Can Change Itself Become Urban Heritage?

Can Change Itself Become Urban Heritage?

A walk down Munich’s Kaufingerstraße

I stopped in front of a construction site on Kaufingerstraße, in the heart of Munich’s old town. My first instinct was to keep walking — just another large-scale development project, the kind you see everywhere in European city centres these days. Old buildings come down, new ones go up. The more tourists a street attracts, the faster the retail turns over, the more scaffolding appears, the more the city prepares yet another new face for itself.

But this one was different.

Most construction hoardings advertise the future — glossy renderings, investment pitches, photoshopped skylines of what the building will look like on completion day. This hoarding showed something else entirely. Stretching across its length was a timeline: Munich’s founding in 1158, the postwar rebuilding effort, the creation of the pedestrian zone, and the new development now underway. It read less like a promotional board and more like a small exhibition — the city explaining its own changes to anyone willing to pause and look.

The construction hoarding on Kaufingerstraße — not a sales pitch, but a timeline of the city’s own changes, from Munich’s early history to the redevelopment planned for 2027.

Standing there, I found myself turning over a question I hadn’t expected to ask on a shopping street: What exactly should a city preserve?

The instinctive answer — old buildings — feels incomplete the moment you say it out loud. Buildings, yes, but also the memories layered inside them. And what about the process of change itself, the way a city has continuously adapted to each era? We tend to imagine urban heritage as cathedrals, palaces, museums, monuments. But the actual experience of a city unfolds in the spaces in between. People walk its streets, duck into shops, rest in squares, move through corridors of ordinary life. Heritage, in that sense, is not only what stands still.

I won’t pretend to have formed a full opinion of Munich — I wasn’t there long enough for that. But I could observe one thing clearly. The city centre functions simultaneously as a heritage district, a commercial hub, a tourist destination, and a working neighbourhood for actual residents. The famous historical buildings aren’t clustered in one display zone; they’re scattered between streets, connected by the movement of shoppers, café-goers, and commuters. History and everyday life share the same pavement.

That struck me as significant.

There’s a difference between cities you visit to see something specific, and cities you remember for how they felt to move through.

For a long time, I thought the point of travel was to stand in front of the famous thing — to see it with your own eyes. And those moments still carry weight. But I’ve noticed that what actually lingers, years later, isn’t usually the landmark. It’s vaguer than that: a particular quality of light, the width of a street, a sense of density or openness, the way the city seemed to be working.

What stayed with me wasn’t what I saw so much as how I walked.

Some cities reward walking simply for its own sake. I felt it in Soho and around King’s Cross in London — not drawn to any single building, just moving through, watching, absorbing how the place operated.

Left: the AIM project hoarding (formerly C&A), showing the future mixed-use development by INKA and ACCUMULATA. Right: Kaufingerstraße on a typical afternoon — tourists, shoppers, and residents moving through the same space.

Kaufingerstraße gave me something similar. On the day I visited, the street had a particular energy — tourists, shoppers, and locals sharing the same space, historical atmosphere and commercial life woven together without obvious friction. It didn’t feel like a site being consumed, the way some heavily visited places do. It felt closer to a living city centre: history, commerce, daily routine, and tourism all moving in the same current.

Cities cannot survive on preservation alone. You can’t freeze a place in amber and call it cared for. But you also can’t justify demolishing memory simply because you’re building something new. The question in between — what do you carry forward, and how? — is where the real work of urban heritage happens.

The cities I find myself wanting to return to tend to share a certain quality. They’re not defined by a single monument. Walking through them, you sense layers of time — not displayed in a museum, but present in the texture of the streets themselves. Change has happened, is happening, will happen. But the thread of daily life hasn’t been cut.

Standing in front of that hoarding on Kaufingerstraße, I came to think that urban heritage might not be a fixed thing at all. It might be less about what you preserve and more about the posture you take toward change — a refusal to lose the memory of a place even as the place itself keeps moving.

Read the full essay

A brief note on the place:

Munich’s Kaufingerstraße runs between Marienplatz and Karlsplatz (Stachus) and is one of Germany’s busiest pedestrian shopping streets. The area became a car-free zone in 1972, timed to the Munich Olympic Games — one of the first pedestrianised city centres in Germany. The AIM redevelopment at Kaufingerstr. 11 (formerly C&A), developed by INKA and ACCUMULATA Real Estate Management, is one of several active projects along this axis currently reshaping Munich’s historic core, with construction continuing through 2027.