Setting the course for the future of urban development: when the German Property Federation (ZIA), the Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union (NABU), IKEA and the Association of German Landscape Architects (BDLA) join forces, major changes are on the horizon. An alliance of 21 cross-sector associations, foundations and companies first presented the “Future City and Green” charter to the press in Berlin on Tuesday and then handed it over to the new Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety, Barbara Hendricks.
With the charter, the participants want to make the positive effect of urban greenery more recognizable and usable. It calls for urban green spaces to be preserved and created and for cooperation between the stakeholders involved to be improved. The charter formulates not exactly modest demands for eight areas of impact and action such as climate change, health, social function, quality of location, protection of soil, water and air, biodiversity and the promotion of research into construction and vegetation technology. The potential of green spaces in our cities is to be promoted, outstanding problems critically examined and long-term planning tackled.
The initiators of the charter are the German Federal Association of Gardening, Landscaping and Sports Facilities (BGL) and the foundation DIE GRÜNE STADT. 21 initial signatories include NABU, ZIA and bdla as well as names such as Meyer Werft, IKEA and the German Golf Association. A strong community with good ideas and strong arguments. It almost sounds a little too good to be true: The signatory institutions are committed to quality of life, recreation, environmental protection, sustainability and upgrading business locations, real estate and communities. The skeptic’s ears prick up: what role do economic interests play in so much commitment?
To get a complete picture of the charter, it is certainly worth taking a look behind the scenes. This raises the question of what the different motives and interests of the signatories to the charter are and where the consensus of the various parties can be found. After all, the range of interpretations of “green” in the city extends from parking lot construction and green roofs to urban gardening and landscape parks. Doesn’t an association such as NABU understand something (completely) different from the optimal use of open space than a real estate association? Where is the interface between a landscaped park, housing construction and a breeding ground for rare birds? And is it just a pleasant side effect that the members organized in the associations and companies that practice landscape architecture in particular can expect to receive commissions when the charter is implemented – or is that the whole point?
Surely the particular interests of the signatories can be set aside in the interests of the larger idea and thus be reconciled with each other. At the same time, in this interplay, the big names benefit from the even better image of the smaller ones, while the economically less well-positioned organizations gain from the clout of the big ones. It therefore remains to be hoped that the Charter will not lose its beautiful appearance when the outstanding questions are answered and that flowery words and images will not only be used to pursue economic interests.