Residents experience urban planning firsthand—not in distant visions of the future, but right here and now: In Taipei, augmented reality is revolutionizing citizen participation. With digital layers superimposed over the real city, public participation becomes an immersive experience and provides planners, politicians, and residents with entirely new tools. What’s behind this urban technological marvel? And can Taipei become a role model for the German-speaking world with this strategy?

• How Taipei uses augmented reality (AR) for citizen participation in urban planning.
• Technical Fundamentals: What Sets AR Apart from Traditional Visualizations.
• Process Innovation: From analog workshops to digital, interactive participation formats.
• Experiences and successes from Taipei—and what can be applied to Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.
• Opportunities for participation, transparency, and acceptance in urban development.
• Challenges: Data protection, the digital divide, and governance issues.
• How AR redefines the roles of planners, policymakers, and residents.
• Strategic recommendations for German-speaking cities.

From the Screen to Real Life: How Augmented Reality Is Transforming Citizen Participation in Taipei

Until now, citizen participation in urban planning has often been a tedious undertaking. Anyone who has ever taken part in a traditional participatory workshop is familiar with the ritual: Plans on the wall, Post-its, heated debates, sometimes a cardboard model—and all of this in a conference room, far removed from the actual city. In Taipei, however, this scenario is being radically turned on its head. Here, citizens no longer simply gather in front of paper; instead, they move directly through the planned urban space using smartphones, tablets, or AR glasses. They see what’s planned, embedded in the real environment. Buildings, parks, streets, and even vegetation appear as a digital overlay right before their eyes.

The Taipei City Government has developed its own platform for this purpose, which is compatible with standard AR devices. Through this platform, residents can experience firsthand how a high-rise building will affect the streetscape, how new bike paths will run, or how a future park will provide shade. The technology uses precise geodata, three-dimensional models, and real-time rendering to make planned changes virtually visible and navigable. Anyone standing in the planned market square with a tablet can see the proposed buildings as transparent structures, move around freely, and view additional information—ranging from planned materials to expected noise levels.

The result: citizen feedback is no longer abstract, but highly concrete. Questions such as “How will the new building affect my daily life?” or “What impact will the redesign have on the microclimate?” can be answered on-site and in a real-time context. The barrier to participation is lowered because the plans become tangible. Critics can contribute directly by highlighting problem areas or submitting suggestions for improvement digitally. The city administration, in turn, receives feedback that is not only qualitative but also spatially and contextually precise.

This integration of planning, technology, and citizen knowledge is no longer just a gimmick in Taipei, but an integral part of urban development. The city government specifically uses AR for large-scale projects, such as the redesign of entire neighborhoods or the development of new parks. The response has been overwhelming: participation rates have skyrocketed, trust in planning processes is growing, and even critical groups feel truly heard for the first time.

But it is not just the quantity, but above all the quality of the exchange that has changed. Where misunderstandings used to arise from abstract representations, immersive technology now provides a shared frame of reference. Discussions are more objective, and proposals are more well-founded and creative. In Taipei, it’s clear: AR is not a technical end in itself, but a tool for more democratic urban planning—and thus a true game-changer.

Technological Foundations: What Can Augmented Reality Do That Traditional Visualization Cannot?

Augmented reality is far more than simply superimposing graphics onto a camera image. Unlike traditional 3D visualizations or virtual reality experiences, AR connects digital information with the physical world in real time and within context. This means that the digital and real worlds interact with each other, react to one another, and adapt dynamically. For urban planning, this means that planned changes can be experienced directly on-site—with all the spatial, climatic, and social contexts that the real urban environment offers.

This is made possible by highly precise geodata linked to Building Information Modeling (BIM), GIS systems, and real-time sensors. Cameras and motion sensors track the user’s position and align the digital model with the surroundings with millimeter precision. Modern AR engines such as ARKit (Apple) or ARCore (Google) enable not only static overlays but also complex interactions: For example, a user can virtually walk around a planned building, adjust the elevation, or change the time of day to simulate light and shadow effects.

A key difference from traditional visualizations lies in the degree of participation. Whereas visualizations used to be presented statically, AR turns the user into an active participant. In Taipei, citizens can enter their own comments and notes directly into the AR models. They can mark problem areas, suggest alternative design elements, or document their own usage habits. These interactions are automatically recorded, georeferenced, and fed directly back into the planning system.

In addition, AR enables the easy integration of additional data layers: noise levels, wind patterns, traffic data, air quality, or vegetation density can be displayed as additional layers. This creates holistic, multisensory planning experiences that go far beyond the capabilities of traditional planning sketches. This is particularly relevant for complex issues such as climate resilience, the mobility transition, or social integration, as many factors must be considered simultaneously in these contexts.

One often underestimated advantage: AR can also reveal existing urban structures that would otherwise remain hidden—such as underground utility lines, planned infrastructure, or historical layers. This not only makes the planning process more transparent but also strengthens the public’s understanding of urban contexts. In Taipei, planners report that since the introduction of AR, discussions with citizens have become significantly more informed and solution-oriented—and this is due in no small part to the new, shared reality that AR creates.

Process Innovation: From Analog Workshops to Digital Participation

The introduction of augmented reality in Taipei is far more than a technical upgrade. It fundamentally challenges traditional participation processes—and opens up new ways for citizens, policymakers, and government officials to collaborate. Static information sessions are being replaced by interactive, open processes tailored to the needs and capabilities of those involved. The classic model, in which planners develop solutions and citizens rubber-stamp them, is being broken down. Instead, a continuous dialogue is emerging that spans the entire planning cycle.

A key element of this is the democratization of access: In Taipei, AR participation formats are offered not only at City Hall or in specially equipped participation centers, but also decentralized throughout the urban space itself. Mobile teams distribute tablets, organize guided AR walks, or offer consultation hours directly on-site. The barrier to participation is lowered because citizens can get involved spontaneously and without prior knowledge. Even for people who have had little prior engagement with urban planning, the topic becomes tangible—in the truest sense of the word.

The process is deliberately designed to be open: Citizens can provide feedback, make suggestions, or ask questions at any time—right where they are affected. The administration uses this digital feedback to flexibly adapt plans and address local specifics. This creates a planning process that is no longer linear but cyclical: proposals are visualized, discussed, adjusted, and reviewed again. This iterative approach not only enhances the quality of the results but also fosters public acceptance.

Another advantage: The documentation and evaluation of contributions take place automatically and in a structured manner. Every comment, every mark, and every suggestion is digitally recorded, georeferenced, and tagged with metadata. This makes it possible to recognize trends, identify points of conflict, and specifically follow up on particularly innovative proposals. In this way, the administration gains valuable insights into the needs and wishes of the public—and can systematically integrate them into the planning process.

In Taipei, it is also evident that digitizing participation opens up new target groups: younger people, tech-savvy groups, and residents who were previously less engaged are participating significantly more often. At the same time, analog options remain available, for example, for older people or those without digital access. The combination of digital innovation and social inclusion makes the process a model for other cities—including those in German-speaking regions.

Opportunities, Risks, and Transferability: What Can German-Speaking Cities Learn from Taipei?

Looking to Taipei is inspiring—and it confronts cities in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland with the question: How much courage to innovate is there in our planning processes? One thing is clear: The technical prerequisites for AR-based participation have long been in place here as well. Modern GIS systems, 3D city models, and mobile devices are available in many municipalities. What is often missing is the will to roll out these technologies on a broad scale and to consistently open up existing processes.

A key success factor from Taipei is clear governance: The city administration manages the platform, provides the data, and ensures transparency. At the same time, data protection and data sovereignty are prioritized. Citizens decide for themselves which data to share and can see how their contributions are being used at any time. This trust in the process is fundamental—and must also be a priority in German-speaking cities. Otherwise, there is a risk that digital participation will become a “black box” and fuel resistance.

Another challenge is the digital divide. Not all citizens have the necessary hardware or digital skills to use AR services. In Taipei, this problem is being addressed through device loans, training, and hybrid formats. Cities in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland should also take care not to exclude anyone. Digital innovation must not lead to social division but must be designed to be inclusive.

Another risk is the commercialization of participation platforms. In Taipei, a conscious decision was made to rely on open, municipal solutions to limit the influence of private providers and retain control over data and processes. A similar approach is recommended for German-speaking countries: open standards, municipal oversight, and transparency should be guiding principles—not only for data protection reasons, but also to safeguard public services.

Ultimately, however, the most important lesson from Taipei is a cultural one: urban planning must be understood as a collaborative, open process. Augmented reality is not a panacea, but it is a powerful tool for making participation tangible, effective, and attractive. Those in Germany, Austria, or Switzerland who embrace this approach can not only increase acceptance of projects but also sustainably improve the quality of urban spaces. It takes courage, openness, and a touch of a willingness to experiment—then Taipei’s approach can serve as a model here as well.

Conclusion: Augmented Reality as a Springboard for Tomorrow’s Urban Planning

The experiences from Taipei impressively demonstrate that augmented reality is far more than just a technical gimmick. It is a catalyst for genuine, effective citizen participation—and thus for better, more democratic cities. By merging digital innovation with a participatory spirit, urban planning becomes a collaborative effort in which all stakeholders operate on an equal footing. The technology creates transparency, fosters creativity, and strengthens trust in political processes. At the same time, it challenges cities to break away from old patterns, explore new paths, and radically rethink participation.

For the German-speaking world, Taipei therefore offers a valuable testing ground whose experiences, mistakes, and successes can serve as a blueprint. One thing is clear: without digital transformation, participation will be difficult to promote in the future—and those who fail to harness the possibilities of AR are squandering potential. However, technology alone is not enough. It takes the courage to be open, the willingness to share power, and the ability to design inclusive processes. Only then will augmented reality become a true springboard for the urban planning of tomorrow. The first step has been taken—it’s up to us to continue down this path with determination.

The new sculptures representing Faith, Love, Hope, and Prayer have now been installed in the Eosander Portal of the Berlin Palace—a video shows the installation process.

The Eosander Portal at the Berlin Palace has four pedestals. That is why the three virtues—Faith, Love, and Hope—were once flanked by the colossal figure of “Prayer.” The originals of these colossal sandstone figures, which were created starting in 1886 and measure about three meters in height, had been lost. The four new sculptures were therefore created solely with the help of photographs.

 

Berlin-based sculptor Kai Röttger created “Faith.” Sculptor Jürgen Schmidt created “Prayer.” “Hope” was created by sculptor Ralf Lukoschek, and “Love” by the Saxon Sandstone Works. 

After more than 70 years, the colossal figures have now been installed in the location originally intended for them. The Humboldt Forum Foundation also recently announced that it is back on schedule: Construction had been delayed due to the coronavirus. Nevertheless, the Berlin Palace is expected to be completed in 2020 as planned.