Understanding Urban Development in Germany(1)

Klaus R. Kunzmann

1 Introduction

Planners are professionals, who like to travel. In times of globalization and open borders they wish to learn about planning successes and achievements in other countries. They know the limits of planning when designing and implementing liveable neighbourhoods and guiding planning processes to sustain the endangered environment. Hence, they are curious to know, whether planning systems and conditions in other countries offer transferable solutions to the challenges they are facing at home.Experience tells that travelling abroad is a good opportunity to learn more about one’s own country, more than about the country they are visiting.Travelling planners are soon aware that the politico-administrative context is different, that socioeconomic conditions cannot really be compared,that history matters, and that all this has an impact on the respective planning culture. As a rule, most travelling of planners intended to gain from planning experience in another country are based on superficial insights into the respective planning culture. As a rule, the visual experience dominates,unless visits are made in the context of organized study tours or professional international congresses and conventions, where local study tours or moving workshops provide some more contextual background information. Though even then many insights often remain on the surface unless they mirror personal insights at home. What seems to be a planning success in another country can quickly turn out as a project that benefited from a particular window of political opportunity or the inimitable commitment of single personalities. Learning from planning failures is even more difficult. It requires a much deeper understanding of a local or regional planning context. There is an enormous variety of institutional and political settings, and, not to forget, of political cultures around the world (Nisbeth 2011; Joynt/Warner 1996).Much has been written about different planning cultures and about travelling knowledge (see for example Sanyal 1990; Healey/Upton 2010;Friedmann 2011). While some authors consider planning to be a field that requires a global view ignoring specific endogenous conditions, others express the necessity of rather consider the particular regional context, when planning for people in a country or region (Kunzmann 1995; 2004).Most efforts to compare planning cultures often fail. They lose ground in dealing with complexity.That is why most efforts to compare two countries end in a mere description of the planning system in another country, or just by describing two projects in two different countries. That is always enlightening, But it does hardly give any deeper hints to address challenges at home. Comparative studies are a difficult arena. Changing the planning system is hardly in the hands of planners. Market driven development is dominating planning around the world, in capitalist as in socialist countries. That is why spatial planning is more and more on the move back to local planning to guide local construction and cushion the extreme local implications of the market on people’s life spaces, on their “Heimat”.In times of easy global digital access to information, the travelling planner has many options to access information on planning in other countries.Though one sees what one knows. The scientific or expert traveller relies on digital platforms which offer selected information, on professional and academic journals, presenting planning success stories in other countries, as well as on presentations of foreign speakers at symposia or conferences, on written or oral experience by travelling scholars,colleagues and friends. As a rule, information on planning in other countries is quite randomly and erratic. It depends on the regard of curious editors and authors, on popular media, that are communicating projects related to ongoing activities, often just on ephemeral events, such as the Olympics, a World Championship, a G20 Summit or the Cultural City of Europe Program, which draw attention to a city and country during a limited period.It depends very much on the prevailing “Zeitgeist”,the hype or the urban development paradigm of the year.Curiosity in planning achievements does not have a global reach. Only a few countries are in the continuous focus of planners eager to learn from planning in other countries. Language, obviously constrains curiosity. English as the lingua franca is a decisive criterion for selecting international literature and for international communication, for citizen participation English does only make sense in countries, where English is the native language.French, Spanish, Russian and German or even Japanese, Chinese and Arabic are not languages the global planning community is using for transnational communication and learning. That is why the Anglo-American planning world is always in the focus, be it for the implications of the automobile on spatial development, for its exemplary interventions into urban and regional development,or for continuous fights of the civil society to compensate for hesitant public interventions into market- and developer-led development. Global cities like New York, Los Angeles or London attract particular attention, often more to legitimize and satisfy a touristic project than to learn more about innovative local projects and successful urban development policies. In the UK Greater London development, garden cities and new towns are attracting interest. Paris in France, Barcelona in Spain, Amsterdam in the Netherlands and Vienna in Austria are targets of travelling planners possibly rather as places to explore planning history, than as cities that teach how innovative and comprehensive sustainable urban planning in post-industrial times.Planning in the Netherlands and Belgium receives some publicity. Dutch and Belgium planners and geographers, as well as international scholars doing research at universities in these countries, are widely communicating narratives on planning achievements in international journals. The high quality of architecture and urban design and the successful decade-long efforts of urban and regional planning stakeholders to marry private and public interests are other reasons.Other countries are ignored. Planning in Switzerland is almost unknown. Not much is communicated internationally on planning in Northern, Southern or even Eastern and South Eastern European countries.Language capability is the main reason why this Anglo-American perspective, the lack of overseas orientation in planning education is another one.Germany is not a major champion among urban planners in the international academic community;except when it comes to learning how sustainable urban development can be implemented (Hall 2015, BBSR 2015). German planning successes and achievements are not much presented in English publications. Another reason is the fact that, mainly due to language constraints, only few foreign students are studying urban and regional planning in Germany and learn about the planning system in the country. The absence of German scholars in the international community of planners(exceptions apply) interest may also contribute to the low degree of international interest.

Introductory handbooks into urban planning,written in German, explain the system of urban planning, the regulatory context and administrative procedures, though they are solely written for German readers, who, based on their general school education, have some insight into the German context (e.g., Albers 1988; Grauel /Schwochlow 2012;Schäfers/Zapf 1998; Weber/Henkel 2008, ARL 2011; Henkel et al. 2010; Strubelt/Briesen 2015;Albers/Wekel 2017). They are not written for foreigners and their translation into English or other foreign languages would not really make sense.Language matters. German Books on planning theory, which could introduce into the world of planning in Germany, are scarce. Such books have been written in Germany decades ago, but after the Second World War, very few planners dared to communicate their insights into the world of urban planning and publish such books (exceptions are Albers 1988, Bökemann 1998; Spitzer 1995; Frick 2006).

The purpose of this essay is not intended to systematically describe the German planning system. This is done (in English!) in a few other publications(MECD, 2001; Baukultur 2016; Schoen 2018, 471-506).). The aim is rather to give some introductory background information to understand the wider context of urban and regional planning in Germany in the early 21st century. To limit its size this essay does not contain maps, figures and images, though they would have added more visual information. A broad range of informative maps is offered by the BBSR (see references).

2 Success stories of planning and policies in Germany

Germany is globally known for its economic strength, its engineering competence and its export industry, mainly based on automobiles and innovative industries.

Germany is known as a country that is burdened by its horrific political history (see for example, Ardagh 1995; Ritchie, 1999; Mc Gregor 2014; Hawes 2017). Since Otto von Bismarck introduced the welfare system in the country in 1883, Germany is also seen as a prominent member of the community of welfare states, where people enjoy much social security. Under the label “Soziale Marktwirtschaft”(social market economy) the country aims to balance market rationales with welfare requirements supported by the state. In this socio-political context, spatial planning in Germany (urban and regional planning at three tiers of planning and decision-making) plays an important role to sustain the environment and to maintain the quality of life in cities and regions for a population of around 82 million and a territory of 137.800 sq miles or 357,000 km². Any assessment of success is relative and subjective. The following selection of planning success is brief and epigrammatic. This assessment draws on 40 years of involvement in planning at all tiers of planning and decision-making in Germany and beyond. It can only open the windows for further and much deeper explorations into the respective field.

Reconstruction of war demolished cities: In 1945,after the Second World War most cities in Germany were heavily demolished. American and British air forces had bombed cities to hit industries and to demoralize citizen supporting for the fascist government. Cities like Berlin, Dresden, Cologne or Nuremberg were the main targets of the bombing, though also many small and medium-sized cities such as Kassel, Wrzburg or Augsburg were heavily bombed. Thousands of citizens lost their lives or lost their homes. The cities looked like the city of Hiroshima in Japan after the nuclear attack in August 1945. Immediately after the war reconstruction took place. Shelter had to be provided for the surviving citizens and over ten million refugees from former German territories in Eastern Europe under the supervision of the allied occupation forces. During the years of the reconstruction women labour played a crucial role. Men were either killed during the war or were kept as POW’s and forced labour in Russian, American,French or British camps outside Germany. Within a few years the heavily demolished cities were rebuilt, some in their old physical shape, a few(such as Essen, Dortmund or Kassel) following ambitious plans to modernize the cities based on new urban reconstruction paradigms preparing for automobile mobility. The paradigm, dubbed “Die gegliederte und aufgelockerte Stadt” (the functionally organized and loosely structured city) had already conceptualized during the Hitler regime.The reconstruction prepared the ground for and contributed much to the much-praised German Wirtschaftswunder (economic miracle).

Conservation of historical heritage: During the after war reconstruction period, both eagerness of the survivors and architectural ambitions to grasp the opportunity for modernizing cities, demolished more historical buildings than the bombs and subsequent firestorms. This experience, however, had another effect. It made citizens aware of the importance of historic buildings for maintaining local identity. It gradually led to the establishment of a competent and efficient public administration controlling heritage conservation and to strict regulations. Public and private support activities evolved.Private developers can deduct the costs of conserving the historical dimension of buildings from their income tax. The “Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutz” (German Foundation for the Conservation of Historical Heritage) , a private foundation largely supported by the civil society has become a key stakeholder in promoting and co-financing the conservation of historical buildings.

Balanced urban development: In contrast to other countries in Europe (France, Great Britain, Denmark or Hungary) the German urban system does not have a dominating metropolitan city. Only four cities have a population of more than one million(Berlin, Hamburg, Munich and Cologne). This is rooted in the federal history of the country and guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. Article 72 of the Basic German Law obliges the German government to guarantee equal living conditions in the whole country. This obligation is further detailed in the “German Raumordnungsgesetz”(German Spatial Development Act). The Federal Government, however, has only limited power and means to implement this aim. As a rule, regional development is still based on the theory of central places that defines the hierarchy of places and public and private services. In 2015 most Germans(27%) lived in small and medium-sized cities, that are evenly distributed across the country. Instead of local government consolidation aiming to form bigger entities, local governments prefer to co-operate in informal, but action-oriented city networks. Living conditions in urban, semi-urban and rural regions do not differ much. As a rule, jobs are available for all kind of academic and professional qualifications (see chapter on higher and dual education). Most public services, such as education and health, are accessible within reasonable distance by car or public transport. Though globalization and market-led priorities have its prize. Global economic forces favour the concentration of economic capital in metropolitan city regions. This in turn leads to growing rural to urban migration, and results in the gradual thinning out of costly public services in less densely populated rural areas beyond the metropolitan regions.

Controlling urban sprawl: Controlling urban sprawl in Germany has been quite successful. To guide spatial development within their territorial boundaries and following the German Baugesetzbuch(Federal Building Law) all local governments are obliged to approve land use plans. These plans have to cover the whole local territory. Strict rules to contain urban development and reduce the consumption of virgin land and general political awareness of sustainability are guiding the setting-up of local land use plans. After approval by the local parliament, the land use plan, usually set-up for a period of 15 year,is guiding and binding all landowners and public stakeholders in their development efforts. The land-use plans do not have the character of strategic urban development plans, but inform private and public land owners what kind of development (housing, mixed land use, industrial land use, parks, etc.) they would like to implement. Obviously, the strict containment of urban development cannot be implemented without favouring mixed land-use development in inner cities and without the promotion of efficient public transport.

Besides guiding regional infrastructure development, conserving the natural environment development, the prevention of urban sprawl is the main objective of regional planning, too. Spatial landuse specifications in local land use plans cannot contradict specifications in regional plans, though there is no top-down planning. Given the German counter current principle of planning that asks for mutual coordination of planning aims, regional planning authorities have to find consensus with local governments.

During the last decades of the 20th century urban development and town expansion in German cities were mainly done by private developers and house builders as well as by the public sector (public housing associations and housing cooperatives).Only in recent years international developers have entered the housing market in Germany. This fact,the communicative power of green action groups and media, as well as the general awareness of people for sustainable development are the reasons for the relativly good control of urban sprawl on the outer fringe of cities.

Behutsame Stadterneuerung (sensitive, gentle or careful urban regeneration): Until the late 70s urban regeneration in German cities focussed on demolishing run-down urban neighbourhoods and replacing it by modern buildings. This approach practiced by local governments in the spirit of developers had been abolished during the 1980s and replaced by a more people-oriented approach to urban revitalisation. The turning point was the 68-student revolution in Berlin, followed by illegal squatting and by efforts of the IBA Berlin(1974-78) to change the approach and prove its social and economic validity and legitimacy. 12 principles of careful urban regeneration were formulated and applied in model projects in Berlin Kreuzberg to show that a citizen-led approach to regeneration makes more sense than developer-led urban renewal. The main principles of this approach were among other early information and open communication with the residents how to

maintain the buildings, preserve the identity of the quarter, sensible adaptation of buildings to modern requirements, slow processes of implementation,gradual improvement of public services in the neighbourhood and new forms of transformation management. The approach was widely communicated and over the years became the template for urban regeneration all over Germany.

Soziale Stadt: (Social City). A Federal urban development programme, named “Urban Districts With Special Development Needs – the Socially Integrative City” addresses social problems and poverty in neglected urban areas. The programme had been launched by the German government in 1999 to promote neighbourhood-related integration strategies. Successes in the fields of activation and participation are mainly observed in districts that have established efficient on-site neighbourhood management in municipal government, and at an intermediate level. Neighbourhood management has proven to be crucial to encourage activation and involvement – the ongoing presence of experts at the grass-roots and the creation of onsite offices have been indispensable prerequisites for establishing communication, relationships of trust and player networks.

Sustainable urban development; Resource conservation and sustainable urban development are taken quite seriously in Germany. Underlying reasons are among others the German soul, deeply rooted in nature, the existence and political recognition of a Green Party, which at all tiers of government all over Germany is much involved in politics, an active civil society committed to and engaged in sustainable development, strong urban containment regulation in land use planning and zoning, as well as the interest of German industries in developing and exporting environmental technologies. The decision to step out of nuclear energy production and shift to renewable mainly (solar and wind)energy is one outcome of future-oriented environmental policies in the country. Other, more visible corollaries are numerous urban quarters in cities,where the sustainability dimension played a crucial role. Flagship examples are located in many cities.Freiburg and Tbingen are the most prominent,much communicated examples.

Conversion of military sites after reunification: In 1990, as a consequence of German reunification,Russian, American, British, French, Canadian,Belgian, East and West German military forces in Germany had been reduced enormously. Within a very brief time period their number decreased from around 800.000 to around 200.000. The implications were that numerous military barracks,airfields and other military sites became idle and were available for new uses. The Federal Government’s Agency for Real Estate, the legal owner of the land, encouraged local governments to develop ideas for the transformation of the sites. Following predefined procedures and principles that involved citizens and local stakeholders, many local governments initiated new public or public-private projects to turn the sites into quarters of affordable housing (e.g., Augsburg Sheridan Park, Heidelberg,Frth, Bamberg) or other functional uses as a university (University Campus Lneburg).

The IBA Approach: A successful feature of urban policies in Germany is the IBA approach to integrated urban development. IBA, an acronym for Internationale Bauausstellung (“International Building Exhibition”), though it is more than exhibition of innovative architecture. Inspired by real exhibitions of modern architecture in Darmstadt (1901) and Stuttgart (1927), as well as earlier world exhibitions in Paris and Chicago postwar IBA had been launched in Berlin in 1957 to demonstrate how reconstruction and future oriented urban development should be conceived and implemented. The following IBA in Berlin (1984/87)already expanded the mere architectural concept to a more integrated community development concept in an area of urban regeneration (Kreuzberg). The internationally much praised IBA Emscher Park in the Ruhr into a regional event to re-imagine the declining industrial region and to demonstrate how the industrial heritage of the region can be conserved and be reused as centres of urban creativity.(Kunzmann 2004, 2011; Reicher, et al. 2011).Since then, initiating an IBA has become a muchpostulated project on the wish list of local planners.They have learnt that only a media-covered event at a local or sub regional level can raise political support and financial commitments for integrated urban development at the local, respectively state level. Meanwhile, more cities and regions, among others Hamburg, Basel and Vienna as well as Saxony-Anhalt and Thuringia are using this approach for innovative urban and regional development.

Pedestrianisation of inner cities and the renaissance of the urban streetcar: A few large cities and most medium-sized cities in Germany have gradually limited car access for private cars to inner cities quarters. First, viewed with scepticism of the business community, employees, and residents living in the inner city, the policy has soon become a mainstream approach to raise the attractiveness of multi-functional inner cities. Paralleled by efforts to provide public and private parking in underground structures and improve public transport accessibility and frequency, the policy has considerably raised urban quality. The success of this policy is closely linked with the renaissance of the tramway in Germany. In most German cities, the tramway experienced a remarkable renaissance.In most large cities of Germany dense tramway networks are the backbones of public transport,even if some cities have built a few underground lines. Though given the relatively low density of residential quarters, the tramway is the more economic mode of public transport. More and more cities have also slowed down traffic in residential quarters, by limiting speed to 30 km/hour. Such measures do not only raise security of children and elderly people, but also contribute to more sustainable urban development.

Unser Dorf muss schöner werden (our village has become more beautiful):All over rural Germany villages can be found that reflect the particular regional culture and identity. As a rule they are densely nested around a white or red church tower.Decorated nicely by flower arrangements on private farmhouses these villages are the proud “Heimat” (homeland) of rural people, who enjoy the usually high living quality in rural areas. The physical transformation and expansion of these villages is much controlled by planning and building regulation. In addition policies have been launched to raise the awareness of villagers in tradition, house building crafts and architectural beauty. Since 1961 Germany is promoting identity and living quality in rural villages. Under the slightly reworded slogan“Unser Dorf hat Zukunft” (our village has a future)rural villages in Germany are competing countrywide to become the most beautiful and future oriented village of the year. This competition had been launched by the German Ministry of Agriculture to raise awareness for design quality in villages,bolster self-confidence, promote rural tourism, and encourage joint action of village communities for strengthening community development. Since 2007 the competition focuses on the particular challenge to stop the ongoing decline of rural villages, resulting from aging, structural change in agriculture,outmigration and the erosion of public services.To this end efforts have been made to maintain public services and stabilize rural areas. In some more scenic regions (e.g. in Bavaria, Brandenburg,Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Schleswig-Holstein or along the Rhine, Mosel and Elbe valleys, villages that are losing their prime economic function, have become favourite targets of more affluent second home owners. In these regions, urbanites invest in traditional houses to relax on weekends and holiday seasons. Though this kind of rural gentrification is protecting the cultural heritage, it does not stop the gradual economic decline.

3 Understanding urban development and urban policies in Germany

The achievements of German planning briefly sketched above have to be seen with some caution.They may not fully apply in all territories of Germany. Some achievements had their high time in the last century and are watering down under the pressure of economic crises and political reaction to international and populist challenges. Unexpected migration flows from Africa and the Middle East during the second decade of the 21st century,for example, have had much impact on affordable local housing markets.

Urban and regional planning in Germany is also confronted with numerous challenges, such as the implications of demographic aging, the inclusion of migrants, the lack of affordable housing in larger cities, the erosion of public and private services in rural areas, the concentration of economic development in larger city regions and the resulting implications for labour mobility, the gradual decline of family owned enterprises, the consequences

of digitalization, particularly the implications of e-shopping and changing consumer preferences and growing logistic services for traditional business and traders. A thorough analysis of these challenges would earn another essay. There are,however, many German language books describing these challenges (Häussermann et al. 2007; Siebel et al. 2007, Siebel 2015; Heinz 2015). All the above “successes” of urban (and regional) planning in Germany can only be understood, when considering the wider context of planning in the country.It is the wider context that explains planning successes and failures in all countries. The following twelve narratives aim to make an insight on which contextual preconditions the above success stories are grounded.

3.1 Federalism and multi-tier governance

Germany, a federal country, based on an old constitutional tradition, renewed by the Basic Law in 1949, is characterized by strong cultural & economic regionalism of 16 Laender (federal states)including three city states (Berlin, Hamburg and Bremen). The Federal system is the legacy of more than thousands years of feudal states and powerful city-states. The boundaries of these states changed frequently. After 1945 the Allied Forces imposed the present boundary change of the West German Laender (Federal States) . They were partly reconstituted, but also put to an end. Prussia has been deliberately cut into pieces to abolish a symbol of German power. A new Land was created, named Nordrhein-Westfalen (Northrhine-Westphalia).It is the most populous German state combining cities the river Rhine (Bonn, Cologne, Dsseldorf)with the Ruhr, the industrial heart of German, and rural regions in Eastern and Southern Westphalia.The new Land of Rheinland-Pfalz (Reno-Palatine)came into being. Furthermore, in 1952, the former states of Baden and Wrttemberg merged following the outcome of a people’s referendum. In 1990,after reunification, five additional new federal states (Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern,Sachsen-Anhalt, Sachsen and Thringen) evolved from historical provinces of the former Democratic Republic of Germany. The size, the population and the functional strength of the 16 territories vary considerably. For political reasons, several political

efforts to consolidate the territories, reduce their number and merge the smaller Laender into bigger territorial units have failed so far. Regional traditions and regional cultural identity have been stronger than criteria of administrative effectiveness.

Planning and decision-making in Germany is carried out at three tiers of government: the federal level, the level of the Laender and that of local governments (cities and counties). Spatial planning at the federal level is not quite powerful. The responsibility for federal spatial planning is frequently travelling from ministry to ministry. Reasons are a low political interest in spatial planning,the lack of instruments to guide spatial planning in the country, and the fact that the policy field has no budget for implementing projects, apart from a small budget line for research, communication and pilot projects exploring the urgency of new policy corridors. Following constitutionally defined principles the overall aim of Federal spatial planning is to guarantee and maintain equal living conditions(gleichwertige Lebensbedingungen) all over Germany. However, this aim is continuously neglected by market-led economic development policies that are reacting to the challenges of globalization of digitalization and favouring the competitiveness of larger city regions.

Besides the responsibility for updating federal planning legislation, the most important output of the responsible ministry is the supervision of the Raumordnungsbericht (Federal Spatial Planning Report, regrettably only published in German),which is published every few year. This report is produced on the basis of comprehensive spatially relevant information by the Bundesinstitut fr Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung im Bundesamt fr Bauwesen und Raumordnung. This report gives the best overview of spatial development in the country. It is an essential source of space related information for all sector ministries at the Federal and the Laender level.

The German constitution grants much power to the Laender. They have full autonomy in cultural affairs. There is no federal ministry of culture that exerts power over the federal states.Among others, the Laender are also responsible for education and higher education (with a few exceptions such as two military universities or the German University of Administrative Sciences). Under federal legislation, the spatial,regional and urban development is guided by the respective Laender ministries who are in turn supervising local governments. Several times a year a standing conference of the Bund and the Laender ministries responsible for spatial planning coordinates spatial policies. Spatial planning at the Laender level (Landesplanung,more recently Landesraumordung) had its high time in Germany a few decades ago, when infrastructure planning (particularly motorways and railway lines) was high on the political agenda. North Rhine Westphalia and Bavaria were known for their efficient state development planning. In recent years more administrative control functions replaced pro-active development functions. The state development reports(Landesentwicklungsprogramme) issued by the state governments are catalogues of aims for balanced sustainable development and the protection of the environment including guidelines for regional-local cooperation in implementing the programmes of the Laender government.

3.2 The power of local self government

As an expression of civic freedom, local self-government has a long tradition in Germany. It can be traced back to the privileges given to towns to free them from feudal serfdom: “Stadtluft macht frei” (City air gives freedom). In the Middle Ages,free cities had much power. They were centres of trade and crafts; they held markets and fairs, and they formed city networks to promote secure political independence and promote trade. In 1808, a Municipal Ordinance guaranteed self-governance to cities in Germany. Though for historical reasons,municipal constitutions vary from state to state.But the local administrative practice is by and large the same across the country. Every community governs itself in all local affairs, subject only to the legal control of the land. This includes urban planning, local public transport, local road building, electricity, water and gas, public (affordable)housing, waste disposal, public security building and maintenance of public elementary and secondary schools, theatres, museums hospitals, sport facilities, public baths, adult education, as well as social welfare and the integration of migrants. The adequate funding of all these local tasks is continuously at the centre of political discussions (see sections 6 and 8). Local governments implement federal and state laws. Local governments are the state’s smallest political entity, whose independent and democratic functioning is a prerequisite of freedom and justice in government and society.

As a rule, coalitions of different political parties in local parliaments are discussing and deciding on local development affairs. Mayors, elected by the local parliament, are key personalities in local affairs. Besides the mayor and the local parliament other influential stakeholders are the local or regional Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Trade and Crafts, together with city utility corporations, church representatives, the local BUND(Bund Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland) and local branches of unions.. Local self-government gives all citizens an opportunity to play their part and have a controlling influence. Public participation is well established. The civil society is a powerful local actor. Controversial larger infrastructure projoects and flagship buildings are frequently causing local political conflicts.

Within federal legal regulation (Bundesbaugesetzbuch, BauGB) urban development at the local level is guided by land use planning and zoning (Flächennutzungsplanung) and detailed building regulations(Bauleitplanung). Cities and counties have their own planning departments responsible for planning, controlling landuse, and issuing building permits. They employ planners as civil servants, who as a rule have passed a 2nd state examination as an urban planner,following a graduate degree in spatial planning, urban development or even architecture. Over the years,more planners trained at university departments of planning, rather than architect-urbanists fill in these positions. Smaller Towns commission planning tasks to planning consultants. Stakeholders of the local economy very much complain about increasing bureaucracy (red-tape) related to local planning and building processes. In fact it is a tedious process to get a building permit. Builders have to comply with a great number of regulations, reaching from safety regulations to sustainable norms.

All German cities are also organized in two civic associations, one for bigger cities (Deutscher Städtetag) and one for smaller cities and counties (Städte-und Gemeindebund). Both associations financed by membership fees, are the watchdog defending the idea of local self-government at state and federal level. The German foundation for Baukultur(reference sources) strives to promote architectural and urban design quality in cities and counties.

3.3 A balanced urban system

A bundle of reasons led to the existence of a significantly balanced urban system in Germany. Main reasons are the history of urban development in numerous feudal territories, the spirit of self-government, the constitutional “Leitbild” (development perspective) of balanced regional development. In contrast to France, Great Britain, Austria and Hungary, the German urban system is not dominated by a large metropolis. This is rooted in 2000 years of urban history. The Romans founded the first cities in Germany (e.g. Trier, Speyer, Cologne, Regensburg) as colonial strongholds. Later during the middle Ages other cities located at the crossroads of trade routes emerged as hub centres of trade (e.g.Frankfurt, Nuremberg, Hamburg, Lbeck, Leipzig Bremen) or as centres of clerical power (e.g. Augsburg, Bamberg or Worms). Feudal emperors build new residential cities (e.g. Karlsruhe, Mannheim,Munich, Potsdam or Dresden) and founded new universities in these locations. Industrialization in the 19th century led to the growth of small towns or rural industrial villages to large industrial cities(e.g. Essen, Bochum, Duisburg, Halle, Chemnitz).After the Second World War new industrial cities evolved in Wolfsburg, Salzgitter, Schwedt or Eisenhttenstadt. Each federal state is governed from a city as the political, administrative and economic centre of the Land. This shows that over centuries a broad spectrum of large and medium-sized cities with distinct local identities evolved all over the country. 11.000 local governments accommodate a large proportion of the German population. The tradition of self-government discourages local politicians to consolidate small local governments and create bigger administrative entities, in order to raise development efficiency.

Generally there is not much difference in liveability in urban and rural areas. primary and secondary schools, colleges and institutes of higher education,hospitals and other public services as well as banks are accessible. Given the high population density in the country, most services are available within 30 minutes or 50 km. Ranking the institutional quality of services is not a German concern. Decisions to live in the larger city or a smaller town are made on the bases of individual choices concerning family traditions, housing preferences, job alternatives,entertainment opportunities, environmental conditions or car dependency and access to nature. State policies and regulations take care that the quality of services is more or less equal across the states.Following the principles of the central place theory the Laender governments support the provision accessible public and private services across all regions in the state territory.

Most regions and towns in Germany state offer a broad range of jobs for highly qualified labour as well as for semi-skilled and unskilled labour. The tradition of family owned enterprises (see section 7)and the well-established system of dual education(see section 8) are pillars of relatively balanced regional labour markets. Agriculture is still very much in the hands of family owned farms. Industrial agriculture is increasing though not yet dominating traditional agricultural production.