Content uploaded by Almut Jirku
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Almut Jirku on Jan 10, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
32nd edition
edited by
Patrizia Boschiero, Thilo Folkerts, Luigi Latini
International Carlo Scarpa
Prize for Gardens 2022
Natur Park
Schöneberger
Südgelände
and Berlin’s
Urban Nature
Fondazione Benetton Studi Ricerche
Antiga
Treviso 2022
excerpt
Almut Jirku
Like pearls on a string: the Berlin open spaces system
and the Park am Gleisdreieck
pp. 124-138
Contents
Natur Park Schöneberger Südgelände
and Berlin’s Urban Nature
International Carlo Scarpa Prize for Gardens 2022
published by Fondazione Benetton
Studi Ricerche, with Antiga,
edited by Patrizia Boschiero, Thilo Folkerts,
Luigi Latini
On the occasion of the 32nd International
Carlo Scarpa Prize for Gardens,
dedicated to Natur Park Schöneberger Südgelände,
this book is being issued simultaneously
in Italian and English editions.
Editorial production:
Patrizia Boschiero (coordination),
Chiara Condò and Nicoletta Tesser
(editing and layout).
Translations and proofreading by
Traduttori Associati di Tomlin, Sohn
e Traldi-Treviso:
from German to English
(essays by Thilo Folkerts, pp. 19-27;
Rita Suhrhof and Thilo Folkerts, pp. 59-70;
Klaus Duschat and Thilo Folkerts, pp. 71-83;
Chronology of the Natur Park Schöneberger
Südgelände, 1838-2025, pp. 84-89;
Stefanie Hennecke, pp. 119-123; Almut Jirku,
pp. 125-138; Gabriele G. Kiefer and
Thilo Folkerts, pp. 163-172; Heinz W. Hallmann
and Ursula Wilms, pp. 187-191);
from Italian to English (Statement of the Prize,
pp. 8-10; essays by Lorenza Manfredi,
Jannis Schiefer, Laura Veronese, pp. 99-117;
Anna Lambertini, pp. 203-215);
from Spanish to English (essay by Juan Manuel
Palerm, pp. 217-230).
Translation from Italian to German by
Jesko Kleine (Statement of the Prize, pp. 11-14).
The Fondazione Benetton Studi Ricerche
is ready to address any claims relating
to the copyright of illustrations for which
no source was found.
pp1-57-motivazioni-Folkerts-Kowarik1.indd 4pp1-57-motivazioni-Folkerts-Kowarik1.indd 4 26/04/22 16:0226/04/22 16:02
Contents
The International Carlo Scarpa Prize
for Gardens
Statement of the Carlo Scarpa Prize,
in English, German and Italian, edited by
the Scientiic Committee of the
Fondazione Benetton Studi Ricerche
Thilo Folkerts
Berlin, the emergence of an urban nature
Natur Park Südgelände
Ingo Kowarik
Südgelände, Berlin: transforming a wild urban
wasteland to a new kind of nature park
Natur Park Südgelände: project,
maintenance, development
Rita Suhrhoff in conversation
with Thilo Folkerts
Natur Park Südgelände: the role of the art
Klaus Duschat in conversation
with Thilo Folkerts
Chronology of the Natur Park Schöneberger
Südgelände 1838-2025: from shunting yard
to nature park
Christoph Schmidt
A new city experience: the key role
of Natur Park Südgelände for the urban
paradigm shift in Berlin
Berlin
Lorenza Manfredi, Jannis Schiefer,
Laura Veronese
Through Berlin: urban natures
Stefanie Hennecke
Berlin, a brief history of its parks
Almut Jirku
Like pearls on a string: the Berlin open spaces
system and the Park am Gleisdreieck
Ingo Kowarik
The Berlin School of Urban Ecology
and the emergence of wasteland ecology
Sandra Jasper
Berlin, a ruderal urbanism
Grün Berlin: sustainable routes
for developing public space
Further reflections. On urban nature
Berlin and the development
of contemporary landscape culture
Gabriele G. Kiefer in conversation
with Thilo Folkerts
Norbert Kühn
Urban spontaneous vegetation
as a tool for climate adaptation
Heinz W. Hallmann and Ursula Wilms
The design of the Topographie des Terrors site
Leonard Grosch
Berlin’s Park am Gleisdreieck
or the art of designing lively places
Anna Lambertini
Hybrid, cosmopolitan, inventive.
Nature of urban wildness
Juan Manuel Palerm
The wild nature of the wastelands.
On Berlin, ‘urban nature,’ architecture,
art and the void as project material.
The case of Natur Park Schöneberger
Südgelände
Carlo Scarpa Prize 1990-2022
The activities of the Carlo Scarpa Prize
for the place
The authors
lllustration references
pp1-57-motivazioni-Folkerts-Kowarik1.indd 5pp1-57-motivazioni-Folkerts-Kowarik1.indd 5 26/04/22 16:0226/04/22 16:02
124
1
Natur Park Schöneberger Südgelände and Berlin’s Urban Nature
International Carlo Scarpa Prize for Gardens 2022
1. Park am Gleisdreieck. Path
through the little wilderness with
remnants of railway tracks, 2021.
pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 124pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 124pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 124pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 124 26/04/22 16:1326/04/22 16:1326/04/22 16:1326/04/22 16:13
2
. Landschaftsprogramm .
. Räumliches Strukturkonzept .
Almut Jirku
Like pearls on a string: the Berlin open spaces system
and the Park am Gleisdreieck
The reuniication of Germany resulted in the city of Berlin facing a major
challenge – restoring the two halves of the city, which had been separated
for so long, to a single unit and capital city. This started a very interesting
period for planners and architects, as it is rare that they are given the chance
to give a major city a general makeover. Initially lots of discussions were held
and lots of free-floating designs for the city were produced. With the estab-
lishment of the Stadtforum in – a committee of experts made up of spe-
cialists in many disciplines both from Berlin and elsewhere, which advised
the Senator for urban development – the debates took on a more structured
form. Based on the principles and guidelines which they developed and, of
course, the main features of the existing city, one of the results of this pro-
cess was the land-use plan which was approved in .
In the corresponding landscape programme, there is a north-south
green corridor which together with the River Spree running in an east to
west direction forms a cross, surrounded by parks. The Tiergarten is at the
centre of this system. Leisure areas were created at the four corners of the
city, three of them, consisting of forest and lake areas, already existed, whilst
the fourth at the north-east corner of the city had to be created from scratch
(ig. ).
Very few new parks were developed in West Berlin in the post-war peri-
od as reconstruction was the main objective. A number of new parks were,
however, created in both East and West Berlin based on the green spaces
system, which was developed after . Many of them are on areas previ-
ously occupied by railway tracks and the former terminus stations, which at
the time were built in the suburbs, but were by then often at the centre of
densely populated residential areas. These included the Mauerpark (the very
irst one), the Tilla-Durieux-Park, the Schöneberger Südgelände, the Park am Nord-
bahnhof and the Park am Gleisdreieck.
The long road to the Park am Gleisdreieck
For a long time, in fact for more than one hundred years, the site of the cur-
rent Park am Gleisdreieck was dominated by the railway. This all changed
at the end of the Second World War and the subsequent division of the city
of Berlin. Many of the stations in the city had been bombed and were not
rebuilt. Others were gradually abandoned when they lost their purpose as a
result of the division of the city and Germany itself, meaning that econom-
ic ties and therefore also trafic flows had to ind new routes.
That was certainly the case at the Potsdam and Anhalt stations. Both
cities which gave their names to the stations were now in the soviet zone,
later becoming the gdr. The current site of the Park am Gleisdreieck was
home to the freight stations which were gradually closed down. Spontane-
2. Berlin Open Space System.
Senatsverwaltung für
Stadtentwicklung Berlin, IE1, 2003.
pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 125pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 125pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 125pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 125 26/04/22 16:1326/04/22 16:1326/04/22 16:1326/04/22 16:13
Natur Park Schöneberger Südgelände and Berlin’s Urban Nature
International Carlo Scarpa Prize for Gardens 2022
. See arqui graph.tumblr.com
(‘Archive’, ‘julio ’), last accessed
th January ; Berlin .
. See bi-westtangente.de,
last accessed th January .
ous vegetation started to grow on the resulting wastelands, which also
proved to be influenced by the railway history of the site. As the average an-
nual temperature in the centre of the city is signiicantly higher than in the
surrounding areas, plants from southern climes, whose seeds had been
transported to the site by rail, were able to thrive.
There were also legal reasons for the site being a special case. Although
the Reichsbahn was transferred to the gdr, the regime had no planning au-
thority in West Berlin. West Berlin was self-administered, but did not own
the sites and was therefore unable to approve any change of use for them.
That resulted in the existing buildings and areas simply being leased or rent-
ed to small businesses, and even then, this only took place on a small scale.
Nature was therefore able to conquer more and more space. The relics from
the railway remained but were not maintained and started to decay.
At the same time, the assumption still abounded in the s that the
city would be reunited in the near future so that, initially at least, plans
were made for the city as a whole. These plans were based on making Berlin
suitable for car use, even though at the time there were very few vehicles
around compared to the present day (which partly explains the enthusiasm
for the plans, as people were impressed by the technology and were in fact
unable to identify the drawbacks that went hand-in-hand with it).
At the time, architect Hans Scharoun planned a system of bypasses (tan-
gents) for the future capital city, which were arranged in a square around
the historic centre (ig. ).
The western bypass (Westtangente) was on the site of the Potsdam passen-
ger station, to the west of the historic centre. Looking from Berlin-West, how-
ever, it was in the eastern part of the western part of the city. The southern by-
pass ran slightly to the south of the Landwehr Canal. The motorway junc-
tion, which should have connected the two roads, was intended to be on the
sites of the Potsdam and Anhalt freight stations. The western bypass
should then have headed south on a former rail track route. This develop-
ment concept using motorways was included in the West Berlin area land-
use plan (Flächennutzungsplan, fnp) for several decades and was not oficially
abandoned until .
On a political level, however, it was disputed signiicantly earlier than this
and was actually no longer part of planning concepts by the end of the s.
The Citizens’ Committee Westtangente, founded in , played a major role
in this. Meanwhile the drawbacks of developing a city mainly suitable for car
use had been clearly identiied and there was a great deal of resistance to this
approach. Urban motorways then lost their social consensus relatively quick-
ly. Especially discussions about how the city saw itself on the occasion of the
International Building Exhibition (iba -) led to a renewed focus on
urban qualities. In , the Citizens’ Committee Westtangente developed the
attractive antithesis of the ‘green bypass’ (Grüntangente) whose planned route
was from Potsdamer Platz via the Gleisdreieck, continuing along the Anhalt
rail track to the current Natur Park Südgelände and from there further to the
pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 126pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 126 26/04/22 16:1326/04/22 16:13
3
Almut Jirku, Like pearls on a string: the Berlin open spaces system
and the Park am Gleisdreieck
south along the current S-Bahn (S). An additional green corridor was planned
to follow the Potsdam track, along the S (ig. , p. ).
The concept of the ‘green bypass’ became more and more entrenched
until it became an oficial part of planning for the reuniied Berlin in the
land-use plan.
Work has been ongoing within the Berlin administration to implement
this planning idea ever since it was irst conceived. It has been realised piece
by piece, depending on the availability of the areas and inancial resources.
During the planning phase for Potsdamer Platz (starting in ), a con-
nection was kept free between Tiergarten and the Gleisdreieck, correspond-
ing to the current Henriette Herz and Tilla-Durieux parks (on the Potsdam
passenger station). The Schöneberger Südgelände followed in -.
The Park am Gleisdreieck took a little longer. Whilst the railway authori-
ties, prior to reuniication and also immediately afterwards, were relatively
easily persuaded to give up the areas they no longer required to convert into
parks, by the mid-s they recognised their value due to their inner city lo-
cations. The sites at Gleisdreieck, very close to Potsdamer Platz, were no longer
3. Hans Scharoun’s contribution
to the competition Berlin Capital,
1958. The tangential system
around the historic centre.
pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 127pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 127pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 127pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 127 26/04/22 16:1326/04/22 16:1326/04/22 16:1326/04/22 16:13
Natur Park Schöneberger Südgelände and Berlin’s Urban Nature
International Carlo Scarpa Prize for Gardens 2022
. KowariK .
. See here Ingo Kowarik, Südgelände,
Berlin: transforming a wild urban wasteland
to a new kind of nature park, pp. -,
and The Berlin School of Urban Ecology and
the emergence of wasteland ecology, pp. -.
. Dinnebier-KowariK ;
for the irst three natures, see also
Hunt , chap. .
. See also KüHn , pp. f.
on the border after the fall of the Wall, but instead were right in the heart
of the city. This meant that they attracted completely different land prices
than had previously been the case. To begin with, however, the areas were
required for construction logistics purposes for the construction of Pots-
damer Platz and the north-south railway tunnel (during which large parts
of the spontaneous vegetation were destroyed). At the same time, a long
struggle started between Deutsche Bahn and its legal successors and the
Berlin Senate about how much of the sites should be given over to park land
and how much should be used for buildings. This struggle was critically
monitored by the urban community and especially by the Bürgerinitiative
Westtangente, which in the meantime had been renamed Aktionsgemeinschaft
(ag) Gleisdreieck. It was not until - that an agreement was reached
so that the actual preparations for a competition for the Park am Gleisdreieck
could be started.
Nature of the fourth kind and West Berlin
Interest in researching the special biotopes that had developed on the waste-
lands of former railway sites had initiated as early as the s at the Insti-
tute of Ecology at Berlin Technical University. When the Wall was built in
, access to traditional research areas became more dificult which cer-
tainly helped increase the attention paid to urban ecology. So a virtue was
made of necessity. The development of these very special biotopes at loca-
tions changed by man but then abandoned, the special urban climate and the
migration of species along railway tracks became a stimulating focus of re-
search at the department of professor Herbert Sukopp, the foremost urban
ecologist of his time. Many who trained at his faculty also became renowned
urban ecologists, including his successor, professor Ingo Kowarik who contin-
ued the research in this ield. As early as the s, Kowarik coined the term
‘nature of the fourth kind’ for these special sites. Nature of the fourth kind
differs from nature of the second and third kind, which is shaped by human
activities, in that it arises on sites changed by humans but develops spontane-
ously without human control, in this similar to nature of the irst kind.
These biotopes were regarded as valuable and therefore assessed as wor-
thy of preservation from a nature conservation point of view. This naturally
also formed part of course content and influenced many generations of land-
scape planning students who were socialised on Berlin’s railway wastelands in
terms of plant sociology and, in passing, also in aesthetics.
Research in this direction was then also carried out at the University of Kas-
sel, but with something of a different focus. They combined indings from ur-
ban ecology with criticism of the prevailing method of designing and maintain-
ing public areas. This gave rise to what became known as the Kassel School.
Civic participation for the Park am Gleisdreieck
Some local residents and in particular students from all over the city used
the wasteland site for leisure and parties despite the fact that this was not
pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 128pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 128pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 128pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 128 26/04/22 16:1326/04/22 16:1326/04/22 16:1326/04/22 16:13
4
Almut Jirku, Like pearls on a string: the Berlin open spaces system
and the Park am Gleisdreieck
actually permitted. This very special open space, a free space in many differ-
ent ways, with its speciic aesthetics, offered different experiences which
conventional parkland could not provide. The Gleisdreieck myth comes from
this phase and remains to this day, even though the vast majority of the veg-
etation was destroyed when it was used as a construction logistics site. Only
in the small woodland area which already belonged to the federal state of
Berlin, and the outdoor spaces of the Museum of Transport and Technology
as well as along some boundary strips was ‘nature of the fourth kind’ re-
tained and was able to develop further.
For many other citizens, the Gleisdreieck was an exterritorial site which
was regarded as being part of the East and therefore to be avoided. What is
more, access was oficially prohibited. So whilst the park had already long
existed in the heads of some of the people of Berlin, for others the area was
terra incognita. Putting the future park on the ‘mental map’ of attractive of-
fers for all citizens was one of the objectives of the design competition and
the accompanying opportunities for civic participation.
The people who were very familiar with the site and had a clear idea of its
future included the Citizens’ Committee Gleisdreieck of course. There is no
doubt that this group had done a great deal to ensure that a park of a signii-
cant size would be built here at all. On the other hand, from a social, age-relat-
ed and political point of view the Committee was very homogeneous and
therefore by no means represented the wishes of everybody. For these reasons,
the administration was convinced from the outset that only by means of
4. «Stadtgrün Berlin».
Bundesgartenschau Berlin 1991.
The plans for the north-south
green corridor, starting
from the Tiergarten,
with Park am Gleisdreieck
and Schöneberger Südgelände.
Plan by Büro Kiefer for
Grün Berlin, 1991.
pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 129pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 129pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 129pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 129 26/04/22 16:1326/04/22 16:1326/04/22 16:1326/04/22 16:13
Natur Park Schöneberger Südgelände and Berlin’s Urban Nature
International Carlo Scarpa Prize for Gardens 2022
. For a comprehensive description,
see stadtentwicklung.berlin.de (Park auf dem
Gleisdreieck/Land Berlin, Bürgerbeteiligung),
last accessed th January 2022.
Senate Administration for Urban
Development . All documents related
to the competition are to be found under
www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/aktuell/
wettbewerbe/ergebnisse//gleisdreieck/
index.shtml.
. Bürgerumfrage zur Vorbereitung .
wide-ranging civic participation, constantly integrated into the process, could
the expectations of as many people as possible be reflected in the park. On the
one hand, the comprehensive participation was designed to ensure that the
more active citizens would have an opportunity to be involved in the develop-
ment of the concept and the decision-making processes, whilst also bringing
the process to the attention of less well organised residents to give them an
opportunity to express their views as well. On the other hand, the design and
decision-making process had to remain in the hands of professionals.
As a consequence a two-stage competition was decided on in the very irst
discussions, with representatives of the citizen’s action group on the jury. This
meant that feedback could be obtained before and during the design work,
thanks to extensive discussions between designers, jury and citizens, resulting
in a mutual qualiication process. Not only did the landscape architects learn
from the residents, but the latter also began initially to understand more about
the site and its special features and then about the design processes and the
need to balance the interests of all those involved.
First step: empirical survey of local residents
The area around the Gleisdreieck was home to some widely differing lifestyle
groups with correspondingly different expectations and demands in respect
of the future park. To the west of the Gleisdreieck in particular, in the
Schöneberg and Tiergarten districts, there was a signiicant number of per-
sons with a migrant background (a proportion of foreign nationals of thir-
ty-seven per cent) as well as a disproportionate number of young people,
whilst on the eastern side both these numbers were lower. The proportion of
unemployed people and those receiving social security beneits was above av-
erage in all the neighbouring districts. At the same time there was a signii-
cant number of academics, especially in Kreuzberg. An above-average number
of residents entitled to vote belonged to the green/alternative milieu of the
political spectrum (at that time the only direct green mandate in Germany).
To obtain a general cross-section of the wishes and demands of all these
groups a representative survey was conducted in the wider catchment area
of the park in the process of preparing for the competition. After a test
phase sixteen hundred relatively extensive questionnaires were sent out to a
random sample of local people. The response rate of twenty-ive per cent
can be regarded as a good result.
Results
In general the need for peace and quiet in the park was felt very strongly,
whilst a group of around the same size expressed a preference for exercise and
social life in the park, and some people wanted both. This result meant that
the competition brief speciied a ‘two-speed park’ to keep both groups happy.
Overall, the results of the survey formed a good basis for deining the objec-
tives of the competition. In part, pre-existing ideas were conirmed and em-
pirically validated, in part, however, they were supplemented or corrected.
pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 130pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 130 26/04/22 16:1326/04/22 16:13
5
5
Almut Jirku, Like pearls on a string: the Berlin open spaces system
and the Park am Gleisdreieck
Local civic participation.
Inspection walks and workshops before the competition brief was drafted
Since the survey showed that the plans for the Park am Gleisdreieck and the
site itself were only familiar to around ifty per cent of local residents, guided
walks were offered on two weekends in autumn . A good deal of public
relations work was conducted in advance of these dates. The walks which
started and inished at the former mail station were very well received. Around
two thousand two hundred residents took part in a total of thirty-two inspec-
tion walks. The participants were mainly middle class and included all age
groups – from young families to older people. However, there was still a spe-
cial need to mobilise local residents from a migrant background.
Afterwards information was made available at the former mail station, where
it was also possible to discuss ideas, questions and what one would like to do in
the park. For this purpose, workshops were organised for groups of around thir-
ty people and some special workshops were held for children and young people.
5. Transition passage between
the two halves of the park, across
the railway tunnel, 2021.
pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 131pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 131pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 131pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 131 26/04/22 16:1326/04/22 16:1326/04/22 16:1326/04/22 16:13
6
Natur Park Schöneberger Südgelände and Berlin’s Urban Nature
International Carlo Scarpa Prize for Gardens 2022
Interest in the site, which had previously not been oficially accessible,
was very high. The people who took part connected different notions with
the Gleisdreieck. The main focus was on the current state of the spontane-
ous vegetation. Many people discovered to their surprise that only limited
areas of the future park still featured ruderal flora, due to the site having
been used in the meantime for construction logistics purposes, and that the
design also had to take into account the open ground (in the west) and the
sealed and paved surfaces (in the east). The proximity to the urban centre
Potsdamer Platz, which is clearly visible in the western part, also surprised
quite a few people; the ‘perceived’ distance was much greater (ig. ).
Apart from the request for water features which could not be granted by
the federal state of Berlin because of the follow-up costs involved, the re-
sults were included in the competition brief.
Local participation during the various stages of the competition
After the jury had selected eleven designs for further review at the end of
the irst stage in spring , they were presented to the public on several
occasions.
One of the highlights of this was the planning weekend when all eleven of
the landscape architecture ofices selected for the second stage attended a work-
shop (having undertaken to do so when they entered the competition), initially
with a certain amount of trepidation. The entire process, however, proved to be
very constructive. Over the course of the weekend, the event saw around ive-six
hundred visitors. The projects were exhibited in eleven booths. Each team was
positioned near its own project and was available for questions and discussions.
The special feature of this stage was the direct dialogue between the
landscape architects, the jury, the city administration and citizens. The citi-
zens made numerous suggestions, based in part on their deep local know-
ledge and their familiarity with social conditions, but were also open to the
6. Citizen’s excursion on the
Gleisdreieck area before the
competition with senator
Ingeborg Junge-Reyer, 2005.
pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 132pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 132pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 132pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 132 26/04/22 16:1326/04/22 16:1326/04/22 16:1326/04/22 16:13
Almut Jirku, Like pearls on a string: the Berlin open spaces system
and the Park am Gleisdreieck
. On the development of European parks,
see Cortesi .
. Andritzky-spitzer .
. kienAst .
explanations provided by the architects. The jury and the city administra-
tion mainly played the role of observers, but also listened to impressions and
opinions and were also available to answer questions.
What is a park at the start of the 21st century?
What kind of park should be created on the Gleisdreieck was an intensely
debated question. In view of the multitude of ideas for and expectations of
this site, it was not possible to categorise the new Park am Gleisdreieck us-
ing familiar typologies or established terms. The th century Bürgerpark
still enjoys great popularity, not only because of its landscaping, but also as a
result of its great adaptability to changing ideas of use. Likewise, the Volks-
park of the s continues to serve as a model for today’s parks because it
succeeded in combining a variety of uses with a rich natural setting at a high
aesthetic level.
The city park of the th century and public parks dating from the early
th century have one thing in common – despite the differences in their
designs and intended uses – both are based on a clearly deined social model.
Therefore, there was a consensus on which uses were acceptable in a park
and which were not. There was also a binding aesthetic canon that reflected
the respective nature relationship of the time.
Since then, however, there has been a vast change in social structures
and lifestyles. This has been accompanied by an opening up of the spectrum
of behaviour and aesthetic preferences, which make it impossible to identify
a single, uniform target group for a new park.
These certainties have been shattered since the end of the s. The
fall of functionalism, the dismissal of universal models of explaining the
world and the end of the unbroken belief in progress (limits of growth) led
to postmodernism addressing the increasing differentiation of society into
lifestyle groups. Historical substance and the natural foundations of life
were regarded as endangered due to the uninhibited belief in progress. That
is why both monument preservation and nature conservation became more
important to society during that period. In the ield of design, the ‘anything
goes’ of the epoch resulted in stylistic arbitrariness. After universally appli-
cable social models and ubiquitous design styles had become implausible,
support and orientation was sought in the particularities of each location,
the genius loci was rediscovered as a leitmotif.
One development in this period was the natural garden movement. Its
leading lights were Louis Le Roy and Eduard Neuenschwander, whilst Peter
Latz in Kassel was also inspired by these trends. They believed in giving na-
ture more space and enabling it to develop its own dynamics by allowing it
to take advantage of relics and develop the existing vegetation with very
few, carefully selected additions. However, Dieter Kienast pointed out as
early as that this design style was in fact also determined by human
intervention in nature, even if the inal impression was somewhat different
from previous design styles.
pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 133pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 133 26/04/22 16:1326/04/22 16:13
Natur Park Schöneberger Südgelände and Berlin’s Urban Nature
International Carlo Scarpa Prize for Gardens 2022
. Eco , part .
. Jirku-kowarik , p. .
. SiEbEl .
. winnicott .
. SimmEl .
Nevertheless, post-modern arbitrariness quickly waned and was replaced
by the second modern movement. This, however, no longer has the claim to
absoluteness of the irst modern period, but reflects the conditions that cre-
ated it and is fully aware of the relativity of its existence. In this respect, the
legacy from post-modernity was preserved. The readiness to tolerate every-
thing was, however, waning fast. Despite all cultural relativism, agreement
on some generally binding values and norms, and therefore also codes of
conduct are considered necessary in order to maintain an acceptable level
of social adhesion. In a desired civil society, however, these are less deined
by the state than negotiated among the subjects.
City parks, in particular, are places where different urban cultures meet
and conflicts are (must be) settled, which otherwise tend to be avoided
through the creation of separate residential areas, meeting places for speciic
target groups and other methods. The civic participation around the Park
am Gleisdreieck highlighted a whole host of conflicts: dog owners against
non-owners, pedestrians versus cyclists and skaters, barbecue fans against
barbecue haters, exercise versus peace and quiet, wilderness against cultivat-
ed nature.
The second modernity knows that it has to take a position, but reflects
also that any position is not the only possible one, that the positions taken
have to be justiied and socially negotiated. In addition, there is also the
knowledge of temporal conditionality and therefore also the temporal limi-
tation of many phenomena.
The term ‘open work’ was coined by Umberto Eco as a work of art in
motion, which is open to different interpretations. Such conception of the
park on the one hand takes into account the conscious design intention of
the designer, but on the other also leaves room for the momentum of the
visitors and of the vegetation.
Walter Siebel introduced the concept ‘space of possibility’ into planning.
In psychology, the space of possibility (Winnicott calls it ‘potential space’) is
the virtual space between a mother and her child that enables the child to dis-
cover his independence within a framework set by the mother. Accordingly,
the space of possibility is not a space which arbitrarily allows everything; rath-
er, it provides a framework and rules on the basis of which diverse possibilities
for self-discovery, that is for identity formation, then open up.
Both terms point in the same direction. For a park today this means: it
has to be open to many things, but not to everything; it must offer orienta-
tion and provide guidance and a clear framework without wanting to con-
trol everything; it must be designed for a long period of time and yet take
into account the accelerating processes of change.
It is not just society that has changed considerably since the s, but
also our relationship with nature. What is considered special today is the
‘wild’, not the tame. According to Georg Simmel, the attraction of ruins is
that in it man’s work is inally perceived as nature. The destruction of the
created form through the action of natural forces is perceived as a ‘return to
pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 134pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 134 26/04/22 16:1326/04/22 16:13
7
Almut Jirku, Like pearls on a string: the Berlin open spaces system
and the Park am Gleisdreieck
. Jirku .
nature’. The parks of the iba Emscher Park in the s and also the Schöne-
berger Südgelände, are examples of a completely new type of park that
emerged at the end of the th century. Although the insertion of ‘wilder-
nesses’ and (generally artiicially created) ruins in park certainly plays a role
in the history of garden art, they were always individual, deliberately
planned elements. The new quality is to take unintentionally created indus-
trial ruins and large areas of spontaneous vegetation to develop an overrid-
ing park theme in which the elements common in other parks are only in-
serted with extreme care. To perceive these testimonies of nature’s triumph
over technology (Simmel) as aesthetic is a relatively new phenomenon in
the perception of the beauty of nature.
In the increasingly global world, many urban elements are tending to be-
come more and more similar. Through the standardisation of malls, shop
and restaurant chains, also in the ield of architecture, the distinctiveness of
places is decreasing more and more. Therefore, public spaces are increasing-
ly becoming what can make a speciic city something special.
There are natural limits to the interchangeability of landscape architec-
ture. Factors such as soil, climate and the like prevent concepts from being
easily transferred from one place to another. But the wide-ranging traces of
previous cultural and natural landscapes, which provide the starting point
for a new concept, also make it possible to ind a special and unique solution
for each place.
Objectives of the competition
With the Park am Gleisdreieck, such a special place could be created for
Berlin. The park would be the last major open space project in Berlin’s city
centre for a long time to come. The Gleisdreieck was a completely new
space in Berlin; like Potsdamer Platz it could become a place in the reuni-
ied city belonging neither to the east nor the west, but a new setting to all.
7. Promenade in the East park,
2021.
pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 135pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 135pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 135pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 135 26/04/22 16:1326/04/22 16:1326/04/22 16:1326/04/22 16:13
Natur Park Schöneberger Südgelände and Berlin’s Urban Nature
International Carlo Scarpa Prize for Gardens 2022
. For the full description of the competition,
see the website of the Senate Administration
for Urban Development, Park auf
dem Gleisdreieck/Land Berlin /Auslobung,
parts and . (last accessed th January ).
. For details of the objective and result
of the competition, see Jirku .
. Park auf dem Gleisdreieck/Land Berlin
st Prize (last accessed th January ).
For a detailed description of the
competition including citizen engagement,
see Park auf dem Gleisdreieck, Weiter
verfolgt, Wettbewerbsdokumentation
(berlin.de) Senate Administration for Urban
Development and Environment
(last accessed th January ).
In this way, it can contribute a great deal to identiication with Berlin as a
whole. If it were possible to turn the site’s great potential into something in-
novative and unmistakable, a park like none before, the opportunity would
be well taken.
A ‘wilderness’ park like the Südgelände was certainly on the minds of
some stakeholders, but given the great need and demand for usable space in
the densely built-up neighbourhood, it simply would not have satisied the
needs, as the civic participation demonstrated. The speciications for the
competition were therefore developed from the civic participation and the
discussion among experts. The main points are listed herebelow in the form
of keywords, but a more detailed description can be viewed in digital form.
As far as the residents were concerned, their wishes were as follows: to
preserve the historic traces of the railways and vegetation and enable con-
nections across the site between the districts. Further topics were: dealing
with the different railways in the park, thinking of the park as a process and
leaving scope for further developments, creating different spaces in terms of
size, equipment and character. And in general, despite the relatively pro-
nounced separation between the eastern and western halves due to the in-
ter-city railway line, the cohesion of the park should be recognisable.
Results of the competition and continued process
After the intensive public participation during the process and the good re-
sponse by the general public to the winning concept presented by Atelier
Loidl, there was a demand to continue to involve the local residents in the
further work beginning in the summer . This initially proved rather
dificult. The multi-layered milieus that had participated in the various for-
mats beforehand had no interest in accompanying the time-consuming fur-
ther planning process. Only the Bürgerinitiative Gleisdreieck was prepared to
do so, but they had rejected the winning design. This meant that the ongo-
ing work was initially marked by ierce conflicts.
The working relationship became more constructive when a professional
management team was introduced and at the same time broader circles of
local residents decided to become involved. The people concerned also partly
succeeded in pushing through elements that had previously been rejected by
the administration because they were regarded as partial privatisation of the
public space. An example of this is the Bosnian women’s communal garden
and the natural experience area in the eastern part of the park, whilst in the
western part it concerned the allotments, which had long been the subject of
dispute. Although there are historical models for including allotments in
parks, such as at the Volkspark Rehberge in the Berlin district of Wedding,
this was simply not accepted for some considerable time. But eventually a
solution was found and the allotments were opened up to visitors, vacant
plots were made available for community use, and in return they were al-
lowed to remain. In the meantime, a very popular café has been established
there, and overall the allotments are perceived as an enrichment (ig. ).
8. Park café organised
by allotment gardeners, 2014.
9. Board with park rules for the
allotments assigned to citizens.
“‘Gardens in the Garden’ project
in Park am Gleisdreieck.
We cordially invite you to get
to know us and our allotments.
Carefully constructed
path-ways, waysides and
areas left to nature alternate
with project and community
gardens. They add to the classical
allotment concept, broaden
and supplement it.
The centre is the ‘market square’
with a small informal café as
a meeting place, showcase for
urban gardening and project
workshop. We look forward to
seeing you!”, 2014.
pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 136pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 136 27/04/22 13:5927/04/22 13:59
8
9
Almut Jirku, Like pearls on a string: the Berlin open spaces system
and the Park am Gleisdreieck
For a long time, the press almost exclusively published only the criti-
cisms of the Bürgerinitiative Gleisdreieck relating to the planning process and
design, which fortunately made no impression on the politicians thanks to
the results of the broad-based public participation. When the east park was
opened in , all the criticism was suddenly forgotten and the park was
celebrated as a resounding success.
And it certainly was. From day one it was used intensively by a wide
range of different groups. Meanwhile, with the opening of the west park in
and the Flaschenhals in , it is sometimes too crowded for some,
particularly on a weekend. The ‘inished’ park will continue to be moni-
tored by a users’ committee, which puts forward ideas for its improvement
and maintenance. After all, by its very nature a park of this type is never in-
ished, it simply grows and changes. In , Noël van Dooren assessed the
park as follows: “the Park am Gleisdreieck design may indeed be ‘an assault’
on the earlier concept of a nature park, but must be considered an appropri-
ate and intelligent response to the situation at hand, integrating the very
diverse interests of participating groups, while reconciling the remaining
wilderness with newly designed open space.”
Lessons learned
In conclusion, it should be noted that broad-based citizen participation is
absolutely essential for a major new public park. It must offer something to
all types of residents. It cannot be accepted that one committed user group
that is able to articulate itself well can prevail over the interests of every-
body else.
In procedures of this kind, even greater citizen participation should be
sought, as some groups were under-represented in the Gleisdreieck process,
particularly people with a migrant background. This was done in subse-
quent processes. It was also shown that the inclusion of semi-public spaces
such as community gardens and allotments is deinitely possible in large
parks. In the subsequent major project in Berlin, the Parklandschaft Tem-
pelhof, these elements were included in the competition programme from the
outset. Unfortunately the result was not realised. But that’s another story.
. Van Dooren , p. .
. In another process, after a public
event, the following note was published
on the internet: “And then a lady from
the Senate spoke and actually said that
the park must offer something to all groups
of people.” In fact, this is indeed the opinion
of the author.
. See also Jirku , p. .
pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 137pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 137pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 137pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 137 26/04/22 16:1326/04/22 16:1326/04/22 16:1326/04/22 16:13
Natur Park Schöneberger Südgelände and Berlin’s Urban Nature
International Carlo Scarpa Prize for Gardens 2022
Bibliography
Andritzky-Spitzer
Grün in der Stadt, edited by
MichAel Andritzky, klAuS Spitzer,
Rowohlt, Hamburg .
Berlin
Bundesminister ür Wohnungsbau,
Bonn, und Senator ür Bau-und
Wohnungswesen, Berlin, Berlin.
Ergebnis des Internationalen städtebaulichen
Ideenwettbewerbs Hauptstadt Berlin,
Dokumentation, Karl Krämer Verlag,
Stuttgart .
Bürgerumfrage zur Vorbereitung
Senatsverwaltung ür Stadtentwicklung
(commissioned by), Bürgerumfrage zur
Vorbereitung des landschaftsplanerischen
Wettbewerbs ür den Park am Gleisdreieck in
Berlin, project manager Axel Klaphake,
project team Martina Mahlke, Ursula
Pieschel, Thies Schröder, in collaboration
with Treibhaus-Freiraumgestaltung,
September , Berlin (available
at www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/
aktuell/wettbewerbe/ergebnisse//
gleisdreieck/gleisdreieck_buergerumfrage_
endbericht.pdf).
Bürgerbeteiligung im Rahmen
Senatsverwaltung ür Stadtentwicklung
(commissioned by), Bürgerbeteiligung
im Rahmen des landschaftsplanerischen
Ideen- und Realisierungswettbewerbs
Gleisdreieck, Verfahren und Ergebnisse
Phase ., conception and organisation
by Stadtplus, ts redaktion, Berlin,
November (available
at www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/
aktuell/wettbewerbe/ergebnisse//
gleisdreieck/gleisdreieckt_
buergerbeteiligung_phase_.pdf).
corteSi
iSottA corteSi, Il parco pubblico.
Paesaggi -, Motta, Milan
(French edition Parcs publics. Paysages
-, Actes Sud, Arles ).
dinnebier-kowArik
AntoniA dinnebier, ingo kowArik,
“Natur der vierten Art,” in
Architektur in Berlin. Jahrbuch ,
edited by Architektenkammer Berlin,
Junius, Hamburg .
eco
uMberto eco, Das offene Kunstwerk,
Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main
(English edition The Open
Work, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge-MA ).
hunt
John dixon hunt, Greater Perfections.
The practice of garden theory, University
of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia .
Jirku
AlMut Jirku, “Historic Transport
Landscapes in Berlin,” in Historic
Airports. Proceedings of the International
‘L’Europe de l’Air’ Conference. Liverpool
() Berlin () Paris (), edited
by bob hAwkinS, gAbriele lechner,
pAul SMith, English Heritage,
London , pp. -.
Jirku
AlMut Jirku, “Das Glück liegt
in der Wiese. Landschaftsplanerischer
Wettbewerb Gleisdreieck entschieden,”
Stadt Grün, , , , pp. -.
Jirku
AlMut Jirku, “Parkanlagen als
Möglichkeitsräume,” in Stadtgrün,
edited by AlMut Jirku, Fraunhofer
irb Verlag, Stuttgart , pp. -.
Jirku-kowArik
AlMut Jirku, ingo kowArik,
“Rasen im Spannungsfeld zwischen
Erholungsverhalten, Ökologie
und Gartendenkmalpflege,”
part : “Untersuchungen zum
Erholungsverhalten und Einordnung
der Ergebnisse,” Das Gartenamt, , ,
, pp. -.
kienASt
dieter kienASt, “Vom Gestaltungsdiktat
zum Naturdiktat – oder: Gärten gegen
Menschen?,” Landschaft Stadt, , ,
pp. -.
kowArik
ingo kowArik, “Herbert Sukopp.
An inspiring pioneer in the ield of urban
ecology,” Urban Ecosystems, , ,
pp. -.
kühn
norbert kühn, “Interacting with
Urban Nature. How spontaneous
vegetation enhances postmodern
greenspaces,” in Prati urbani.
I prati collettivi nel paesaggio della città /
City meadows. Community ields in urban
landscapes, edited by FrAnco pAnzini,
Fondazione Benetton Studi Ricerche-
Antiga Edizioni, Treviso ,
pp. -.
Landschaftsprogramm
Senatsverwaltung ür Stadtentwicklung
und Umweltschutz, Landschaftsprogramm,
Artenschutzprogramm Berlin (LaPro ),
Berlin .
Räumliches Strukturkonzept
Senatsverwaltung ür Stadtentwicklung
und Umweltschutz, Räumliches
Strukturkonzept. Grundlagen ür
die Flächennutzungsplanung. Berlin,
Meisenbach Verlag, Berlin .
Siebel
wAlter Siebel, “Urbanität ohne
Raum. Der Möglichkeitsraum,” in
diethild kornhArdt, gAbriele pütz,
thieS Schröder, Mögliche Räume, Junius,
Hamburg , pp. -.
SiMMel
georg SiMMel, “Die Ruine,”
in Philosophische Kultur, Leipzig ,
pp. - (also in georg SiMMel,
Jenseits der Schönheit, Suhrkamp,
Frankfurt am Main , pp. -).
VAn dooren
noël VAn dooren, “Park am
Gleisdreieck, a Dialectic Narrative,”
JoLA, , , pp. -.
winnicott
donAld woodS winnicott, Playing
and Reality, Routledge, London-New York
, pp. ff., ff., ff.
pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 138pp98-138-Manfredi-Hennecke-Jirku.indd 138 26/04/22 16:1326/04/22 16:13
Illustration references
Cover and p. :
photograph by
Marco Zanin-Fabrica for
Fondazione Benetton Studi
Ricerche.
On pp. -
(Statement of the Carlo Scarpa
Prize in English, German
and Italian):
igs -: photographs by
Marco Zanin.
On pp. -
(Thilo Folkerts, Berlin, the
emergence of an urban nature):
igs -, -: photographs by
Thilo Folkerts;
igs , : photographs by
Joerg P. Anders, ,
copyright Foto Scala, Florence /
bpk, Bildagentur ür Kunst,
Kultur und Geschichte, Berlin.
On pp. -
(Ingo Kowarik, Südgelände,
Berlin: transforming a wild
urban wasteland to a new kind
of nature park):
igs , , -, -: Archive of
Natur Park Südgelände, Grün
Berlin (igs -, PA);
igs , , -, -:
photographs by Ingo Kowarik.
On pp. -
(Natur Park Südgelände: project,
maintenance, development,
Rita Suhrhoff in conversation
with Thilo Folkerts):
igs -, -, : photographs
by Marco Zanin;
ig. : photograph by
Konstantin Börner;
ig. : photograph by
Luigi Latini.
On pp. -
(Natur Park Südgelände:
the role of the art, Klaus Duschat
in conversation with
Thilo Folkerts):
igs , , , : Archive of
Natur Park Südgelände,
Grün Berlin;
igs -, -, : Klaus
Duschat, odious Archive;
igs -, : photographs
by Marco Zanin.
On pp. -
(Chronology of the Natur Park
Schöneberger Südgelände
1838-2025: from shunting yard
to nature park):
igs , -: Archive of Natur
Park Südgelände, Grün Berlin;
ig. : photograph by
Konrad Wita.
On pp. -
(Christoph Schmidt, A new city
experience: the key role of Natur
Park Schöneberger Südgelände for
the urban paradigm shift
in Berlin):
igs -, : copyright
Grün Berlin Gmbh;
ig. : copyright krp
Architektur Gmbh;
ig. : copyright
Axel Mauruszat-Wikipedia.
On pp. -
(Lorenza Manfredi,
Jannis Schiefer,
Laura Veronese, Through
Berlin: urban natures):
ig. : Road Movies GmbH;
igs , , , , , :
photographs by Marco Zanin;
ig. : copyright Grünzüge
ür Berlin;
ig. : CC-BY-SA-.,
Wikimedia Commons,
photograph by Röhrensee;
ig. : elab (Evangelisches
Landeskirchliches Archiv
in Berlin), Archiv der
Versöhnungsgemeinde, ;
ig. : elab, Archiv der
Versöhnungsgemeinde,
photograph by Rainer Just;
igs , , : photographs by
Laura Veronese;
igs -: stern –
Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg
Museum, Digitales Archiv;
ig. : Wikimedia Commons,
photograph by us Air Force;
ig. : tempelhof.blogsport.de;
ig. : photographs by
Lorenza Manfredi;
ig. : Wikimedia Commons/
Deutsches Bundesarchiv,
--- / Thomas
Lehmann / CC-BY-SA .;
ig. : Wikimedia Commons/
Deutsches Bundesarchiv,
--- / Otto
Haeckel / CC-BY-SA ..
On pp. -
(Stefanie Hennecke, Berlin,
a brief history of its parks):
ig. : photograph by
Luigi Latini.
On pp. -
(Almut Jirku, Like pearls
on a string: the Berlin
open spaces system and the
Park am Gleisdreieck):
igs , , : photographs by
Marco Zanin;
ig. : arquigraph.tumblr.com;
ig. : courtesy of
Gabriele G. Kiefer;
ig. : ts redaktion, Berlin;
igs , : photographs
by Almut Jirku.
On pp. -
(Ingo Kowarik, The Berlin
School of Urban Ecology and the
emergence of wasteland ecology):
igs -: photographs by
Ingo Kowarik;
ig. : photograph by
Alexander Kohler;
ig. : courtesy
of Reinhard Böcker;
ig. : photograph by
Jens Callebau.
On pp. -
(Sandra Jasper, Berlin, a ruderal
urbanism):
igs -: photographs by
Sandra Jasper.
On pp. -
(Berlin and the development of
contemporary landscape culture.
Gabriele G. Kiefer
in conversation with
Thilo Folkerts):
igs -: courtesy of
Gabriele G. Kiefer.
On pp. -
(Norbert Kühn, Urban
spontaneous vegetation as a tool
for climate adaptation):
igs , -: photographs
by Norbert Kühn.
On pp. -
(Heinz W. Hallmann and
Ursula Wilms, The design of the
Topographie des Terrors site):
igs -, : photographs by
Friederike von Rauch, .
On pp. -
(Leonard Grosch, Berlin’s
Park am Gleisdreieck or the art
of designing lively places):
igs , , : Atelier Loidl,
photographs by Julien Lanoo;
ig. : Atelier Loidl,
photograph by Leonard Grosch.
On pp. -
(Anna Lambertini, Hybrid,
cosmopolitan, inventive.
Nature in urban wildness):
igs -: photographs
by Marco Zanin.
On pp. -
(Juan Manuel Palerm,
The wild nature of the wastelands):
ig. : photograph
by Juan Manuel Palerm.
pp239-autori-ref ill.indd 243pp239-autori-ref ill.indd 243 27/04/22 13:5527/04/22 13:55