**2.3 Centralization of political decisions**

Spatial planning in Austria – like in other European federal states – is organized hierarchically, with a strong position of local municipalities developing and executing plans that transform agriculturally used land into plots dedicated to housing, public or commercial use. However, the local territorial planning authority is simultaneously embedded into a system of the regional, federal state and national planning levels, which delineate their targets for future spatial development according to explicit efforts of economic, social and ecological sustainability and efficiency. While the latter levels are meant to be recommendations to be considered compulsory by the local level, the local planning manifestations rest upon national laws, i.e., decisions of the local government must be executed on its territory.

Political processes of land allocation and dedication of agricultural land, forests or brownfield zones to be transformed into plots for commercial or residential buildings are, by and large, limited to the local government and subsequent public administration. Public participation is highly formalized by raising objections against already existing plans. A proactive inclusion of engaged citizens from the beginning of the planning process, which would have the power to intervene through local-democratic procedures, is not given in general. Due to the far-reaching and comprehensive legal protection of plots and built housing units by private property laws, citizens in general and affected neighbors, in particular, have thus no direct intervention capabilities. However, local (urban) planning rules set the frame on the type and degree of building and land use to which property owners have to obey.

Besides the hardly existing public involvement in the local spatial development of neighborhoods, a public discussion about a neighborhood's architecture is likewise not envisaged. Usually, it is performed as an interplay between architects and officially designated experts, representing the local government's opinion [24].

A problematic implication of this authoritarian top-down-driven spatial figuration of our housing (and living) environment is an epic standardization of housing design, following a conservative role model of the two-generational family. As a result, each housing unit has its predefined function with little flexibility for multi-purpose activities throughout the day or week. Such a standardized architecture largely ignores the increase of different living forms and household communities that evolved over the past three or so decades. Furthermore, home-based COVID-19 measures have uncovered the weakness of missing multi-functional places for working, learning, eating and sleeping.

Another problem with this planning policy is a lack of control of the local government. Although elected representatives decide how planning principles are to be interpreted in a particular case, it nevertheless often follows political pressure, dictated by allegedly economic constraints of maximizing profits. A lack of control reveals a positive feedback loop of capital accumulation aspirations, territorial competition and local selfishness, supported by a vertical and horizontal planning structure. In other words, commodification overrules social infrastructure, territorial boundedness overrules community networks and statist planning bureaucracy overrules inclusive local participation and civic engagement. The next chapter will discuss approaches that cope with these critical structures, functions and processes.
