Spaces for deliberation: Eight spatial qualities for designing deliberative assemblies

On 10th April 2025, we held an online launch event with the authors and three of the contributors interviewed for the paper:

As citizens’ assemblies and other forms of citizen deliberation are increasingly implemented in many parts of the world, it is becoming more relevant to explore and question the role of the physical spaces in which these processes take place.

This paper builds on existing literature that considers the relationships between space and democracy. In the literature, this relationship has been studied with a focus on the architecture of parliament buildings, and on the role of urban public spaces and architecture for political culture, both largely within the context of representative democracy and with little or no attention given to spaces for facilitated citizen deliberation. With very limited considerations of the spaces for deliberative assemblies in the literature, in this paper, we argue that the spatial qualities for citizen deliberation demand more critical attention.

Through a series of interviews with leading practitioners of citizens’ assemblies from six different countries, we explore what spatial qualities are typically considered in the planning and implementation of these assemblies, what are the recurring challenges related to the physical spaces where they take place, and the opportunities and limitations for a more intentional spatial design. In this paper, we synthesise our findings and formulate a series of considerations for the spatial qualities of citizens’ assemblies aimed at informing future practice and further research.

Key findings

This preliminary study of the spatial qualities of citizens’ assemblies reveals three main findings derived from interviews and collected image documentation of discussed assemblies :

1. The spatial qualities of citizens' assemblies are carefully considered by conveners and facilitators when planning and designing the assembly.
2. Practical requirements are often prioritised over considerations for qualities such as atmosphere and symbolic value when both cannot be achieved.
3. Common challenges to choosing spaces with suitable spatial qualities for deliberative assemblies are high rental costs or the cost of temporary adaptations, inaccessible locations, and general availability.

Based on our research and analysis, we have identified eight spatial qualities that are important to take into account with intention when designing deliberative assemblies: lighting; acoustics; connectivity; symbolic value; flexibility; atmosphere; access, and technology. These form an initial list of considerations in current practice:

1. Include a combination of artificial and natural light sources with both cold and warm tones as well as elements to easily adjust natural light throughout the assembly process, such as manoeuvrable or fixed screens or curtains.
2. Incorporate specific materials or acoustic products, such as porous surfaces, carpets, or, curtains in large deliberation spaces in combination with adjacent smaller breakout rooms for group discussion to ensure a variety of suitable acoustic conditions for different scales of conversation. Consider the acoustic conditions needed to ensure high-quality recordings for tech-enhanced deliberative assemblies (i.e. separate spaces for each breakout discussion).
3. Ensure that spaces used throughout the assembly process are in close proximity to each other to accommodate the various phases and activities of deliberations and the logistical organisation of the process.
4. Consider the socio-cultural context of the space, who might identify with the place, and who may not. Weigh the trade-offs of using a space that possesses a strong symbolic value and poor acoustics, lighting and flexibility versus a space with less symbolic value but optimal acoustics, lighting, and flexibility.
5. Consider how furniture and technical equipment can be placed and re-arranged in a space to ensure that the space remains flexible and adaptable depending on the specific activities of the assembly process
6. Consider how material choices and decorative items play a role in creating an atmosphere that is formal, yet welcoming, for various activities throughout the assembly process. Designing a space for diverse sensorial and emotional experiences allows for both casual and relaxed conversations/activities during some parts of the process, and the serious work of drafting and voting on recommendations.
7. Spaces for deliberation must be accessible to reach by assembly members and accessible to enter and navigate within. This includes places that are accessible by public transportation and spaces that are equipped with ramps, handrails, elevators, and barrier free rooms.
8. Consider how the integration of technology in a deliberative process can be made visible and accessible to the assembly members. This can help foster trust as it becomes part of the process—visible, approachable, and easier to engage with.

Conclusions, considerations, and further research

The findings of this study offer empirical insights into the spatial realities of in-person citizens’ assemblies as they take place today and the related choices made by conveners and facilitators. Comparing our findings on the spatial qualities discussed in literature about parliaments and spaces for representative democratic politics, we see that while there is sometimes a desire to imitate or even use spaces of representative democratic institutions, there is, for the most part, an effort to break away from them.

We have identified a number of paths for further research that should be pursued:

• How can spatial design address “internal exclusions” (Young, 2000) and disagreements in deliberative assemblies?
• How does the integration of advanced technologies in deliberative assemblies change spatial considerations?
• How can the design of deliberative spaces be anchored in place-based social and cultural practices through co-design and co-creation?
• How can deliberative spaces be designed with a positive impact on climate and biodiversity?
• How are virtual deliberative spaces designed? And what relationships do these spaces have with physical spaces for deliberation?

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the people who have contributed their time to meet with us to share their experience and knowledge on designing and implementing citizens’ assemblies. Their input was fundamental to the analysis and reflections included in this paper.

Contributors included:

• Ana Adzersen
• Dimitra Dimitrakopoulou
• Johan Galster
• Myriam Pelzer
• Felipe Rey
• Kimbra White
• Sarah Yaffe

About the authors

Gustav Kjær Vad Nielsen is a Danish architect, researcher, activist, and artist. He is currently pursuing a PhD in Architecture and Political Geography at the Chair of Urban Regeneration, Université du Luxembourg as part of a research project funded by the public administration of The City of Esch, which investigates the social infrastructures supporting democratic spatial politics in Southern Luxembourg. His work focuses on ontologies and materialities of politics and in/justice in transforming urban-rural environments.

James MacDonald-Nelson is the Cities Programme Lead at DemocracyNext. James is a designer with degrees in landscape architecture, urbanism, and global development studies. Having studied and worked in spatial practice for 10 years in Canada and Europe, James has a deep knowledge of how the built environment is transformed and managed - and how often citizens are left out of these processes. At DemocracyNext, James is responsible for all things city-related.

How to cite this paper

Nielsen, Gustav Kjær Vad and McDonald-Nelson, James (2025). “Spaces for deliberation: Eight spatial qualities for designing deliberative assemblies”, DemocracyNext.