<p>Urban densification remains a contentious issue, often hindered by preservationist attitudes and risk-averse governance. This study contrasts two planning approaches in Baden, Switzerland: the Oberstadt + project, which applied a data-driven, evidence-based framework to foster a 10-Minute-Neighbourhood, and the In-Depth Study Oberstadt, which prioritized minimal intervention and preservation. The comparative analysis is based on a mixed-methods approach combining spatial data modeling, scenario planning, iterative stakeholder consultations, and autoethnography. Our findings reveal that conventional planning paradigms often lack methodological rigor, leading to suboptimal outcomes. In contrast, scientifically substantiated urban design—incorporating traceable metrics, iterative stakeholder engagement, and verifiable long-term scenarios—enhances both sustainability and public acceptance. The research highlights how governance structures can either enable or obstruct transformative urban planning, and argues for a shift away from intuition-based decision-making towards a structured, participatory, and evidence-driven process. By challenging the timidity of municipal decision-makers and advocating for transparent, quantitative planning tools, this paper underscores the need for a paradigm shift in urban transformation. It calls for city administrations and experts to embrace verifiable, inclusive design methodologies to reconcile urban growth with sustainability imperatives.</p>