Livable Cities - London AMPS | City, University of London Page 214 and demonstrated tangible spatial impacts. Table 1. Key Insights of Case Study A and B Key Principles of Design Thinking To explore synergies and tensions between municipal roles and citizen participation, we examine the application of design thinking in urban planning. In Case B, empathy was demonstrated through citizen consultations and co-creative workshops, providing valuable insights into local needs. However, incorporating these findings was slow due to bureaucratic processes requiring district committee approval and mobility department orders. In contrast, Case A’s participation occurred post-prototype dismantling, entirely online due to the Covid pandemic. While digital formats reached a broader audience, including non-residents, they lacked immediacy in influencing interventions. Ideation in both cases remained expert-driven, primarily involving urban planners and mobility enthusiasts. Administrative challenges were significant. Case A’s pop-up process created high workloads due to formal requirements, including three city council proposals and elaborate citizen engagement formats. Despite achieving permanent implementation, the outcome was limited to 3 km of bike lanes. In Case B, legal uncertainties and political debates increased administrative burdens, leading to hesitance about future expansions. Prototyping in both cases provided valuable real-world data and user feedback. In Case A, this informed long-term implementation, while Case B lacked a clearly defined long-term goal. While the urban development plan has goals and strategies, these appear politically fragile in the context of today’s experiments. Political decision-makers closely monitor the progress of the experiments and express support or opposition depending on the outcomes. However, they do not defend the experiments as important tools for making informed decisions. Testing is the iterative process of evaluating prototypes, gathering feedback, and making necessary adjustments. This stage is crucial for ensuring that the final solutions are effective and well-received by the community. No further iterations were planned for Case B after the measures’ removal, shifting responsibility to citizen initiatives. Temporary interventions in both cases demonstrated potential for lasting change but highlighted limitations when Design Thinking principles were inconsistently applied. Effective integration of citizen participation requires experiments to adhere to clear, long-term goals and maintain reversibility and cost-efficiency during prototyping. However, deviations arise due to political concerns (negative press or voter backlash), administrative fears (mistakes or liability), and citizen dissatisfaction (perceived exclusion). These disruptions interrupt the iterative logic of Design Thinking, which thrives on testing constructed realities rather than preemptive approval. Lydon and Garcia highlight that “The goal is to show people different opportunities in the real world so that more informed decisions may be made by a more diverse audience of people.”27 Properly executed experiments serve as powerful tools for community engagement and data-driven decision-making. Reflecting Donald Schön’s concept of design as a “reflective conversation with the situation,” experimentation effectively adapts to real-world challenges.28, RECOMMENDATIONS The Munich case studies highlight the importance of adhering to key principles for urban experiments to drive the transformation of livable cities. Experiments bring concepts to life, make assumptions visible, and enable stakeholders to experience changed realities. Fostering an experimental mindset at all levels, embracing positive feedback, and learning from errors are essential. Knowledge sharing and careful selection of participation formats further enhance the process. Effective urban experimentation requires:
