27.04.2026

Multiverses in Urban Planning: Digital Planning Parallels

Building design

Digital cityscape with red lights by Muriel Liu

Parallel universes for planners? Multiverses in urban planning aren’t just a sci-fi gimmick—they’re the new frontier of urban digitalization. Anyone who thinks only in terms of singularities today is missing the pulse of the digital age—and risks having their own city simulated faster than they can say “building permit.” Welcome to the age of parallel planning, in which digital multiverses are reshaping not only the city but also the architectural profession’s very self-image.

Multiverses in urban planning enable simultaneous, data-driven design worlds and are revolutionizing the traditional understanding of planning.
Germany, Austria, and Switzerland are caught between a thirst for innovation and a fear of regulation—while international cities have long been tinkering with multiple urban realities simultaneously.
Digital twins merge with AI, simulation, and citizen participation to form planning ecosystems that run through scenarios in real time.
Sustainability is taking center stage: no longer just forecasts, but continuous assessment and optimization of climate resilience, mobility, and resource consumption.
The technology demands: data literacy, governance strategies, and a critical eye toward algorithmic biases.
Critics warn against “black-box” politics, the commercialization of urban models, and a lack of transparency in decision-making processes.
At the same time, the potential is enticing: the democratization of urban design, smart participation, and the chance to simulate mistakes before construction begins—rather than having to fix them afterward.
The global architectural community debates: Are multiverses the tool for a resilient, dynamic city—or just a playground for tech enthusiasts?

The Digital Multiverse: New Dimensions for Urban Planning

Multiverses in urban planning are more than just a buzzword for the next architects’ party. They refer to the ability to simultaneously generate, test, and iteratively develop different digital city models—so-called parallel universes. What used to end as a “scenario comparison” in PowerPoint slides now takes place on digital platforms as a dynamic process. These multiverses combine real-world geodata, sensor information, AI-powered simulations, and participatory tools to create a previously unmatched diversity of planning options. Every variant of a neighborhood development, every redesign of a traffic area, and every alternative energy supply is no longer viewed merely as a separate study, but as part of a continuous, data-driven planning universe.

In Germany, Austria, and Switzerland in particular, this development is still marked by a certain underlying skepticism. While Helsinki, Singapore, and Seoul have long been refining multiple digital city models, Central Europe is approaching the concept more cautiously. The reasons are manifold: ranging from fragmented data to legal uncertainties to cultural reservations about data-driven planning. Nevertheless, the first multiverse approaches are emerging here as well—for example, in Hamburg’s HafenCity, Zurich’s smart city initiatives, and Vienna’s digital twin projects. The real revolution lies in the fact that planning is no longer understood as a linear process, but rather as a dynamic system that constantly generates and reflects new realities.

Technically, multiverses rely on the integration of urban digital twins, real-time databases, AI simulations, and open platforms. This makes it possible not only to juxtapose different visions of the future but also to link them together and evaluate their impacts in real time. Planning decisions are thus placed in a multidimensional context—and the classic “best-case” or “worst-case” approach evolves into a pluralistic decision-making landscape. In practice, this means that instead of committing to a single master plan, planners can simultaneously pursue and evaluate different development paths and flexibly adapt them to new insights.

But these new freedoms also bring new challenges. Those who manage multiverses must not only master the technology but also address governance issues: Who owns the data? Who decides which scenario becomes reality? And how can citizens be meaningfully involved without digital complexity becoming a barrier to participation? These questions are shaping the current debate among experts—and they will play a decisive role in determining the success or failure of multiverse urban planning.

The global architecture community is watching this development with great interest. Multiverses promise nothing less than the democratization of urban development—but they also threaten to place even more power over urban space in the hands of those who control the digital tools. There is thus a fine line between vision and criticism, along which the discipline is currently realigning itself.

Digitalization, AI, and the Convergence of Urban Parallelities

No multiverse without digitalization—the equation is that simple. The technological foundation for these new planning parallels is provided by urban data platforms, powerful cloud infrastructures, and AI-powered analytical tools. While conventional city models often ended up as static representations, multiverses are adaptive systems that are constantly fed with real-time data from sensors, traffic, weather, and social media. The result: a living, learning representation of the city that not only visualizes different states but can also simulate complex interactions and unexpected effects.

Artificial intelligence plays a central role in this process. AI algorithms analyze vast amounts of data, identify patterns, predict trends, and even independently propose new scenarios for urban development and resource use. These digital multiverses are proving to be game-changers, particularly in the areas of climate resilience, traffic optimization, and energy efficiency. For example, various measures to reduce heat islands or improve public transportation can be tested in parallel, and their effects on the entire urban fabric can be evaluated in real time.

Austrian cities such as Vienna are already experimenting with AI-supported multiverse models to simulate neighborhood developments under different climate and mobility scenarios. Zurich uses digital twins to simultaneously assess the impact of new construction projects on air quality, noise levels, and social dynamics. In Germany, such projects are still more fragmented, but the trend is clear: Anyone who wants to remain relevant in urban planning today must speak the language of algorithms—and be prepared to work with parallel realities.

Digital sovereignty remains a contested arena. The more complex the systems, the greater the dependence on specialized software providers and global cloud services. At the same time, pressure is mounting on municipalities to establish open standards and interfaces so as not to lose control over urban data and models. The future of parallel planning thus depends not only on technical innovation but also on the ability to rethink governance structures and data protection strategies.

The tension between innovation and regulation shapes the discussion. While planners and developers prioritize maximum flexibility and speed, data protection advocates, ethicists, and citizens’ groups call for transparency, traceability, and democratic oversight. The question of who defines “reality” in the multiverse thus becomes the defining issue of digital urban development.

Sustainability in the Multiverse: From Simulation to Continuous Optimization

Multiverses are bringing a new dimension to the broader discourse on sustainability. What was yesterday still a static list of goals in a climate protection plan has today become an ongoing simulation and real-time evaluation. Digital parallelism makes it possible not only to plan various measures to reduce CO₂ emissions, promote sustainable mobility, or green urban spaces, but also to simulate their interactions and continuously optimize them. The classic “trial and error” approach to urban development thus becomes “trial before error”—mistakes are made digitally before they are set in stone.

In Switzerland, for example, Zurich uses digital multiverses to test the effects of traffic calming measures, new bike paths, or solar initiatives under various socioeconomic and climatic conditions. This continuous evaluation makes it possible to identify conflicting goals early on, weigh compromises transparently, and dynamically adjust measures. The advantage: Sustainability becomes an integral part of the entire planning process—rather than an after-the-fact fig leaf for failed urban development.

The challenges are also evident. The quality of the simulations depends crucially on the data set, modeling expertise, and the openness of the platforms. Where data is missing or algorithms remain opaque, there is a risk of distortions and poor decision-making. At the same time, there is a danger that sustainability goals will be overshadowed by economic interests or technocratic biases. The debate surrounding open data, data sovereignty, and algorithmic accountability is therefore a fundamental component of multiversal urban planning.

Today, planners must not only possess traditional design skills but also the ability to interpret complex data models, critically analyze simulations, and steer technological developments with a strategic eye. The sustainable city is no longer built, but programmed—and that calls for a new professional profile that combines architecture, technology, and governance.

From a global perspective, pressure is mounting on European cities not just to pay lip service to sustainability, but to deliver on it. Multiverses offer the opportunity to translate the ambitious goals of the Green Deal, the 2030 Agenda, or national climate plans into transparent, verifiable, and continuously adaptable processes. The only question is whether the discipline is ready to fulfill this radical promise of transparency.

Criticism, Risks, and the Future of the Profession: Between Black Box and Democratic Arena

Multiverses in urban planning are not a panacea. The euphoria surrounding digital parallel worlds is accompanied by fundamental criticism. Skeptics warn of the danger of delegating urban development to opaque algorithms and commercial platform providers. The “black box” problem is real: Who really understands how decisions are actually made in the thicket of simulations and AI models? The transparency of decision-making processes is becoming the defining issue for democracy—and the Achilles’ heel of digital urban development.

No less problematic is the looming commercialization of urban data models. Global tech conglomerates sense a business opportunity in smart cities—and offer turnkey solutions whose control and manageability often remain a mystery to local governments. The independence of urban planning is at stake when data sovereignty and governance are outsourced to external actors. Whoever holds the keys to the multiverse controls the city—at least in the digital sphere.

Nor should the danger of algorithmic biases be underestimated. AI systems reproduce existing inequalities, exacerbate blind spots, and favor certain scenarios if they are not critically monitored and managed. Planners’ responsibility is growing: they must not only design but also question, moderate, and educate. Without this critical competence, the multiverse risks degenerating into a playground for technocratic elites—and actual urban development is left by the wayside.

Despite all the risks, however, the multiverse also holds an enormous democratic opportunity. Never before has it been so easy to make complex interrelationships visible to a broad public, to organize participation, and to map out different interests in real time. The prerequisite, however, is that multiverses are designed to be open, transparent, and participatory. Otherwise, the digital city will remain an exclusive club for the initiated—and the dream of urban democracy will turn into a data nightmare.

For architects, planners, and urban developers, this means that anyone who wants to thrive in the multiverse needs not only technical expertise but also a strong sense of purpose, excellent communication skills, and a broad perspective. The future belongs to those who view digital parallels as a resource for better, fairer, and more sustainable cities—and not as an end in itself or an instrument of control.

Conclusion: Architecture in the Multiverse—Between Simulation and Self-Assertion

Multiverses in urban planning mark a paradigm shift that goes far beyond technological gimmicks. They challenge the discipline’s traditional self-image, shift power dynamics in the planning process, and open up new possibilities for sustainable, democratic, and resilient urban development. The DACH region stands at a crossroads: caught between international pressure to innovate, regulatory inertia, and the desire for control, it must decide whether to actively shape the possibilities of digital parallelities—or to let itself be driven by external actors.

The architecture of the future is no longer created in the singular, but in the digital plural. Those who embrace this can avoid mistakes, strengthen participation, and make sustainability a living practice. Those who hesitate risk falling behind—and ceding the playing field to the simulations of others. Multiverses are not science fiction, but the laboratory of tomorrow’s city. It is time for the German, Austrian, and Swiss planning landscape to take the leap—and enter its own multiverse.

22.04.2025

Architecture

44 residential units in Saint-Denis from DREAM

Building design

The new building with 44 residential units by DREAM. Photo: Cyrille Weiner

Two decades after the devastating fire in a dilapidated residential building on Rue Fraizier in Saint-Denis, a new construction project marks a turning point in the urban development of the north of Paris. The Parisian agency DREAM (Dimitri Roussel) has realized a residential ensemble with 44 units there – half for rent, half as subsidized ownership according to the “Bail Réel Solidaire” (BRS) model. It is the first project of its kind in Saint-Denis. However, the ambitious gesture is less about architectural showmanship and more about functional, mass-produced housing that strives for social integration.

The new building stands on a site that has been derelict since the fire in 2001. The fire at the time drastically exposed the dilapidated conditions in the old building, which was being used by shark tenants. The ensuing vacancy was perceived not only as a physical defect, but also as a social one. DREAM now sees the project as a contribution to “repairing” the neighborhood – and to re-establishing trust in the urban space.

The 44 residential units are spread across several buildings and follow a clear principle: as much individuality as possible within the standardized production. Almost all of the apartments are open-plan, with many facing in several directions. The majority have generous outdoor spaces – balconies or gardens at ground level. Interior qualities have also been considered: separate entrance areas with storage space, daylight kitchens that can be closed off if required and large window openings with panoramic views are all part of the repertoire.

The floor plan design is based on the charter of Plaine Commune, the inter-municipal association responsible for the area. The urban positioning of the buildings responds to morphological and climatic analyses of the site. A typical planning response is, for example, the staggering and orientation of the volumes to optimize daylight and natural ventilation.

In terms of design, DREAM dispenses with design experiments. Instead, the architectural expression arises from the materiality and rhythm of the façade. Wooden slats, metal panels and open balcony structures made from a combination of wood and metal structure the outer shell. Great importance was attached to prefabrication: The timber frame construction walls, including cladding, windows and shading elements, were manufactured entirely in the factory. The self-supporting balconies also arrived on site pre-assembled.

This strategy has several advantages: Firstly, it increases the quality of execution, and secondly, it reduces the construction time – a factor that plays a particular role in the densely built-up and socially sensitive Saint-Denis. All in all, the result is a residential building that relies on CO₂-reduced construction methods without playing this off visually.

What is striking about the project is the effort to establish communal zones alongside the private living space – a concept that is often referred to elsewhere as “third places”. In Saint-Denis, the elements are simple but effective: a large, inviting entrance area, green inner courtyards with passageways and roof gardens that serve as places to retreat and meet. The lobbies act as semi-public buffer zones between the street and the apartments. Visual references to the courtyard are intended to provide not only light but also social control.

The whole project was designed in collaboration with the public housing association Plaine Commune Habitat. The aim is to appeal to a heterogeneous group of residents – both people on low incomes and young families who want to build up property through the BRS model.

With a construction cost of around seven million euros and a living space of 2,775 square meters (SHAB), the project is within the scope of what is feasible in a subsidized context. The “NF Habitat” certification and compliance with the French thermal insulation regulation RT 2012 with a 20 percent reduction underline the ecological focus.

Those involved in the project include Bollinger+Grohmann (structural engineering), ENEOR (building services), Le Sommer (certification) and Topager for the landscape architecture. Cap-Exe was responsible for coordinating the various trades.

What can be deduced from the project in Saint-Denis for the current housing debate? Certainly not a new type. Rather, it shows how a combination of solid planning, serial production and municipal control can make a contribution to sustainable urban development – beyond creative exaggeration, but also without falling into banal functionality.

The architecture remains restrained but deliberate. It unfolds its effect through everyday use – as a place to live, to meet and to reappropriate a long-neglected urban space.

31.10.2024

Ukraine war: Мы за мир

Building design

As a result of the war in Ukraine, the European architecture scene has quickly taken a public stand against the Russian war of aggression. G+L also stands in solidarity with the Ukrainian people and government.

BIG, David Chipperfield Architects, Foster + Partners, gmp, Herzog und de Meuron, MVRDV, OMA, Snøhetta, Zaha Hadid Architects – as a result of the war in Ukraine, which violates international law, the who’s who of the European architecture scene publicly opposed the Russian war of aggression in a very short space of time at the end of February/beginning of March 2022. Within just a few days, numerous offices expressed their solidarity with the people in Ukraine and with all those who stand for peaceful coexistence – above all via social media. In the case of Chipperfield, HdM, OMA and Zaha Hadid, the public statements were followed by an immediate halt to all construction projects in Russia. BIG also announced in a statement that the office would not be carrying out any projects in Russia or for the Russian government. However, it is not clear from this whether a construction freeze has been imposed or whether there are simply no Russian projects currently in progress.

First the governments, then the private sector. Today, our globalized world also makes it possible for corporations, companies or even planning offices to impose sanctions. So while Apple, Siemens, Starbucks, McDonalds, Coca-Cola, Pepsi and the management consultancies KPMG, PWC, EY and Deloitte are suspending their business in Russia as a result of the war of aggression, or Elon Musk is actively supporting Ukraine with the help of his satellite internet service Starlink, including reception systems, the world of architecture is also drawing its own conclusions. This is worth a special look, as it was or is precisely non-democratic regimes such as Russia or China that have provided the big star offices with unique construction projects in recent years. The M+ Hong Kong designed by HdM only opened at the end of 2021. While at the turn of the year in Moscow, the Renzo Piano Building Workshop RPBW converted the GES-2 power station into a center for visual and performing arts for the V-A-C Art Foundation.

Jacques Herzog on democratic architecture

For us in the editorial team, this immediately (and once again) triggers the question of how political planning can be, but also how political planning must be. What is exciting in this context is that Jacques Herzog in particular has repeatedly publicly addressed the question of democratic architecture. You can think what you like of him and the HdM projects, but he takes a stand. As he did in an interview in 2020 with Lukas Gruntz from architekturbasel.ch. Referring to the historic urban development of St. Petersburg, Venice, Rome and Paris, he said here: “Perhaps more beauty is created in a non-democratic context because the context is more extreme, more radical.” But he also continued: “From our point of view, an enlightened and democratic society, architecture must be anchored in the population and ideally emerge from the needs of the population.” Sentences that should make us think. Now more than ever.

Ukraine war: Coop Himmelb(l)au under pressure over Crimea project

Lighthouse projects in non-democratic regimes must be better considered in future. I wonder what is going through Wolf D. Prix’s head at Coop Himmelb(l)au right now? His office was criticized even before the war of aggression. Since 2020, the Viennese have been planning two of the four cultural buildings that Vladimir Putin wants to be built by 2023. The particularly tricky case is the planned opera house on the Crimean peninsula, which was annexed by Russian occupiers in 2014 in violation of international law(more on this in an SZ-Plus article). With reference to the lighthouse project, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky imposed economic sanctions against the Viennese architecture firm and six of its representatives on January 21, 2022.

Wolf D. Prix: Coop Himmelb(l)au is building an opera house, not barracks

According to an SZ.de article by Gerhard Matzig, who interviewed Prix on the subject, this was preceded a year and a half ago by threats from the Ukrainian embassy to Coop Himmelb(l)au. Prix would not be allowed to build the opera house in Sevastopol or the architectural firm would soon be ruined. And according to Gerhard Matzig in his article, Prix has now also been advised to distance himself from the project and Putin. When asked by Matzig whether he would do so, Wolf D. Prix sighed on the phone. Prix is of the opinion that he is not building a barracks, but an opera house. As a cultural project, this is not subject to the embargo regulations. Unsurprisingly, as of mid-March 2022, Coop Himmelb(l)au still has no statement on the Ukraine war.

Ukraine war: Russian planners make their mark

But now back to those who openly oppose the war. Because it’s not just the European star offices that are flying the flag. According to SZ.de, a total of 6,500 Russian architects, designers and urban planners also signed an open letter on the website of the Russian architecture magazine “Project Russia” between February 26 and March 4, 2022, calling for an immediate end to the war. The tragedy is that this appeal also fell victim to the “fake news” law against critical reporting on the Russian army signed by Vladimir Putin on March 4, 2022. Only a short version of the campaign with a picture of a dove of peace can now be seen on the site. It says here in Russian: “Unfortunately, we were forced to remove the text of the letter under threat of criminal liability under the law that came into force today. We are for peace!”

One profession, one passion

Meanwhile, however, the Union of Architects of Ukraine also called on the International Union of Architects to expel the Union of Architects of Russia from the organization. “Those who do not condemn Russia’s actions support them,” the Süddeutsche Zeitung quotes the President of the National Union of Architects of Ukraine, Oleksandr Chyzhevsky, as saying in a letter to the UIA. If you let this statement sink in, you have to ask yourself – even if you condemn Russia’s actions in the strongest possible terms – whether we really want to live in a world in which people from one industry, one profession, one passion, go against each other simply because of their nationality. For this very reason, the G+L editorial team would like to join our Russian colleagues: Мы за мир. We are for peace. And we condemn the Russian government’s attack on Ukraine, which violates international law, and stand in solidarity with the Ukrainian people and government.

Ukraine war: bdla and BAK also active

While German landscape architecture firms are still quite reluctant to express their solidarity, the bdla published an official solidarity statement #StandWithUkraine on March 2, 2022. The bdla declared its “deepest regret about the war in Ukraine, the loss of human lives.” It condemns this attack, which violates international law. The bdla’s thoughts are particularly with its colleagues from its partner association, the Guild of Landscape Architects of Ukraine. In the same letter, the bdla refers to the initiative of the Federal Chamber of Architects. This has set itself the goal of becoming active beyond expressions of solidarity. For this reason, the BAK is making its network available to the Ukrainian Association of Architects. The goal: sleeping places for refugees. Find out more here.