by Zukhra Mavlanova
Urban development as a litmus test of participatory democracy in Germany
Urban development in the governance context can reflect democratic values, indicating how municipalities embody the principles of inclusivity, equality, and participation. The processes of urban development reflect the extent to which citizens, alongside various bodies and stakeholders, are engaged in the decision-making process, highlighting the state of a democracy. Urban development projects such as new housing projects or urban expansion tend to have higher engagement from the citizens as they directly intervene with the quality of urban space and shape the city they populate.
In Germany, a formal way of citizen participation at the national level is embodied in the law; it protects the right to access information, to public participation in decision-making, and safeguards the right to obtain access to justice on environmental matters, as embedded in §3-4 BauGB – German Federal Building Code. At the communal level, various formal methods of public participation exemplify direct democracy. These include local elections and a citizens’ initiative, known as Bürgerbegehren. If the citizens’ initiative is successful, it can lead to a local referendum or a citizen’s decision, referred to as a Bürgerentscheid. The informal ways of citizen participation in Germany range from public hearings and written objections on online platforms to the co-planning of strategic urban plans.
The City of Munich is one of the national pioneers and trendsetters through its ambitious urban development projects. The city is committed to and strongly encourages public involvement in decision-making processes, underscored with a dedication to balancing various interests, ensuring a fair and inclusive methodology.
On the local level, the legally binding citizen participation is extended through a strategic orientation framework for urban development, expressed through guiding principles and action areas for the city’s future. Participation is offered in a wide range of formats – co-creation in idea and planning workshops, participatory competitions, and online dialogues via citizen assemblies or councils.
PaketPost area: Context and timeline
A recent remarkable example of public interest in Munich is the redevelopment of PaketPost area in the Neuhausen-Nymphenburg. This project has led to an outburst of public discourse for various reasons, particularly regarding the height of two proposed skyscrapers.
The Büschl Group, a major investor in the Munich real estate market, acquired the area around the former Paketposthalle in the year 2018, including the parcel post hall itself, a protected monument of modern architecture built in 1969, to repurpose the area into an “innovative urban district of the future”. To achieve the vision, the Büschl Group has engaged the Swiss architectural firm Herzog & de Meuron to undertake urban development studies and create a master plan for the urban district.
Since the first presentation of the design, the main topic of discussion revolved around two proposed 155m high-rise buildings. The main public concerns have included the towers’ impact on the sightlines, monument protection, commercialization of public spaces, and, its incompatibility with the 2004 citizens’ decision to limit buildings heights to 100 meters. Although the citizens’ decision, intended to preserve the historic city view, legally expired after one year, it has continued to be referenced in political discussions and the approval processes ever since.
The Bavarian Council for the Preservation of Historic Buildings and Monuments has also been critical of the construction, however from the beginning city officials and politicians have been strongly supporting the redevelopment proposal – they have seen it as a chance to strengthen the city’s international image as well as a solution to the growing demand for living space, which is crucial for the Munich housing market. Remarkably, the solution for the inter-political debates and disagreement with other public authorities and institutes was sought through instruments of citizen participation.
In January 2021, the city council commissioned the Department of Urban Planning and Building Regulation to conduct a citizen report through a citizen’s assembly. This form of citizen participation, a type of deliberative Mini Publics (DMPs), was developed by Peter Daniel in the 1970s and had previously been successfully implemented in Munich in 2013. Its features include the random selection of citizens to form a heterogeneous group, with the aim of advising policymakers and public authorities by developing recommendations or proposing solutions on an issue. The results are usually summarized in a citizens’ report.
Comprised of 112 randomly selected Munich residents, the assembly took place in October 2021 for four days, following two introductory appointments in July 2021, and was carried out by an external organization, which is significant for creating neutrality. The outcome of the participatory process, developed in four so-called planning cells, has yielded several key recommendations. These include the creation of a sustainable neighbourhood with green and open spaces, the organization of the planning process as an open competition, the development of affordable housing, architectural modifications to the high-rise buildings, clarification regarding the use and operation of the parcel post hall, as well as an increase in information sharing with citizens. Notably, the feedback from this participatory process was largely positive regarding the construction of the skyscrapers, with citizens primarily requesting adjustments to their design.
Although citizen assemblies do not legally require public authorities or policymakers to implement the outcomes, a procedure mandates that public information about the results must be provided a year later. This public announcement or informative session can be highly influential in a representative democracy, as it can influence future elections of policymakers. Following the Munich assemblies, the towers were redesigned unsignificantly; the elevator, initially crosshanging between the towers, was removed, and more cultural spaces were added to the top floors of the skyscrapers.
Following this, despite the neutrality of the citizens’ assembly and the clear statement of its goals, framework and conditions, the HochhausSTOP initiative has emerged. Initiated by CSU politician Robert Brannekämper and former city councillor Wolfgang Czisch, the initiative announced in January 2025 that it has gathered enough signatures to begin a citizens’ decision process against the construction of the towers. As a formal instrument of citizen participation and a tool of direct democracy, it typically starts as a bottom-up initiative in response to citizens’ dissatisfaction with the outcomes of the citizens’ assembly. Notably, the initiative aims to limit the height of skyscrapers in the PaketPost area to 60 meters while using imagery that portrays the entire city to highlight the issue. One of the images provided is a photo collage that visualizes skyscrapers across the city at an exaggerated scale, along with a shadow study showing the overlapped shadows of two 155-meter towers throughout the day. This misrepresentation can be seen as misleading and manipulative and has been called “populist” by the city councilor Anna Hanusch. Although the formal procedure of signature collecting has been successful, the citizen decision (against the towers’ construction) will be unlikely to proceed if the urban development plans receive a positive review.
A comparative analysis of the citizens’ participation and chances of permanent citizens’ assembly
In the case of the PaketPost area in Munich both instruments of direct and deliberative democracy have been (citizens’ assembly) or may be (citizens’ decision) implemented. While the extent of success is complex and yet to be distinguished, both citizens’ decisions and assemblies have ambiguous status.
While legally binding and therefore mistakably seen as more influential by the HochHausSTOP initiative, citizens’ decisions can be polarizing due to a survey format of yes/no questions. It also can prevent individuals from fully expressing their opinions. In contrast, through citizen assemblies, more complex problems could be handled, including informing the participants and allowing more active forms of participation. Furthermore, citizens’ assemblies avoid the issue of a perceived majority that often arises from the “loud voices” of those discordant, as they tend to receive more media attention or support from politicians. For instance, several articles in Süddeutsche Zeitung are from those who feel unrepresented after the assembly, hence, those who oppose the idea. Logically, fewer people engage with the press if they agree with the topic.
Moreover, by randomly selecting a representative group, the assemblies enable citizens with diverse backgrounds to engage with one another. This interaction can lead to changes in opinions, which is less likely to occur in decisions made solely by citizens.
The public generally trusts the citizens’ decisions (survey) more as they involve overall participation. Assemblies, on the other hand, are arguably less vulnerable to manipulation since they include an informing element. For instance, when discussing affordable housing, this issue can be used to justify the construction of a high-rise building that initially can be built merely for profit. Additionally, topics like the cultural reuse of today’s inaccessible hall and the selection of a renowned architect can be seen as a persuasive strategy and could be discussed during this participatory process.
Establishing a permanent citizens’ assembly could address some of the challenges that temporary assemblies face. As an institutional body, it could introduce a binding effect on participation outcomes and standardize the assembly process, which in its turn would improve transparency and communication while keeping the public informed. An institutional body could awaken more public trust than a citizens’ assembly and provide a more specific focus on a topic than the citizens’ decision. Additionally, having a permanent assembly could offer a broader range of topics and a more consistent way of handling them. The probability of instrumentalizing the tools of public participation or their political misuse, as in the case of the HochHausSTOP initiative, which mimicries a citizen’s bottom-up initiative, could be minimized.
Conclusively, the assembly at the PaketPost area showcases the need for more regular assemblies that could be organized by a permanent citizens’ assembly, reflecting the growing mistrust in representative democratic tools. At the national level, permanent citizens’ assemblies already exist in some European countries, such as Belgium. Implementing one locally, starting with urban development issues, could be an effective pilot project for this model in Germany, which could start in Munich – the place for national lighthouse pilot projects in urban development.
Zukhra Mavlanova is a master’s student in Architecture at the Technical University of Munich (TUM). Their academic interests include urban development, governance and the intersection of architecture, city planning and politics. This article is part of their ongoing research into democratic tools in urban planning.