Gemeinsam mit den Bürger*innen

Making One’s Own Meaning

Photo by Clara Feldman

Tempelhof Field is a space where individuals construct their own meanings and identities while contributing to the broader identity of Berlin.

The Tempelhof Field’s unique environmental characteristics, lack of signifiers, and public accessibility make the site a place where individuals are able to construct their own meaning from the space, as well as construct their own identity in relation to the field. This is a valuable aspect to the field that emerges as a reason for its further protection.

Voids exist as reflections of their comprehension by people within a city and their potential for transformation.1 And while many competing visions for the field exist in a larger context of envisioning Berlin’s future, the Tempelhof Field has become a place where people can project personal wishes and imaginations onto, because no single vision has been fully developed or carried out.2 

The study by the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research enumerates this quality perfectly, stating “its frequent use and the experiences associated with it, as well as the opportunity to live out one’s own culture or lifestyle and the activities central to it here – and possibly only here – can also give rise to feelings of identification, of one’s own location or “home” in the district and the city. Such identification is further supported by participation in the design of the place.”3 

The field’s unique characteristics make it suitable for this aforementioned experience, which is unique in Berlin. As we’ve established, much is at play on the field and it is far from empty. Despite this, it has a relatively undefined character and has minimal signifiers (distinct signs that communicate specific meaning to users).4 Thus, individuals are able to engage in different experiences in their own ways, allowing them to take and give meaning to the site in unique and personal ways. Those who give meaning to the field are those who use it, not those responsible for its construction or control.5 Through independent usage, each new user or visitor gives the field a new meaning.6 Thus, what defines the field is those who use it, like Juan or Kristin, who find so many meanings in the space from the many ways they use it. 

What is also visible in discourses of development and change urban on the field is that the uncertainty and irregularity of the space is a point of relative discomfort for administrative bodies in the city.7 Attempts to control the field and place restraints on its uses through development and planning design are resisted by community initiatives. Allmende Kontor gardeners like Kristin pride themselves on the garden’s crooked and chaotic aesthetic as a conscious choice in approaching how she and fellow gardeners imagine the city—something with “diversity in the form of shape and unevenness”.8 Activities of all sorts are examples of people engaging with the sire in ways that allow them to make their own meaning and project their values into public space. Tempelhof Field allows for this creativity and experimentation within its vastness.9 

As a space of such unique form and diversity where people can live out different experiences through its use, the identity forming component of the field comes into play. Through involvement in shaping the space—which many do through civic initiatives like community gardening—people generate feelings of identification and belonging.10 

Even further, the participation process of field activities can give the field a high emotional value to users, which interviewees involved in civic initiatives expressed feeling about the space.11 Juan sees the field as  “very special” and “magical”, and considers it a “very, very important part of [his] life”.12 It is similar for Kristin, her initial gardening involvement “created a very special bond in this huge field”, and through “helping to shape the city and the field,” it has become very important to her.13 

Beyond personal meaning, voids are entangled with cities’ larger conceptions of themselves, and because of its vastness, Tempelhof field has become a void representative of the city itself, lending to the creation of a city identity as a whole.14 Beginning with its protection, many consider the outcome of the 2014 referendum to be emblematic of Berlin’s citizens’ prioritization of public space over profit, a characteristic of its alternative culture.15 Beyond just protecting the field, users have bound the field to their conceptions of Berlin, using Tempelhof Field as more than a place to construct their own identity, but the identity of the city itself, too. 

Voids are an integral part of Berlin’s landscape, with an unconventional park system developing from the voids spattering the city that have been appropriated for communal life in the decades since the war.16 Their longstanding presence in the city has helped create the sense that Berlin is a city of opportunity and possibility.17 With the opening of Tempelhof Field and the ensuing creation of diverse and overlapping meanings from it, the void of Tempelhof Field has become an instrumental component in the city’s identity, and emblematic of it as a whole. Many see the field as mirroring or embodying the city’s reputation entirely, becoming a place for alternative practices and constant evolution.18 

Kristin shared that for her, “there is no Berlin” without the Tempelhof Field; Berlin “wouldn’t have the appeal that it has for me, simply because of this open space, this open area”.19 For Juan it is similar, his involvement has tied the city to the field; and René—who admits not even liking the field that much—is so aware of its role in the city that he is a staunch advocate for its protection.20

  1. Lopez-Pineiro, S. “A Glossary of Urban Voids.” Jovis Verlag GmbH, 2020. https://www.degruyter.com/document/isbn/9783868596045/html.; Beveridge, Ross, Markus Kip, and Heike Oevermann. “From Wastelands to Waiting Lands: Retrieving Possibility from the Voids of Berlin.” City 26, no. 2/3 (2022): 281–303. doi:10.1080/13604813.2022.2040200. ↩︎
  2. Brenck et al. “Gesellschaftliche Wertigkeit des Tempelhofer Feldes – Qualitäten erfassen und sichtbar machen.” Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung GmbH – UFZ, November 2021: 75. ↩︎
  3. Brenck et al. “Gesellschaftliche Wertigkeit des Tempelhofer Feldes – Qualitäten erfassen und sichtbar machen.” Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung GmbH – UFZ, November 2021: 63. ↩︎
  4. Koçak, D. Ö. “An ‘Empty’ Space Among Plans, Borders and Utopias: The Tempelhof Field.” Moment Dergi, Nostalgia and Melancholia, (2020): 89. DOI: 10.17572/mj2020.1.88106. ↩︎
  5. Ibid., 90. ↩︎
  6. Ibid., 90. ↩︎
  7. Ibid., 91. ↩︎
  8. Kristin Hensel, Zoom interview with Clara Feldman, November 11, 2023. ↩︎
  9. Koçak, D. Ö. “An ‘Empty’ Space Among Plans, Borders and Utopias: The Tempelhof Field.” Moment Dergi, Nostalgia and Melancholia, (2020): 90. DOI: 10.17572/mj2020.1.88106.; Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt. Entwicklungs- und Pflegeplan Tempelhofer Feld. Berlin, Germany, May 2016.; Brenck et al. “Gesellschaftliche Wertigkeit des Tempelhofer Feldes – Qualitäten erfassen und sichtbar machen.” Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung GmbH – UFZ, November 2021. ↩︎
  10. Brenck et al. “Gesellschaftliche Wertigkeit des Tempelhofer Feldes – Qualitäten erfassen und sichtbar machen.” Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung GmbH – UFZ, November 2021: 63; Kristin Hensel, Zoom interview with Clara Feldman, November 11, 2023. ↩︎
  11. Brenck et al. “Gesellschaftliche Wertigkeit des Tempelhofer Feldes – Qualitäten erfassen und sichtbar machen.” Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung GmbH – UFZ, November 2021: 63 ↩︎
  12. Juan Coka Arcos, Zoom interview with Clara Feldman, November 16, 2023. ↩︎
  13. Kristin Hensel, Zoom interview with Clara Feldman, November 11, 2023. ↩︎
  14. Beveridge, Ross, Markus Kip, and Heike Oevermann. 2022. “From Wastelands to Waiting Lands: Retrieving Possibility from the Voids of Berlin.” City 26 (2/3): 295. doi:10.1080/13604813.2022.2040200. ↩︎
  15. Parsloe, Toby. 2017. “Appropriating Buildings to House Refugees: Berlin Tempelhof.” Forced Migration Review, no. 55 (June): 35. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.uvm.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,url&db=aph&AN=123832572&site=ehost-live&scope=site.  ↩︎
  16. Natura Urbana: The Brachen of Berlin. Directed by Matthew Gandy. 2017. Film. ↩︎
  17. Beveridge, Ross, Markus Kip, and Heike Oevermann. “From Wastelands to Waiting Lands: Retrieving Possibility from the Voids of Berlin.” City 26, no. 2/3 (2022): 281–303. doi:10.1080/13604813.2022.2040200. ↩︎
  18. Arneson, Krystin. “Tempelhof: The Single Site That Embodies Berlin.” BBC News, November 2, 2022. https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20221031-tempelhof-the-single-site-that-embodies-berlin. ↩︎
  19. Kristin Hensel, Zoom interview with Clara Feldman, November 11, 2023. ↩︎
  20. Juan Coka Arcos, Zoom interview with Clara Feldman, November 16, 2023.; and René Kreichauf, Microsoft Teams interview with Clara Feldman, December 5, 2023. ↩︎