building for cougars or bears means building dense cities that perserve as much wild space outside the city as possible for animal habitats.
i like the idea of adapting buildings to be less hostile to animals that find themselves in the city, but anything that increases sprawl is the worst thing you could possibly do for wildlife.
They're not unique in having a river cutting through the city, but they were lucky to have the foresight of a city planner who felt there was some value in keeping the native vegetation all the way back at the city's inception.
There is beautiful and diverse birdlife throughout the city and that's in no small part due to the amount of native vegetation kept around throughout the city and suburbia. From the surrounding hills, the suburbs just look like a regular forest with some buildings poking out here and there, it's incredibly green. There is about as much parklands as there is real estate in the CBD itself.
https://d31atr86jnqrq2.cloudfront.net/images/aerial-city-ade...
https://www.google.com/maps/@-34.9082898,138.5203148,29616m/...
One doesn't. Bears were exterminated in Britain 1500 years ago. And cougars were never native here.
> But the largest predators in the UK are badgers.
Fine by me, badgers aren't a threat to humans.
> Do we continue to close schools and break out the dart guns every time someone sees a bear in a tree?
No, we exterminate them like my ancestors did 1500 years ago, because they were sensible (my ancestors, not the bears). Maybe put some in a wildlife park or zoo.
In the UK also - I've had several near-death experiences in a car at night with deer in North London.
Not that I want to get rid of them.