There are no longer many escalation levels, at least verbally. Ralf Büschl, who wants to build two 155-meter towers at the parcel post hall, calls people like Robert Brannekämper, who want Munich to stop high-rise buildings in general, as “lateral thinkers”. A “real mortal sin”: Last week Brannekämper, who sits in the state parliament for the CSU, criticized the fact that there was never a competition for the planned twin towers. For him, as he made it clear early on in the debate, the two narrow sky ticklers are nothing more than “urban planning parasites”.
Neither side can return behind these battle lines. The conflict between the two powerful words shows how emotionally charged the dispute has become and that the path taken by the city will probably not lead to the goal. The plan was to carefully consider the possible design of the parcel post area in an expert opinion with the participation of more than 120 citizens and to look for further possible high-rise locations with a broad study. Now it boils down to a simple vote: Does Munich want high-rise buildings in the future – yes or no? It is still unclear how the answer should be determined. With a referendum, as the opponents are aiming for. Or with a request for a council, initiated by the city council, as is now also being demanded by Büschl, who would like to shorten the process. Time costs money. And big construction projects are about a lot of money.
The dynamism with which the opposition comes to a head is remarkable, because both sides are playing poker high. No compromise can arise from the constellation, in the end there will be a loser. The biggest loser, however, would be the city – if Büschl implemented his threat, left the listed post hall unused and placed commercial buildings around it. Then a great opportunity would be wasted to preserve impressive historical items and to build impressive new ones alongside them. Should it actually come to that, politicians will have to put up with the question of how it could have come to this. Why didn’t she clarify earlier who should determine the face of the city?