Speaker
Description
During the socio-political upheavals of the late 1960s and 1970s, Western planning authorities faced unprecedented challenges to their established decision-making authority. While research has widely examined the democratic aspirations of the 1968 student movement, the subsequent democratic mobilization of the broader public and its direct disruption of local administrative power relations remain often overlooked. Urban planning, with its immediate impact on citizens' physical and social environments, became a highly contested arena where traditional planning procedures were destabilized, introducing a structural condition of governance uncertainty. This doctoral project investigates how citizen participation in Hamburg and London during the 1970s operated as a space of uncertainty, prompting administrative experimentation, conflict, and collective learning. By analysing how these early participatory practices redistributed the capacity for action within everyday spaces, this study examines how civil society debates can gradually bring about more profound, transformative changes in spatial planning, whilst highlighting how citizens demanded a say in urban planning and how local authorities adapted to these new expectations regarding democracy and planning.
By analysing the shifting dynamics of spatial governance following the socio-political movements of the late 1960s, this study conceptualizes the emergence of citizen participation as a critical transition within democratic and planning history. By reviewing planning systems in Germany and the United Kingdom following the Second World War and focusing on approaches developed after 1968, the study examines the relationship between citizens’ initiatives and official responses as a process of structural renegotiation. Different theoretical approaches to participation—first and foremost Sherry Arnstein’s 'Ladder of Participation'—serve as the analytical framework to evaluate how power relations were redistributed, examining whether new planning practices led to genuine citizen empowerment or served as tokenistic co-optation. Bridging urban planning history, political science, and social research, this framework conceptualizes local participatory conflicts not as isolated events, but as incremental mechanisms that increasingly transformed planning cultures from technocratic procedures into contested, democratic practices.
To explore how planning transitions and governance uncertainties unfold in practice, this study adopts a transnational, comparative historical case study design. The metropolitan areas of Hamburg and London were selected for their profound structural and historical comparability. During the 1970s, both stood as the largest and most populous cities in their respective nations (as Berlin was divided between East and West and therefore smaller than Hamburg), sharing similar infrastructural configurations and economic dependencies on their major ports. Furthermore, both cities faced intense urban pressure during this decade; having suffered extensive destruction during the Second World War, the hasty reconstruction efforts of the late 1940s and 1950s had left a legacy of dense residential quarters that no longer met modern living and environmental standards. To enhance comparability, this project does not examine these two cities as a whole, but focuses on individual boroughs, renewal projects, or specific streets (such as the renewal of the Covent Garden district in London following the relocation of the famous market, and the "City West" renewal project in Ottensen, Hamburg, where plans to demolish residential areas for a highway and office buildings sparked widespread protest). This comparative lens allows the research to map a diverse constellation of actors, their scope of action, and their shifting expectations within two distinct Western administrative systems navigating socio-political change.
The temporal focus on the 1970s captures a critical window of transition, during which the democratic impulses of the late 1960s materialized into localized spatial contestations. This transformative era is bounded by the end of the post-war economic boom and, conversely, the emergence of a new planning paradigm in the United Kingdom under Margaret Thatcher, which significantly altered the landscape of public participation.
In order to trace these controversial processes of change, the methodology draws on an analysis of various archival and empirical sources. Comprehensive archival research across multiple repositories in Germany and the UK was conducted to examine administrative files, spatial planning drafts, minutes of planning meetings, and official correspondence. To balance this administrative perspective with bottom-up dynamics, the dataset also includes protest leaflets, documentation from local citizens' initiatives, press reports, and public letters addressed directly to planning authorities. To capture the lived experience of everyday planning uncertainty and recover discourses that escaped formal written records, these archival sources are complemented by semi-structured oral history interviews with contemporary actors representing administrative, political, and civic perspectives.
This study aims to demonstrate that new forms of public participation did not simply arise as administrative concessions imposed from above, but were jointly shaped through a dynamic interplay between grassroots conflicts, public protests and a changing professional identity within the planning authorities. The socio-political movements of the late 1960s transcended university campuses and international issues, directly affecting citizens' everyday lives through contested urban spatial restructuring. However, the findings indicate that formalizing participation did not automatically translate into a genuine redistribution of decision-making power; rather, early participatory projects frequently struggled due to institutional inertia, systemic friction, a lack of participation by the general public and mismatched expectations.
Crucially, the comparative analysis of Hamburg and London reveals that urban planning under these new mandates was characterized by a profound, mutual learning process under conditions of uncertainty. In exploring these as yet untested participatory spaces, both the planning authorities and civil society actors had to actively break with old habits and experiment together with new forms of communication. By highlighting how both sides stumbled, adapted, and gradually renegotiated trust, these expected results illustrate how the friction and struggles of 1970s planning projects were not mere failures. Instead, they acted as essential, incremental learning cycles that cumulatively catalysed a deeper, long-term transformation of democratic planning cultures and spatial governance, some of which remain in effect today.
These findings contribute to a nuanced critique of traditional participation theories. While frameworks like Sherry Arnstein’s 'Ladder of Participation' offer valuable tools for measuring the direct redistribution of power, they often conceptualize participation as a static, linear progression. By contrast, historical developments in Hamburg and London suggest that democratic change in the field of spatial planning is, by its very nature, non-linear and chaotic. By framing early participatory failures and administrative friction not as terminal dead-ends, but as necessary, incremental learning cycles, this study expands our understanding of how planning pathways are contested and reshaped. It demonstrates that administrative adaptation and public trust are not prefabricated prerequisites for planning, but are themselves co-produced through the very process of navigating conflict and governance uncertainty.
Furthermore, this historical perspective offers vital insights for contemporary planning practices operating under conditions of uncertainty. Given today’s volatile political climate, characterised by growing global polarisation, systemic scepticism towards democratic institutions and pressing socio-ecological crises, research into democracy (Demokratiegeschichte) is becoming increasingly important, including in the field of urban planning. The transition of the 1970s illustrates that long-term, systemic transformations in spatial governance are often catalysed by the increasing weight of localized, everyday struggles rather than seamless, top-down designs. Investigating these democratization processes reveals that the stability of democratic systems relies not on avoiding conflict, but on the capacity to institutionalize uncertainty and create adaptive, inclusive arenas for public negotiation. Reflecting on these early experiments helps contemporary planning research move beyond viewing public contestation as an obstacle to be managed. Instead, this paper concludes that embracing historical lessons of institutional stumbling and civic learning can empower current practitioners to treat planning uncertainty not as a technical limitation, but as a productive, democratic space where new alliances, transformative action, and resilient urban futures can emerge. However, the central argument of this paper is to highlight a transformation and strengthening of democracy. Democracy is not a rigid concept, but rather a living system that adapts to new needs. Urban planning serves as an example of this adaptation.
This PhD project is part of a joint project on widespread participation and is financially supported by the Gerda Henkel Foundation. It was started in November 2024.
References
(short excerpt/ archival material and interviews not included in list)
- Anson, Brian (1982): I'll fight you for it! Behind the struggle for Covent Garden. London.
- Arnstein, Sherry (1969): A ladder of citizen Participation. In: Journal of the American Planning Association (Vol. 35, Nr. 4), S. 216–224.
- Aurich, Heli (1976): Partizipation in der Stadtplanung.
- Baubehörde Hamburg (1980): Der Bürger plant mit. Erläuterungen zum Bebauungsplanverfahren. Hamburg.
- Baumeister, Martin, Bonomo Bruno, Schott Diester (2017): Introduction: Contested Cities in an Era of Crisis. In: Cities Contested - Urban Politics, Heritage, and Social movements in Italy and West German in the 1970, S. 7–30.
- Bertram, Grischa (2015): "A peaceful path" but no "real reform"? Protest, Zivilgesellschaft und Planung in England. In: Städtische Planungskulturen im Spiegel von Konflikten, Protesten und Initiativen, S. 111–154.
- Bertram, Grischa (2024): Stadt und Protest. In: Handbuch Stadtsoziologie.
- Bundesministerium für Raumordnung, Bauwesen und Städtebau (1980): Stadtentwicklung. Bürgerbeteiligung bei der Stadterneuerung Beispiel: Karl-Theodor-Straße, Hamburg. In: Schriftenreihe des Bundesministers für Raumordnung, Bauwesen und Städtebau.
- Drücke, Bernd (1997): Zwischen Schreibtisch und Straßenschlacht? Anarchismus und libertäre Presse in Ost- und Westdeutschland. Münster.
- Gatzka, Claudia; Kruke, Anja (2026): Repräsentation und Partizipation – ein Spannungsfeld der Demokratiegeschichte. Einleitung. In: Partizipation und Repräsentation - Eine demokratische Liebesgeschichte? (AfS 65), S. 9–28.
- Hain, Peter (1982): The Nationalisation of Public Participation. In: Community Development Journal (Vol. 17, No. 1), S. 36–40.
- Hebbert, Michael (2019): Planning, knowledge and technocracy in historical perspective. In: Planning and Knowledge, How new forms of technocracy are shaping contemporary cities, S. 19–30.
- Huw, Thomas (1996): Public participation in planning. In: British Planning Policy in Transition, Planning in the 90s, S. 168–188.
- Templin, David (2024): Contested Neighbourhoods of Arrival. Migration and Conflicts over urban Space in the 1970s Hamburg. In: Urban Activism in Western Europe from the 1950s to the 1980s.
- Welch Guerra, Max (2024): Criticism of spatial planning in the GDR. In: Histories of Urban Planning and Political Power; European Perspectives - European Perspectives, S. 145–158.