The population decides how much city the village can tolerate. National legislation is clear on this point: no spatial planning without the participation of the population. The fact that this leads to controversial discussions is understandable and probably also the intention of the legislator. After all, it is a matter of balancing interests. In this discussion, the planner - as a moderator, so to speak - plays a particularly important role.

‍

In order to be able to answer the question of the compatibility of the urban in the village, the spatial planner first wants to know: In which space is the village located? Information is provided by the spatial classification according to the Federal Office for Statistics and the cantonal structure plans, for Aargau namely the cantonal spatial concept. If the village is located in the rural development area according to the spatial concept of Aargau, the municipalities ensure that the villages are renewed from within with careful new buildings and conversions and with gentle redensification. Villages should therefore remain villages.

- The rural centers in the rural development area have a supporting function in the basic infrastructure in rural areas. In such villages, "city in the village center" can be a sensible development goal.

- Urban or urban development areas are home to about three quarters of the population. The federal government has divided these areas into about 50 agglomerations with core and belt communities as well as individual cities. A large part of the population and job growth is expected to take place in these well-developed areas. The urban development areas are heavily burdened with traffic. They are to be upgraded in terms of urban development, and the aim is to create urban areas. Village is transformed into city. The development path to the city can be short or very long.

‍

Involving the population ‍

‍

According to the Federal Law on Spatial Planning, the authorities must ensure that the population can participate in planning in an appropriate manner. This obliges the spatial planner to ask the local councils and the population: How much city can your village take? It goes without saying that this question is often the subject of very controversial discussions. For example, I have already seen a proposal to officially designate a core municipality with just under 16,000 inhabitants as a city rejected in a vote. The majority of voters did not want to live in a city, even if the size, spatial type and center functions of the community clearly pointed to a city.

‍

However, it is also possible and appropriate that, after an intensive workshop with the interested population in an urban development area, the finding is that the small district near the train station can become a city and the spatially clearly separated larger district with a rural character should remain a village. In the case of inner development, the assessment of the residents is very important. The distance to the neighbor, the view and the shadow play a big role. Since only the existing and not the future residents can participate in the clarification of the question of "urban compatibility", my experience is that the village does not tolerate too much city even in urban areas.

‍

Balancing interests ‍

‍

Spatial planning means balancing the various public and private interests while observing the legal framework. The dialog between the various stakeholders can lead to the village (still) remaining a village even in an urban area or to a part of the village developing in the direction of the city. As is well known, many roads lead to Rome. For the spatial planner, it is important that the dialogue is broadly based and professionally sound.

‍

The Swiss prefer to stay in the village‍

‍

If most settlement planners had their way, only more urban concepts of modern spatial planning would be implemented: dense building, filling gaps between buildings, constructing replacement buildings, using brownfield sites. But what about the spatial demands of the population? What kind of settlement pattern do people want? The Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research(WSL) addressed these questions and launched a representative survey in 2015.

‍

The result: the majority of the population prefers the village character. The village received the best score, the small town the second best. Manageable settlements, quickly in the countryside, good transport links - these are the wishes. But many of those surveyed also do not want to do without an urban life. According to the WSL researchers, Switzerland has the best prerequisites to meet the various demands on the living environment and recommends a settlement pattern with many small and medium-sized towns.

‍

In other words: Regional centers should be developed into small towns with small stores, restaurants and public places. But be careful: Overly urban settlement concepts would be rejected in the villages. Increased attractiveness for commuters and companies could, according to the researchers, turn into a boomerang: Demands for land areas increase, and the expansion of traffic areas is increased. "Strict spatial planning will therefore be necessary to prevent settlement development from tipping into the opposite of the desired development," the WSL report "Spatial demands of humans and nature" states.

‍

It adds, "With a liberal approach to spatial planning that gives in to all the wishes of investors, regions run the risk of urban sprawl." For the survey, WSL researchers studied the Obere Freiamt region in the canton of Aargau, Lucerne's Seetal valley, the Linth plain in the Gaster region and the municipality of Glarus Nord. All regions have something in common: The metropolitan center of Zurich can be reached within less than an hour by car or public transport. And there are still undeveloped open spaces, a wonderful landscape and various natural areas. All criteria that, according to the survey, a majority of the population basically wants.

‍