{"id":118,"date":"2024-03-02T16:17:52","date_gmt":"2024-03-02T16:17:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/site.uvm.edu\/dasFeld\/?page_id=118"},"modified":"2024-05-06T01:35:58","modified_gmt":"2024-05-06T01:35:58","slug":"the-role-of-civic-participation","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/site.uvm.edu\/dasFeld\/?page_id=118","title":{"rendered":"The Role of Civic Participation In Land Use Planning"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\"\"
Tempelhof F\u00fcr Alle Demonstration. Andreas Schmitz, May 20, 2012. Umbruch Bildarchiv. <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Understanding Space and Society <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The interplay between space and identity within urban settings is particularly apparent with Tempelhof Field. In understanding larger theories on how cities and spaces contribute to senses of belonging, I look to scholars such as Edward Soja, Doreen Massey, and John Urry, for their contributions to the socio-spatial dialectic. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Soja’s concept of “thirdspace” highlights the multifaceted nature of urban landscapes, emphasizing their role as both physical environments and symbolic arenas of social interaction.\u00a01<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The idea of “place as process” underscored by Massey, highlights the dynamic nature of urban spaces, shaped by ongoing social relations and power dynamics.2<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Urry’s research on mobilities explores how movement and transportation systems influence urban experiences, impacting individuals’ sense of identity and belonging within the city.3<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Together, these theoretical frameworks shed light on how cities, through their spatial configurations and social dynamics, shape individuals’ perceptions of belonging and identity. This understanding is vital for the assertion of my conclusions, which examine the ways Tempelhof Field shapes individuals\u2019 and groups\u2019 sense of belonging in Berlin, their connections to one another, and their relationship to this iconic physical environment.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Civic Participation in Berlin<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Understanding civic participation in Berlin\u2019s land-use and development planning processes since the 1970s is vital to understanding how Berliners participate in development processes today.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The past five decades illustrate two important realities that are relevant to our understanding of citizen and government involvement in the planning of Tempelhof Field\u2019s present and future:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Grassroots protest and civic participation are vital elements to Berlin\u2019s land-use planning processes, of which some infrastructure exists to facilitate discussion between civic groups and government planners. <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
      \n
    1. Economic trends have necessitated a level of outsourcing by government, which means the shifting of responsibility to community participation for the upkeep of urban spaces. <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
      <\/div>\n\n\n\n

      Berlin is a city-state of Germany, with its state government, in German the Senat<\/em> (Senate of Berlin), operating above a number of city districts, Bezirke<\/em>. Both of these entities participate in land-use planning for the city, and share interests with federal bodies. In the 1970s, the economic growth and energy priorities at the federal level were shared with state and local governments in West Berlin. With the decline of economic prosperity in the following decades, social movements demonstrated a growing critique of growth and issues of quality of life.4<\/a><\/sup>  West Berlin was acutely faced with what many call the \u201cecology-economy conflict\u201d, which prompted the nationwide rise of the environmental movement.5<\/a><\/sup> 6<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Urbanization highlighted the challenges of expansion in a confined space; industry and population were forced to coexist and it became apparent that there were insufficient means to disperse the negative impacts. Local groups became increasingly opposed to government industrial initiatives that were at the expense of natural environments. For example, former energy company BEWAG proposed the Reuter-West power plant in the middle of one of Berlin\u2019s largest forested areas in order to avoid residential spaces. They were immediately met with enormous and forceful citizen protests. The energy issue most clearly aggravated challengers of the growth mentality, but a wider array of movements were concerned with women\u2019s issues, war opposition, and labor concerns.7<\/a><\/sup> Thus, people began to depart from the technocratic mentalities of the past and adopted a more widespread position that only a democratic decision making process could produce adequate policy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The movements of the 1970s and 1980s led to a more \u201cactivist citizenry\u201d and a more participatory planning process.8<\/a><\/sup> Despite many changes to the institutional planning process, grassroots protest has remained a frequent and necessary piece of the planning process for Berliners. Berlin\u2019s grassroots mobilization in the past decades was seen as a way to challenge the encroaching \u201cindustrial-bureaucratic growth machine\u201d situated within a larger context of German protest against state industrialization projects.9<\/a><\/sup>  The 1970s saw large formation of new social movements and B\u00fcrgerinitiativen<\/em> (citizen\u2019s initiatives) across Berlin and Germany, a trend that persists to this day.10<\/a><\/sup> These protests even led to the founding of green and alternative parties such as the Alternative Liste Partei, which won its first seats in 1981. Since these initial movements, a variety of building, planning, and legislation processes mandate civic involvement in planning, and additional requirements like environmental impact testing were implemented.11<\/a><\/sup> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Reunification of Berlin meant rethinking city planning altogether, and the 1990\u2019s stagnating economy meant more control over space by the development authorities and reliance on public investment, neither of which were processes the Senat or local government could effectively monitor. Initiatives like the City Forum as an advisory body were incremental enhancements of citizen participation in formal planning, but no institutionalized forum for conversation between citizens and politicians. Thus, grassroots mobilization remains an enormous part of Berlin\u2019s planning conversations, a dynamic we will see well exemplified in the context of Tempelhof Field.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      <\/div>\n\n\n\n

      As a part of the ecology-economy conflict and widespread environmental movement, people also developed a variety of methods to combat state control of urban greenery.12<\/a><\/sup> These means of protest included greening of patios and backyards, public squating, and use of void spaces to hinder development.13<\/a><\/sup> In Rosol\u2019s examination of urban gardens in Berlin, community run spaces are a prime example of the local government\u2019s withdrawal from earlier \u201cwelfarist functions\u201d towards a supplemental strategy that involves community engagement as a cheap outsourcing solution.14<\/a><\/sup> The City of Berlin\u2019s unfortunate budget situation meant the unwillingness or inability to fund much collective infrastructure, which often meant \u201cland fell vacant\u201d, enabling \u201cpossibility for interim uses like gardens\u201d.15<\/a><\/sup> An examination of community gardening in Berlin finds a clear shift from gardening as strongly connected to urban social movements, to \u201ccommunity gardening as a form of volunteerism or the provision of social services\u201d.16<\/a><\/sup> It is also important to note the provisional asterisk; with impermanence underscoring their existence while the possibility of development by state land owners once funds are accumulated. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      This turn is not to negate the progressive and liberating nature of community gardens. A growing number of them in Berlin, created according to the needs and ideas of its users make them starkly different from traditional city parks.17<\/a><\/sup> While Rosol situates community gardening participation within a broader neoliberal handoff of state responsibilities to civil society, user-creation makes community gardens both critiques of, and alternatives to, more traditional state implemented open spaces.18<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The co-construction of green space by state and non-state actors in community gardens is a useful example for understanding dynamics of interest in Berlin\u2019s open green spaces. The role of the community voluntary sector may aim to close the gap that withdrawal of funding create, while reflecting the specific needs and desires of gardeners. In Germany, community gardens are distinct from typical German Schreberg\u00e4rten<\/em> (allotment gardens) and are planned, designed, and built collectively by local residents. Another distinction is their function beyond food, as most Berlin community gardens are decidedly not food producers. Rather their benefits are focused on potential aesthetic, recreation, and environment functions, or addressing public concern for \u201cugly\u201d neglected spaces.19<\/a><\/sup> For Bezirke<\/em> administrators, \u201cusing the unpaid labor of local residents to turn urban wastelands into public gardens,\u201d is a sustainable and cheaper alternative to maintaining gardens than through employment of city staff.20<\/a><\/sup> The motives of community gardeners themselves however, are centered on enjoyment, aspects of socialization and community building, dissatisfaction with existing green spaces, and the desire to provide their kids with safe and enjoyable spaces. Additionally, health aspects of gardening, access to nature, feelings of responsibility, and pedagogic motives make gardeners motivated agents of change.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Community gardens in Berlin are an apt example of interaction between civic groups and state and local government can help us understand the history and broader contexts of how Berlin\u2019s open green spaces are co-created, maintained, or threatened. Examples like the battle over Reuter-West provoked ongoing discussions about what spaces in the city are most integral to quality of life.21<\/a><\/sup> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Civic Participation and the Field<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Public participation on Tempelhof Field began long before the decisive 2014 referendum. After the closure in 2008 following a referendum in which only 22% of the public participated, the site was opened to Berliners in May of 2010. This was the first referendum since the 1995 Berlin constitutional amendment that allowed direct voting and made citizen participation in urban development binding.22<\/a><\/sup> The B\u00fcrgerinitiative<\/em> flugfreies Tempelhof <\/em>(BIFT) (flight-free Tempelhof), was one of the first civil initiatives to speak for the closure of the airport. In 2008, the Senatsverwaltung f\u00fcr Stadt\u00adent\u00adwicklung, Bauen und Wohnen<\/em> (Senate Department for Urban Development, Building and Housing) proposed the concept plan \u201cTempelhof Freiheit\u201d (Liberty of Tempelhof). This plan proposed an urban forum of culture and activity in the old hangar building and recommended the construction of thousands of apartments on the edges of the field, to be constructed by 2025. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Prior to its opening, several public discourse events had been completed regarding what to do with the field, but none of them concerned the topic of housing construction on the site, which was one of the public\u2019s main concerns.23<\/a><\/sup> In 2008, an open call for Pioneer Areas and ideas was held, of which some chosen projects remain today. The conceptualization of these spaces was transitory, and permanence was not legally guaranteed. Two rounds of public surveys were held to gauge public impression and beliefs about the field\u2019s future. In 2009, 13,000 citizens were able to see the not-yet-open airfield by special bus tour.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The field reopened to the public on May 8th, 2010, nearly unchanged after the 2 years since the final flight departed. Eighty thousand people visited the field on its first day open, and its future use quickly became a large issue within Berlin. Citizen groups such as Squat Tempelhof and 100% Tempelhofer Feld were founded in 2009 and 2011, respectively, and began advocating for the preservation of the field. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n
      \"\"
      “Flowers instead of concrete! 100% open space”.
      Christina Palitzsch (2012). Umbruch Bildarchiv.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
      \"\"
      “Take part in the referendum! Hands off the sea of meadows”.
      Christina Palitzsch (2012). Umbruch Bildarchiv.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

      Between 2010 and 2013, the Senate gathered information on public ideas for the field in its process of creating the masterplan for Tempelhofer Freihet. The plan was presented to the public in March of 2013 and opened to public discussion and a series of public participation events. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Open dialogue sessions received feedback from the over 500 participants; concerns, ideas, wishes, and more were given to the Senate department. No constructive feedback was returned to citizens, and the only response by the city was: \u201cthe results have been used for the planning process\u201d.24<\/a><\/sup> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n
      \"\"
      Participation at the Tempelhof for All demonstration. Andreas Schmitz (2012). Umbruch Bildarchiv. <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
      \"\"
      “Let the meadows stay meadows…we will not be driven out of here”. Andreas Schmitz (2012). Umbruch Bildarchiv. <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

      Conflicts of re-use for the field reached a high in 2014, when the referendum initiated by 100% Tempelhofer Feld went to a vote. The two options on the ballot were as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n