Ideally, parks provide space for the open coexistence of a heterogeneous urban society. The Spoor Noord park in Antwerp and the Park am Gleisdreieck in Berlin were created in close cooperation with future users and demonstrate this: Without participation and involvement, things will no longer work in the future.
What about the dream of many planners of a mixed city on many levels? Different origins, purses, religions, educational standards – each neighborhood a small village of harmony that organizes itself as independently as possible? The real trend is the opposite: segregation and segregation are noticeable and not only desired by the wealthy. At the moment, the dream of heterogeneous groups organizing themselves is still a bourgeois-German one; being “among themselves” is obviously a quality that people in our cities are looking for.
Public space as a platform
This becomes critical when people from different walks of life no longer even meet in everyday life – and there are no formats in which the individual parts of society can gain an insight into the whole. Understanding of each other’s ways of life threatens to dwindle. However, this understanding is the basis for social consideration and negotiation processes beyond the St. Florian principle and the basis for peaceful coexistence. Such platforms are also and above all – preferably well-designed – public spaces. In them, urban society can encounter itself: simply by giving people the peace and quiet to perceive “the other” at all. At best, spaces can open up for which the citizens of the city feel responsible.
Parks have always been an outstanding platform for the different publics of an urban society. In addition to their aesthetic and architectural purpose, they were (and are) always designed with the intention of providing space for encounters and leisure, the coexistence and interaction of different social classes and groups. Nothing new, one might think, if one places parks such as Park Spoor Noord in Antwerp or Park am Gleisdreieck in Berlin alongside the Ruhr district parks or the landscape parks of the Renaissance. The design is perhaps a little more modern, the program a little more colourful than “back then”. In terms of the result, this may be roughly correct, but the objectives and production methods have changed significantly compared to the past. While the “production” of public green spaces was still a sovereign, state-run and sometimes even patronizing act far beyond the IBA Emscherpark, the parks in Antwerp and Berlin mentioned above were developed and designed not only in the interests of urban society, but also in a cooperative process with the people who are to use them in the future.
You can find the full article in Garten + Landschaft 9/2015. Order the magazine here.












