**2. Megaprojects: Grand Images, Little Transparency?**

Megaprojects [11], large-scale urban development projects [12] and grand projects [13] are often synonymously used terms describing projects that are complex from different points of view [14]. On the one hand, megaprojects are instruments to gain an international audience and are expected to cause multiple direct and indirect effects for the surroundings [15] (p. 144). On the other hand, they have a long history of wrong estimations, particularly when it comes to costs, construction time and final output. This pattern is also referred to as the "iron law of megaprojects" [2] (p. 2).

Different approaches exist that help to define megaprojects. Some scholars focus on quantitative aspects and investigate costs, scale or risk [15]. Therefore, a broad range of what is considered a megaproject exists. While Stoddart-Stones sees a minimum value of GBP 150 million [16], Bruzelius et al. propose costs of USD 1 billion or more [15]. Apart from that, there are also attempts to understand megaprojects from a qualitative point of view. In this paper, we focus on this approach, as it allows us to explore (a) the large networks of stakeholders involved [17] (p. 620), (b) the intertwined relationship between public and private actors [18] (p. 240) and (c) the characteristics to transform urban settings [12] (p. 75).

During the last two decades, Diaz Orueta and Fainstein have observed a new generation of megaprojects [3]. This new generation is characterized by projects that try to avoid public protest, and contribute to post-democratic conditions, which is understood as a "replacement of debate, disagreement and dissent in current urban governance" [19] (p. 72). In order to avoid protest movements, "new" megaprojects firstly entail mixed uses instead of focusing on single aspects. Consequently, the projects can be sold to a variety of groups as beneficial [1] (p. 800). Secondly, present megaprojects are often situated on brownfield sites, which minimizes direct displacement of inhabitants or local businesses [3] (p. 760). Thirdly, project managers put notable emphasis on marketing- and image-related topics. It is the concept of (environmental) sustainability that is often used, although the output might differ significantly from the promises made. In that respect, green logics even serve to justify the legitimation of the projects [3] (p. 764).

However, deconstructing the sustainable mask of these projects reveals numerous not sustainable practices, such as non-transparent planning mechanisms, as illustrated by Lehrer and Laidley [1] (p. 795). It is the interest of selected middle and upper classes that dominates megaprojects' concepts, rather than applying a participative understanding of planning [20] (p. 547). This also explains why large-scale projects are poorly integrated into the urban process and their conception lies at the margins of formal planning structures [20] (p. 577). Another paradox is the relationship between project management and civic society. Megaprojects are often used to gain a wide public audience and increase the city's visibility in a global competition [21] (p. 54). Simultaneously, an obvious tendency of masking certain aspects of the projects is observed, also referred to as the "hiding hand" [22] (p. 12). Contrary to that, project marketing and communication focus on potential benefits, which are often expected to reach the whole city. This phenomenon also explains the high attractiveness to announce megaprojects during election campaigns [23] (p. 257).

The rise of megaprojects as a common tool of urban planning is not only linked to general political settings but also to spatial and structural conditions in cities. This kind of cooperation between public and private stakeholders has become an important tool in the neoliberal city [24] (p. 76), used to "reconfigure local land-use patterns" [25] (p. 61). Megaprojects stand for the restructuring of urban governance under neoliberal frameworks [26]. The main goal of such projects is to create "profit-oriented urban entities" [27] (p. 77) spurring the commodification of the city [28]. On that basis, we understand neoliberal urbanism as a way of making the city that puts entrepreneurial interests first while neglecting the needs of other urban groups. Based on the increasing inter-city competitiveness and the prevailing ways of "producing a successful city" [29] (p. 1), city governments aim to foster growth and communicate economic success to reposition themselves within the global urban hierarchy. Large-scale urban development projects are not only regarded as powerful tools but also as new instruments to conduct planning and to achieve these objectives [20] (p. 547). Hence, research has to be conducted to deconstruct the planning processes observed. This is the case if established and more participative ways of planning the city are avoided. According to Swyngedouw, these practices belong to new forms of governance that promise to "deepen democracy" [30] (p. 3), while, in fact, they do the opposite.

Addressing these aspects from a local stakeholder's point of view is one feasible access, but it is still a perspective that is researched to a lesser extent [9]. However, this perspective is relevant because local groups will not only experience the externalities of the megaproject [31] but are also considered to be of crucial importance for the project's success [32].

This is a consensus that has been agreed upon both in the European (Aalborg Charta) [33] and the international discourse on sustainability (UN Habitat III) [34]. Although participation does not guarantee a sustainable outcome in the stricter sense, it strengthens democratic structures and helps inhabitants to find an access to new urban projects. This is why participation is regarded as an important pillar in sustainability concepts for urban regeneration projects and is included in several indicator systems [35–38], but also in city concepts based on the 17 Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations [39].

Now, shifting the light on our case study, the abovementioned aspects identified in the literature serve as starting points for our empirical investigation. We summarize the following three questions, which will help to structure both our research tool (qualitative interviews) and, later, the discussion:

