Sewage field in Wartenberg, ca. 1930 

Context in source publication

Context 1

... future of cultural landscapes is a hot topic at present. In particular, the peripheral areas are under a lot of pressure from urban, non-agricul- tural uses. These issues and the structural change in agriculture, which has been taking place at least since the 1950s, have been altering the face of the landscapes and continue to do so. The resulting scenery does not please everybody, often nobody likes it. There are problems with its acceptance because the expectations of traditional cultural landscapes are no longer met. Recently, a specific kind of agriculture has emerged that caters for the interests of city dwellers and is therefore called ‘urban agriculture’. It is mainly situated on the fringe of urban agglomerations. ‘Urban agriculture’ does not just mean agriculture near or within cities. It is a new approach which is not only oriented to production, but services too – things which city dwellers can do in their leisure time, e.g. fruit picking, arrang- ing flowers or riding ( Fleury and Donadieu 1997; Lohrberg 2000, 2004; BGMR 2004 ). This can help develop a more open-minded approach to the necessary changes in the perception of landscape and encourage an awareness of the importance of an economically viable agriculture. How to transform landscapes into new uses so that they may be profit- ably managed for farmers while maintaining an aspect which is pleasing to non-farmers is an important question. Since agriculture is heavily sub- sidised by the European Union, it has to offer the majority who support it indirectly something that they think is worth paying for. New approaches both from farmers and visitors to peripheral rural areas are necessary. The farmers need to broaden their outlook and take into consideration the needs of city dwellers. Visitors need to accept that the cultural landscape of the past cannot be maintained without very heavy subsidies and they must widen their imagination with regard to what is beautiful. The Barnim area on the north-eastern periphery of Berlin is given here as an example to illustrate these changes in attitude towards peripheral landscapes. Three consecutive competitions for landscape architects took place in the Barnim area with results beyond old and new design stereo- types – a new type of landscape came into being which is specific to the place and at the same time unconditionally modern. First, the historical decisions in planning and politics will be described which led to the planning opportunities of today. Then the wider context of the area in the actual Berlin–Brandenburg schemes will be explained. The questions that were raised in the preparation of the competition briefs will be discussed and the results of the competitions are described briefly. Their effect on future design processes is discussed with relevance to consideration of reactions from laymen and professionals. The most relevant entries of the three Barnim competitions are analysed. By refer- ring to contemporary theories in the arts, some general principles for future design in peripheries can be derived from these entries. The foundations for landscape architecture in the Barnim area in the north-east of Berlin were laid as early as the end of the nineteenth century. Although the Berlin city area was much smaller than it is today, it was recognized that open spaces in the catchment area of the growing city could be threatened. To safeguard the options for nearby recreation and sewage disposal, the city administration of Berlin bought woods and estates outside the city limits. The forests were given special protection and in this way they were secured until today. At this time the understanding grew that there is a connection between hygiene and epidemics. Reformists like the doctor Rudolf Virchow and the civil engineer James Hobrecht developed a new sewage canal system and pushed its realization through parliament. Open sewage disposal within the city was abolished. Sewage was now transported in canals to the outskirts where it was cleaned by seepage in so-called ‘Rieselfelder’. At first, these sewage fields were also used for agricultural purposes; however, later, this was no longer possible because of pollution, especially heavy metals, in the waste water. The fields were divided up by dams into rec- tangular polders, into which the sewage was directed in order to allow the water to seep away (Fig. 1). The cleaned water was then returned to the water system by means of artificial ditches. These sewage farms were gradually replaced by sewage processing plants. Some, however, survived until the 1970s, mainly in the eastern half of the city. In March 1933, Berlin possessed 25,000 ha of forest areas and 27,000 ha of country estates, within the city limits as well as outside. These pub- licly owned areas are a great asset even for regional planning today ( Ermer et al. 1996 ). Many of these sewage farms were located on the north-east of the city, on the Barnim plateau. Once their use as sewage farms ceased, the expanses were used by the agricultural production co-operatives of the GDR (Landwirtschaftliche Produktionsgenossenschaften – LPG) as extensive fields and meadows. The landscape was largely empty and unstructured, due to industrialized farming methods. Also the poor soils of the Mark Brandenburg make large continuous acres necessary because the yield per acre is low and the farms are few and far between (Fig. 2). Due to the political situation of West Berlin and rigorous state planning in East Berlin during the separation of Germany, Berlin differed from comparable western cities in that a suburbanization process hardly oc- curred at all. In the north-east, in particular, high-rise housing developments bordered directly on fields, and a clearly defined urban edge could be recognized. Some changes were inevitable here, but at the same time we should recognize the unique situation which is a result of the special history of Berlin. The close proximity of the city to open spaces is a unique poten- tial and the preservation of this condition was the goal of the regional park concept developed in 1996 ( MUNR 1998 ). The main idea is to dedicate eight areas, located between the development axis following the outgo- ing lines of the railways, to be regional parks. These areas are situated in a ring around the city of Berlin. Several parks start at the city border and a small section is situated in Berlin but predominantly the park territories lie in Brandenburg. The main goal for these regional parks is to develop a strong, specific identity to prevent them from being only buffer-spaces and easily built upon. Regional parks in Germany are not a legal category like national parks, but a voluntary union of local authorities. Therefore each park is organ- ized in a different way. The landscape character of the eight parks is rather diverse (Figure 3 shows the predominant character of each park). Several consist mainly of forests and lakes whose amenities are obvious. But there are also open agricultural landscapes which are more in need of improvement. This is especially true for the regional park Barnimer Feldmark. Barnim is the name of a plateau north of the Spree glacial valley. There are two regional parks within its territory, Barnim Nature Park and Regional Park Barnimer Feldmark, west and east of the development axis in the northern direction. Both regional parks have a small part of their territory in Berlin, the so-called ‘Berliner Barnim’. In the Barnim area, planning activities had begun even before the regional park concept was developed. This was necessary because neither the appearance nor the image was attractive. The area is dominated by monotonous farming, trees or forests are few and far between. Only a few beautiful spots exist, but most parts are in desperate need of enrichment. This region is still waiting for recognition of its specific attraction which lies mainly in its openness. Therefore, elements need to be inserted in a way that structures the area without destroying its character. The Barnimer Feldmark regional park is very suitable for bicycle tours because of its flatness. Also it is easily accessible by local trains. The Barn- imer Feldmark Society, a voluntary organization of local authorities and NGOs, developed a system of paths, of which there are four different kinds: from train station to train station, circuits, local walkways and bridle paths. Barriers such as motorway and railway rings are a problem with regard to their implementation because few possibilities to cross them have been found till now. From the very earliest zoning plan considerations after re-unification, the aim was to develop here a fourth large-scale recreational area for Berlin to supplement the forest and lake areas in the three other corners of the city.[1] This improvement of the north-eastern sector was particularly necessary because massive building activities took place here in the 1970s and 1980s in the GDR. The large prefabricated housing estates of Mar- zahn-Nord and Hohenschönhausen (Fig. 4) are in the immediate neighbourhood. After re-unification, building in the catchment area of the local railway lines continued, and new residential areas arose in the north (Karow- Nord, Buchholz and Buch). At the same time there were not nearly enough areas for recreation on a larger scale ...