Livable Cities - London AMPS | City, University of London Page 209 engage various stakeholders in shaping the future.7 ULLs involve users as co-creators, support a networked governance approach, and recognize government as an enabler of change.8 Pop-up interventions that re-purpose sections of streets by reducing space for motorized traffic are intended to bring positive impacts, such as increased pedestrian traffic and more cycling, while being implemented quickly.9 Design theory that situates experiments and their significance and impact within a broader context of uncertainties can be found, for example, in Herbert Simon’s 1969 book “The Sciences of the Artificial.” He contrasts critical thinking, which deconstructs ideas, with design thinking, which builds them up. Simon defined design as “the transformation of existing conditions into preferred ones,” a core principle of experimentation.10 Design thinking is a human-centered approach to innovation and problem-solving that emphasizes empathy, ideation, prototyping, and testing to create user-centric solutions. It integrates creative and analytical processes to address complex challenges in a holistic manner.11 The necessity of a socio-ecological mobility transition is undisputed in the context of climate change, placing considerable pressure on municipalities to take action.12 Hereby, as local key players, they are increasingly involving public participation in planning processes.13 By integrating the public, they foster the co-evolution and co-specialization of knowledge and innovation paradigms, promoting a pluralistic and democratic approach that includes diverse societal needs and perspectives.14 The Design Thinking approach, ULLs, and pop-up interventions aim to effectively integrate participation while accelerating implementation. But how do these experiments fit into planning processes and municipal decision-making strategies? Under what conditions do such prototypes become effective and meaningful? METHODOLOGY This paper employs a qualitative research methodology, utilizing case studies to explore the effectiveness of urban experimentation. Data were collected through mixed-methods approach, a combination of interviews with key stakeholders, observations of the interventions, and analysis of relevant documents and reports. A total of 7 semi-structured interviews were conducted with administrative staff, 1 interview with the traffic commissioner of the largest city council faction, and notes from conversations with involved politicians who participated in site visits for Case B were prepared. TWO CASE STUDIES FROM MUNICH, TRANSFORMING URBAN MOBILITY After decades of efforts to shift away from post-war, car-centric urban planning, Munich adopted the urban development plan 'Perspektive München' in 1998.15 It serves as a flexible framework to guide future urban development, with a core objective of fostering citizen participation. Specialized plans, such the traffic development plan, are part of it and are regularly revised: the current 'Mobility Strategy 2035' aims to enhance quality of life and the common good, targeting 80% emission-free vehicles, public transportation, and pedestrian or bicycle travel by 2025, along with achieving "Vision Zero" – no traffic fatalities.16 While these strategies and plans establish the groundwork for a profound transformation at the planning level and garnered democratic approval through political endorsement, the slow and hesitant implementation of measures has been regularly criticized. As a result, a citizens' referendum ‘Initiative Radentscheid’ was initiated.17 The referendum's objectives to strengthen cycling infrastructure over car traffic were adopted by the city council. However, the gap between stated goals and the actual transformation towards a sustainable, more livable city remained significant, not only in the cycling context.18
