Democratic performances in housing estates are tied to local policies and everyday practices. They take place as social interactions and are intertwined with the material
structures and physical conditions – spaces on site and beyond – as well as with the social, cultural and ideological context and its diverse configurations like regulations,
laws, norms, habits, visions, public discourses etc. In the Swiss cases democratic publicness in housing estates must be considered in the context of the Swiss
political system, in which federalism and direct democracy enable citizens to launch initiatives and have a final say in a number of factual issues. On a national, regional
and local level, citizens participating are familiar with petition making or a membership in clubs and societies as common democratic practice. Both case studies show
multiple sites of constructing democratic publicness(es). Analytically, they relate to the dimensions of “articulating the mutual”, “making claims”, “representing electorates” and “deliberating” (Knudtzon et al. 2020). “Articulating the mutual” is closely linked to different residents’ initiatives as well as neighborhood clubs and associations.
In both estates there is an official neighborhood association, which is closely linked to the community center and represents the mutual interests of the neighborhood. This leads to questions of representation and distribution of resources: Who becomes a member of the association? Who gets involved and is represented? How to organize a more just representation in local democratic processes and include the diversity of the population – especially also people with lower education levels and with a migration background?

In the recent past, the neighborhood association of Telli – professionally supported by the community center – raised these questions and restructured itself accordingly. Over the years, few public-space related petitions have been initiated in both estates, “making claims” via bottom up democracy: residents and associations in Telli for example fought successfully against the closing of their post office and in Tscharnergut there is currently also resistance to the closure of a postal service. “Deliberating” can happen in performing the written word as a contribution to information and local debates in neighborhood newspapers, as it is the case in Telli (for the “Tellipost”) or in Tscharnergut (for “Wulchechratzer”). Principally, these newspapers are open for contributions of every resident and thus provide the possibility to participate in local discussions and political opinion building. “Representing electorates” furthermore, has an impact on decision-making. In Telli and Tscharnergut, decision making processes are challenging due to their specific multi-ownership situation, which not only means that a multitude of owners need to be addressed in case of an alteration of public/ common spaces, but which also implies dealing with different uses and understandings  of participation. Participation varies in its level of intensity from information, communication, participation in discussion and opinion building to (real) participation in decision making and active implementation (following the model of Maier-Rabler and Hartwig 2006). Owners or authorities can  deliberately initiate participation processes, as it has been the case in different renewal projects for outdoor spaces or playgrounds in Tscharnergut or Telli. Conflicts can arise when the level of participation is not clearly decided (or communicated) or when residents have the feeling that it’s only a lip service. If residents have a real say and participation processes are moderated and coordinated professionally and transparently, they can lead to better and more accepted solutions. With the community centers, both estates have such professional structures, which since the very beginning are bringing people from the neighborhood together and ascribe great importance to participation and inclusion. In both cases, Telli and Tscharnergut, evidence shows that decision-making processes among multiple owners are challenging and can affect and complicate the renewal of common and public spaces. Owners can block or delay decisions for several reasons: either they don’t have enough funds or are not willing to finance a more comprehensive renovation, which is especially a challenge in case of the many homeowners in Telli. Difficult is also if owners haven’t been involved in a decision-making process at an early stage. Owners might also have concerns about plans for a new facility, for example they may fear more noise or trouble if a new public playground is planned close to their property. But complications can also arise, if a property owners’ agreement leaves too much room for interpretation or if there are other latent conflicts between the involved parties– maybe also from previous projects. Furthermore, it can be challenging if one owner’s say weighs more than others (economically or also regarding professional competences, e.g. in housing management). But decision-making processes among multiple owners are not only difficult. Sometimes mutual consent can be found quite easily, as it is often the case during the common walks through Tscharnergut, that take place during the property owners’ meetings, in which the responsible parties assess necessary works for maintenance and repair together and – especially if not too costly – implement them afterwards avoiding long discussions as everyone is convinced that this will enhance the value of their property. Since the managers of the community centers in Tscharnergut and Telli are also invited to the property owners’ meetings, not only structural but also social measures are discussed, which is important for comprehensively renewing a large housing estate. As experience in Telli and Tscharnergut shows, decision-making processes among multiple owners can be facilitated, if they are moderated and coordinated by a third party. If the relevant authorities or – like in the case of Telli – even the president of a City are taking up this role, they also symbolically convey the message, that the estate is important to the City and to them.