Urban Diversity in Practice: Navigating Differences, Building Common Ground
Summary 21. Feb, 2025/ 17:00-20:00 at Urbane Praxis Office
On the evening of February 21, 2025, we gathered at the Urbane Praxis Office at Alt-Moabit 21 for the latest Open Office event under the theme “Urban Diversity in Practice: Navigating Differences, Building Common Ground”. The room was buzzing with energy as people arrived, some familiar faces and many new ones, all drawn by a shared interest in how we can better address diversity within urban practices. Designed as an interactive and participative gathering, the session brought together a diverse mix of participants from fields such as urban geography, planning and design, community engagement, political science, and urban activism. The attendees themselves reflected a young dynamic and the complexity of Berlin’s social landscape, including locals, newcomers, and also first- or second-generation immigrants.
The event aimed to address how urban diversity could be embraced and actively integrated into urban practices to create more solidary, participatory, and just cities. After a brief welcome and warm-up activity to break the ice, we moved into an engaging 60-minute open dialogue using a “hot seat” format, and finally, we wrapped up with a cozy networking time over warm tea and snacks.
Building Connections and Setting the Stage
The warm-up session served as an effective icebreaker, encouraging participants to share their backgrounds and initial thoughts on urban diversity. What emerged was a vivid snapshot of a highly motivated, interdisciplinary group committed to exploring practical ways of fostering diversity within urban practices.
We noticed common threads in what people associated with urban diversity. Intersectionality was a major theme, emphasizing the need to acknowledge how overlapping social identities affect people’s lived experiences. The following was aspirations for just access to resources, creativity, empowerment, and safety. Many of us agreed that these concepts need to be central when thinking about how urban spaces are planned and experienced. But acknowledging diversity is one thing – making it a reality in practice is another.
The challenges that participants pointed out weren’t entirely new but were strikingly urgent: systemic power structures, economic inequality, conflicting interests, and social disparities. It demonstrates a shared understanding that achieving true solidarity requires addressing systemic issues rather than merely celebrating diversity superficially.
The Dialogue: Diverse Perspectives and Shared Concerns
The core of the event was our open dialogue where participants freely exchanged ideas using the “hot seat” format: participants who wished to speak could step into the inner circle to share their thoughts. This setup encouraged everyone to actively join the conversation, fostering an atmosphere of openness and constructive discussion.
One of the central themes was the concept of belonging and identity. Many of us agreed that Berlin’s evolving identity should be seen as something constantly reshaped by its inhabitants’ lived experiences rather than fixed by tradition. Instead of expecting individuals to conform to a dominant “host culture”, there was broad consensus that integration should be a dynamic, reciprocal process. The discussion also underscored that identity should not be compromised for the sake of assimilation but should be appreciated as an evolving and diverse expression of urban life. Identity, after all, is fluid, not static, and should be embraced as such. Then it led us to the question of integration and adaptation. The idea of “adapting” was critically examined, with many participants challenging whether it should imply sacrificing one’s cultural identity to fit into established norms. Instead, the discussion pointed toward the need to redefine integration as a reciprocal, participative process that empowers all individuals to participate fully in urban life, and to ensure that it does not simply reinforce existing power structures.
Language emerged as another complex issue. While we acknowledged that language barriers can limit access to resources and participation, we also recognized that communication extends beyond words: meaningful connections can be built through non-verbal means, such as art, music, and other creative expressions. This approach was particularly appreciated for its potential to foster empathy and understanding beyond the limitations of spoken language. However, there was also recognition of the practical implications of language barriers, particularly for individuals who may not speak the dominant languages of power in public discussions. The tension between accessibility and practicality remains an ongoing challenge.
The discussion broadened to consider how systemic inequalities often masquerade as cultural differences. Many participants argued that intercultural conflicts are more often symptoms of structural inequities than genuine cultural clashes. From this perspective, achieving inclusivity requires confronting not only social but also institutional power imbalances.
The question of who has the right to shape urban identity was another complex issue that stirred a lot of reflection. The statement that “long-term residents” should have more influence in deciding on shaping urban identity quickly raised more questions. Who counts as a long-term resident? What about those whose lifestyles or circumstances – like homelessness or non-traditional living arrangements – place them outside typical categories of residence? The conversation raised important points about marginalized groups and their right to contribute to the identity of their communities. The consensus seemed to be that we can’t afford to draw rigid boundaries around who has the right to contribute to the city’s identity. Instead, our focus should be on creating mechanisms that allow everyone, regardless of their status or background, to have a voice in how urban spaces are shaped and experienced.
Gender Sensitivity and Intersectional Urban Planning
A particularly thought-provoking segment of our discussion addressed the issue of gender-sensitive urban planning. Participants highlighted the inadequacies of so-called “gender-neutral” designs, which often ignore the unique experiences of marginalized genders. The consensus was that urban spaces should be designed through an intersectional lens, taking into account not only gender but also other intersecting factors of discrimination, such as race, class, and disability.
Participants advocated for a care-centered approach in urban practices, one that actively considers caregiving and safety as essential aspects of public space rather than peripheral concerns. This perspective challenges traditional architectural norms and calls for a radical rethinking of how cities are structured to support and empower everyone.
Moving Forward: Collaboration and New Imaginaries
As our dialogue wrapped up, we felt a palpable sense of motivation and possibility. The networking session that followed saw people eagerly exchanging contact details and brainstorming ideas for future collaborations. Some attendees also expressed interest in contributing to future Open Office events by organizing and delving deeper into themes like intersectional urban planning or creative communication tools.
What stood out most was our shared commitment to developing positive future imaginaries. We understood that simply acknowledging diversity is not enough; we need to actively work toward systems and practices that genuinely celebrate and support it. The dialogue may have raised more questions than answers, but it also sparked a sense of urgency and possibility.
The event concluded with an understanding that urban diversity is a reality that has to be actively shaped. As the city of Berlin continues to evolve, the need for inclusive, intersectional approaches that honor both historical legacies and new cultural narratives will only grow more urgent.