people are able to move more they are healthier and cost less. Also cities which offer good liveability and quality of life, attract more investment, which is good for the economy.

What do you see as your biggest achievement?
I think my six books, published in 35 languages, have made the most impact on changing the way people think about cities and have given them the tools to do something different.

In my recent biography, People Cities - The Life and Legacy of Jan Gehl, the authors, Annie Matan and Peter Newman, write extensively about changing mindsets as a pre-condition for changing cities. In much of my own writings, I criticise the ideologies which have dominated city planning for the past 50 years: modernism and motorism. These have created technocratic, soulless cities which make cars and developers happy, but have no concern for people living in and using them.

What have been the biggest consequences of modernism and motorism?
If you go to the suburbs of Moscow you can see what modernism has done – created soulless concrete silos. And if you take a tour of Los Angeles you can see what motorism has done – spread people out over huge land masses, based on the premise that gasoline is cheap, resources are endless and all families are nuclear and well functioning.

Both concepts have severe weaknesses and use the earth’s resources. We are running out of gasoline and there is no room for cars. They are not a smart technology in the big cities of the 21st century. Their use is on the decline in the US and Australia, and car driving worldwide topped in 2009, according to a TED talk by Professor Peter Newman of Curtin University, Perth.

Doctors are now saying the sitting syndrome is the new big killer. City planners are responsible for making it necessary to sit for many hours a day, by their car-oriented planning and by making it difficult to navigate cities on foot and by bicycle.

What are the chances of reversing these trends?
I have seen some miraculous things happen, such as Mayor Bloomberg in New York saying he wanted to create the most sustainable metropole in the world and the impressive turnaround which Moscow has made in the last five years. There are now bicycle lanes, wide sidewalks and reduced parking, as well as access to parks and squares. The city has been given back to the people.

I haven’t had the opportunity to work in the developing world, but I know there are many people there who have read my books and share my views. Being people orientated, providing better infrastructure for walking and cycling, and giving access to good public transport is the cheapest solution and helps most of the population.

You have criticised London in the past, has it improved at all?
The pace of change has been faster in other big international cities, such as New York, Moscow and Melbourne, because the Mayor of London has limited power. We criticised Piccadilly Circus in our report in 2004. That area has been carefully addressed and is now working better.

What are the main advantages of cities becoming more people-friendly?
The most obvious is that they become more liveable. Cities shouldn’t just be somewhere we drive to for work or the theatre. We should be able to live and spend time there too.

Safety is becoming increasingly important. We feel more connected to our neighbours and community if we perceive we are safe. As people, we are attracted to places where other people are and people-friendly cities allow you to be active with other people. Also walkable communities save energy, which gives environmental and economic benefits.

What are the most important elements of a people-friendly city?
A lively, robust and inclusive public rail network is fundamental for a resilient city. This enables people from all kinds of backgrounds to use their city in the same realm. That’s so fundamental to supporting democratic processes and connectivity in society.

Can people-friendly measures be implemented cost effectively?
It costs much less to build pedestrian and cycling infrastructure and public spaces than highways. But the difficulty is accommodating public life as an afterthought to a city which has been planned on the old modernist approaches.

What are the main challenges?
Every city has its own political situation and its own DNA in terms of urban structure, but many challenges come up time and again. Budget is always an issue, with cities being forced to do more with less. Many public agencies work in silo, so our approach of considering social, health and environmental aspects in terms of planning, and working across different municipal agencies, can be quite challenging.

Another common challenge is the renegotiation of space. We fight a lot with unprogressive transport departments, which think cars have the right of way.

Political leadership is incredibly important for a project. In many cities outside Scandinavia, the UK, Australia and Canada, civil servants change when politicians change, so it means we lose all the knowledge and experience which has been built up and need to start again.

We have to embed the politicians in making that change, otherwise it’s just an uphill battle. A lot of our work is about getting politicians on board, speaking to them, inspiring them, taking them on study tours. Then we work with people in the communities, engaging with them and listening to their needs.

Is the world moving in the right direction?
I think there is a movement towards a more integrated way of delivering cities and much more understanding of how important it is to focus on people and the social aspects of cities. But I am also disheartened by a lot of new developments around the world. I was in Jakarta last year and it was heartbreaking to see how new developments are happening. It has a low build density, but high people density, and everything new is being built in gigantic developments with nothing in between. Places like that have an urgent need for help, but can’t necessarily afford to bring in a lot of international consultants.

On the other hand, it‘s been very encouraging to work with Vancouver. They are bringing down two old viaducts to rebuild a more connected city. Many cities are facing the fact that old 1960s gigantic infrastructure is falling apart, which is giving the opportunity to rethink and rebuild.

Are there any other trends?
In the light of the US election we have talked a lot about how there seems to be a stronger divide in society. I think it’s becoming more important than ever to focus on the shared infrastructure and public realm in cities, where trends of movement are balanced, and find ways of supporting citizenship, so we all come to understand that we can benefit from developing shared space. Building walls is not a good idea!