News

Streets are among a city’s most valuable public assets. Yet for decades, much of this space has been designed primarily to move and store cars.

As cities confront rising temperatures, flooding, air and noise pollution, congestion and pressure on public space, local leaders are reconsidering how streets and public spaces are used and for whom they are designed.

Reallocating street space is about much more than transport. It offers an opportunity to improve daily life, strengthen climate resilience and create safer, more welcoming places where people can meet, play and move freely. Achieving this transformation, however, requires political courage, well-planned alternatives and meaningful public engagement.

Designing cities as homes, not corridors

For Elke Van den Brandt, Minister for Mobility, Public Works, Road Safety and Animal Welfare in the Brussels-Capital Region, reconsidering public space begins with a simple analogy: a city should be treated as a shared home.

Most people, she observes, would not choose a hallway as their favourite room. Corridors serve a purpose, but they are not where people spend most of their time. Cities, however, have often been organised with corridors at their centre, with the primary function of facilitating fast movement of cars. “If we take the city as our home, and Brussels for me is my home, then you wouldn’t organise it like one big corridor going from the living room to the bedroom” says Van den Brandt.

This is particularly important in densely populated cities, where many residents have no access to a private garden or terrace. Public space becomes an extension of people’s homes, providing places to meet, rest, play and spend time outdoors. Yet Van den Brandt estimates that almost 80% of urban space in Brussels is dedicated to transport.

Brussels’ central pedestrian zone shows how this balance can change. The transformation began around 15 years ago, when residents held picnics on the road in front of the Brussels Stock Exchange to challenge the use of an emblematic central space as a major traffic corridor. What began as a citizens’ action developed into a broader movement that pushed political leaders to establish the pedestrian zone.

The initial intervention was far from perfect. Temporary measures were introduced before a complete circulation plan and permanent design were ready. Nevertheless, acting quickly allowed residents to experience the space differently and helped to make the transformation irreversible.

“People realised, we can reclaim our streets. We do live here,” Van den Brandt explains. “We don’t have to accept that all our public space is used for transport.”

That shift has since extended beyond the historic centre. On one of the main roads entering Brussels, the region reorganised traffic lanes without reducing their overall number. By bringing the lanes closer together and lowering speeds, it released enough space for walking, cycling, a new tram connection and a linear park.

For Van den Brandt, the project illustrates that urban authorities cannot create additional land, but they can use existing space more intelligently. The objective is not only to make transport more efficient, but to create places where children can cycle, play and move safely. “’Having places where children can play, roller-skate, have an ice-cream is for me the essence of what public spaces should offer,” she says. “If a city is good for children, we will all enjoy it.”

Small interventions can change how a street is perceived

In Zagreb, the growing number of private cars, now around 400,000 for a population of approximately 800,000, is adding to the challenge of broadening residents’ mobility choices.

Luka Korlaet, Deputy Mayor of Zagreb, describes the private car as deeply embedded in the city’s culture, with many residents expecting to travel directly between any two points by car. The city is seeking to broaden these choices rather than remove cars altogether.

“We are not doing a crusade against cars,” he explains. “We are just trying to show that the car isn’t the only means of transportation.”

One example is the transformation of Masaryk Street in central Zagreb, part of the city’s first expansion of its pedestrian zone in 15 years. Previously used as a shortcut, the street was temporarily closed for public activities, including events during European Mobility Week. These interventions allowed residents to experience how the area could function differently before permanent changes were introduced.

With support from the Bloomberg Asphalt Art Initiative, Zagreb installed a large street painting created by a local artist, now a very popular place to meet. Pop-up greenery brought the atmosphere of an outdoors ‘living room’ to the former traffic space. The city now plans to redesign the wider street and connect two parks as part of a pedestrian loop through the centre.

“With very simple means and a very small budget, we can turn it into something completely different,” Korlaet says.

Civil society played an important role in initiating the project. Local organisations produced ideas and visualisations that encouraged the city government to take the concept forward. The permanent design also incorporates input from residents, businesses and other stakeholders.

Korlaet argues that urban transformation needs both a clear political vision and meaningful participation. A purely top-down approach risks ignoring local knowledge, while relying entirely on bottom-up action makes it difficult to deliver a coherent city-wide strategy. The challenge lies in finding a workable balance between the two.

Staying the course through opposition

Utrecht offers compelling evidence that car-oriented planning decisions can be reversed. Matthijs Sienot, Deputy Mayor of Utrecht, recalls how a historic canal in the city centre had once been replaced by motorways. The canal has since been restored, creating a public space where people can walk, swim, take boat trips and spend time by the water.

“We restored a historical error, and we gave the city back to the people instead of to the cars,” Sienot explains.

However, even a city known internationally for cycling and sustainable mobility encounters opposition when it restricts traffic.

As Utrecht grows and becomes denser, it is trying to reduce through traffic while maintaining access for residents, businesses and people who need to travel by car. One measure uses cameras to divide a route so that motorists can enter the area and reach local destinations but cannot drive directly through it.

The restriction formed part of Utrecht’s Mobility Plan 2040, which had been developed through public participation. However, the city did not consult separately on every individual measure arising from the plan. When the traffic restriction was introduced, it prompted demonstrations, political pressure and legal challenges.

Although the city eventually won its case, Sienot acknowledges that a legal victory does not necessarily produce public acceptance. “We won the case, but we didn’t win the hearts of the people yet,” he says.

The experience underlined the importance of preparing the right conditions for change, including exemptions for those who depend on cars and attractive alternatives for other journeys. Sienot’s advises other cities to maintain a long-term direction while remaining attentive to how individual measures affect different groups.

Building support also means communicating what residents gain. Removing parking or restricting traffic can release space for housing, playgrounds, greenery, cafés and places to meet. By making the benefits visible, cities can shift the debate from what is being taken away to what is being created.

Public space as climate infrastructure

Redesigning streets also gives cities an opportunity to respond to increasingly frequent heatwaves, storms and flooding. Trees provide shade, vegetation helps to cool neighbourhoods, and permeable surfaces can absorb water that would otherwise overwhelm drainage systems.

For Sienot, liveability and climate resilience are therefore closely connected. “Building cities that are very liveable is also a great answer to building climate-centred cities,” he says.

Nevertheless, delivering these changes remains politically difficult. Trees need space, usually requiring the replacement of parking spots or traffic lanes. Van den Brandt suggests that presenting projects solely through the language of climate policy may not always connect with residents’ immediate priorities. The same intervention may gain broader support when it is linked to quality of life, safer routes to school or healthier neighbourhoods.

Zagreb is also integrating climate adaptation into its planning. Changes to the city’s master plan increased the proportion of development sites that must remain natural and unbuilt from 20% to 30%. The city is planting around 8,000 trees per year, with the ambition of increasing its recorded tree population by 25% during the political mandate.

Yet the scale of the climate challenge is already evident. Zagreb has experienced two severe storms in three years, each damaging around 10,000 trees. The city is also working to address urban flooding by restructuring its sewage system, a complex and costly undertaking for which European financial support is important.

Planning beyond city boundaries

Keji Adunmo, Policy Coordinator for Sustainable Urban Mobility at the European Commission’s DG MOVE, stresses that European cities are not undertaking this transition in isolation.

More than 100 cities participating in the EU Cities Mission are exchanging experiences across sectors such as mobility, energy, public space and waste management. European requirements for sustainable urban mobility plans and common mobility indicators are also intended to encourage long-term, evidence-based planning.

However, mobility challenges do not end at municipal borders. While a city may redesign its centre and improve local transport, a significant proportion of its traffic may come from commuters living in surrounding municipalities where public transport connections are less effective. “Traffic doesn’t stop at the city boundaries,” Adunmo reminds.

Cities must therefore plan with neighbouring municipalities, regional authorities and other levels of government. This coordination is difficult, but essential if commuters are to have practical alternatives to driving.

Adunmo also emphasises that climate resilience can no longer be treated as something to consider after infrastructure has been damaged. Extreme heat and flooding are already disrupting transport networks and everyday life.

“It is not a cost; it is an investment in our future,” she adds. “And it is something that is happening now, not only in 20, 30 or 50 years.”

Resilience must consequently be incorporated into mobility and infrastructure planning from the outset, supported by appropriate funding structures and guidance. Data can help cities demonstrate the impact of measures, but evidence alone is not enough. Long-term change also depends on political leadership and the consistency to continue beyond electoral cycles.

Political courage, public participation and a shared vision

Opposition to alternatives to current street use may not emerge as an occasional obstacle but as a predictable part of reallocating public space. Those who fear losing parking or direct car access are often highly visible, while supporters may be less organised or vocal.

That makes citizen initiatives particularly valuable. Temporary street closures, community events and resident-led experiments can demonstrate demand for change without being perceived solely as projects imposed by one political party. They give residents an opportunity to experience a new use of space and help mainstream ideas that may initially appear unrealistic.

“”When you’re talking about backlash, we often hear the loud voices of people against it. But we all know the silent majority supporting it,” says Van den Brandt. “You also have organisations fighting for clean air, cycling lanes and the restoration of nature in cities. It’s a collaboration.”

For Korlaet, the objective is to make walking, cycling, public transport and shared mobility credible options alongside the car. A dedicated tram lane introduced on a two-kilometre street in Zagreb demonstrated the potential: after some travellers switched modes, the corridor was able to carry as many or more people than before. A single tram can accommodate around 200 people, while the same number travelling alone by car can form a queue approximately one kilometre long.

The comparison captures the spatial challenge confronting growing cities. Individual cars may feel convenient, but universal car use is mathematically incompatible with limited urban space. The task for cities is therefore not simply to restrict traffic, but to offer people alternatives that are efficient, affordable and appealing.

Facts, plans and models can demonstrate why cities need to organise mobility differently. But residents must also be able to picture the streets they could gain: greener, quieter and safer places designed not only for passing through, but for living.

_____

The policy dialogue From traffic corridors to living spaces: Reimagining European streets to meet climate and social challenges took place in Brussels on 12 October 2026 as part of the European Week of Regions and Cities.

Organised in the framework of the REALLOCATE project, the event brought together representatives from Brussels, Utrecht, Zagreb and the European Commission to discuss the reallocation of public space, active mobility and climate-resilient street design.