Park at the Gleisdreieck

Introduction and representative empirical survey

The fact that there is a park at this location at all is thanks to the many years of resistance against a motorway plan from the 1950s. The BI Westtangente developed the counter-concept of the Grüntangente, in whose course the park is an essential building block. After it was clear that there would be a park at this location, the BI and other initiatives became the AG Gleisdreieck (Gleis Triangle Working Group), which intensively accompanied all further planning.

After long negotiations, concrete preparations for the competition could begin in 2005. Due to the run-up to the competition and the great interest shown by the population, it was clear from the outset that extensive public participation would be necessary in order to identify all the wishes and ideas. In order to reach as many different groups and milieus as possible, a variety of methods were used.

Representative Empirical Survey
In the vicinity of the Gleisdreieck, there are very different lifestyle groups with correspondingly diverse expectations and requirements for the future park. The citizens' initiatives, on the other hand, are quite homogeneous in their composition.

In order to obtain a general cross-section of wishes and demands in this situation, a representative survey was carried out in the wider catchment area of the park in preparation for the competition. After a trial period, 1600 relatively large questionnaires were sent out to a random sample from the register. The response rate of about 25% can be described as good.

Focus groups
The questionnaire was first tested in so-called focus groups, discussion groups of homogeneous composition, for example adult migrant women. This served on the one hand to test the questionnaire. On the other hand, the eight focus groups added a qualitative element, illuminating the background of answers. In addition, they brought interesting insights, especially into the ideas of migrants, who unfortunately participated in the subsequent survey only below average.

Results
It turned out that both the need for peace and quiet in the park was very pronounced, but also a relevant group prefers movement and life in the park. This led to a call for a "two-speed park" in the competition program, where both groups could have their way.

Another interesting finding was that despite the long-standing discussion about the future of the Gleisdreieck, about half of the respondents did not know that a park was to be built here and were not even aware of the area. Overall, the results of the survey provided a good basis for the task. In part, pre-existing ideas were confirmed and empirically validated, but in part they were supplemented or corrected.

Editing: Project team: Martina Mahlke, Ursula Pieschel, Thies Schröder, Project manager: Axel Klaphake. May 2005, Berlin on behalf of the Senate Department for Urban Development, Berlin.

Internet dialogue

In parallel to the on-site citizen participation, a moderated internet forum was offered prior to the award. The advantages of an Internet dialogue compared to on-site citizen participation are that each user can participate at his or her own time, one does not have to muster the courage to speak in front of a larger audience and can remain anonymous. The moderation ensures that the anonymity is not abused for abusive language and the like. Contributions can also be considered in peace. Dialogue between different people is possible regardless of whether they are in the same place at the same time. The downside is that non-Internet users are excluded.

The Internet service started with a short head start on on-site citizen participation. It began with information about the history and planning of the rail triangle. Step by step further offers were added. The next step was thematically sorted park examples that showed how aspects that play a role on the Gleisdreieck were solved in other green spaces. This "exhibition" also served to broaden knowledge about modern landscape architecture.

After that, the moderated dialogue began. It resulted in a text developed according to the wiki method. A summary proposal of the moderation was modified until it found consensus. Intensive press and public relations work was carried out in advance to publicise the Internet dialogue. In total, there were about 70,000 page impressions from about 8,000 different participants. About 200 participants with about 500 contributions took part in the dialogue.

Moderation and implementation: Zebralog - medienübergreifende Dialoge: Judith Bauer, Daniela Riedel, Hans Hagedorn, Berlin, on behalf of the Senate Department for Urban Development.

On-site public participation - exploratory walks and workshops prior to the call for tenders

Since the citizen survey had shown that the plans for the park as well as the area itself were only known by about 50 residents, guided walks were offered there on two weekends in autumn 2005.

This was intensively advertised in advance, also through increased press work. In addition, there were street stands at well-frequented locations in the area on the weekends to provide information.

The walks were very well received. About 2200 citizens participated in a total of 32 exploratory walks. Afterwards, people were able to gather information at the Postbahnhof and discuss ideas, questions and wishes for use. To this end, workshops were held for groups of up to about 30 people, as well as some special workshops with children and young people. The workshops took place in a constructive and committed atmosphere. As a "reward" there were small gifts such as balloons, fabric tulips and lanyards, with the slogan "Auf geht's zum Gleisdreieck".

The interest in the previously inaccessible area was very high. In the foreground was the interest about the current state of the spontaneous vegetation. Many were surprised to learn that only limited areas of the future park are still characterised by this vegetation and that the design must also refer to the open ground (in the west) and sealed areas (in the east).

As a result, the points of creating connections between the city districts and securing traces of the railway's past were the most important demands that were included in the competition.

Concept and implementation: stadtplus and tsredaktion, Berlin, on behalf of the City Administration for Urban Development and the Environment.

On-site participation between competition stages

After the jury had selected eleven works for further processing at the end of the first stage in spring 2006, these were presented to the public on several occasions. First, a citizens' information evening was held. Factual questions were answered, but the discussion was postponed until the following weekend. At the same time, the works were exhibited for two weeks in the district town hall.

All eleven selected landscape architecture firms took part in the following planning weekend for the Gleisdreieck (they had committed themselves to this by taking part in the competition). Over the course of the weekend, some 500-600 visitors came to see the work. The works were exhibited in eleven booths. There, the respective team was available for questions and discussions. Minutes were taken at each work to record the points raised. In between, moderated forums took place in which the most important aspects were discussed in plenary.

The special feature of this phase was the direct dialogue between landscape architects, jury, administration and citizens. On the one hand, the citizens gave numerous hints, also due to their profound local knowledge and their knowledge of the social conditions, but on the other hand they were open to the explanations of the plan authors. The jury and the administration mainly played the role of observers, recording impressions and moods, but were also available to answer questions.

The minutes of the discussion forums and of the conversations between citizens and landscape architects were handed over to the eleven planning offices for the revision of their designs. Following the public part of the event, the jury formulated recommendations for further work, also taking into account the minutes.

Concept and implementation: stadtplus and tsredaktion, Berlin, on behalf of the City Department for Urban Development.

The citizens' festival - conclusion and prelude at the same time

The competition procedure was concluded and the result presented with a citizens' festival. This gave all participants the opportunity to find out to what extent their involvement had influenced the work of the offices. Politics and administration gave with the common celebration a feedback to the citizens, with which they thanked for the cooperation and informed about the fact that the participation is continued also further.

Interim resumée:
In summary, it can be said that the citizen participation has been very successful. The effort associated with citizen participation was, in absolute terms, quite high, but the importance of the project - after all, a park of about 30 hectares in a very central location - justified the effort. The entire process contributed considerably to the acceptance of the competition result. It also gave the responsible politicians the backing to counter subsequent criticism from parts of the BI's and the press.

The mutual exchange between laymen and experts was generally seen as positive, a mutual learning process. The influences of the Citizens' Weekend were definitely evident in the eleven competition entries.

It became apparent that professionally qualified competition procedures and citizen participation do not have to form a contradiction, but on the contrary influence each other positively. Administration, participants and judges received partly new suggestions, partly confirmation by the participation process, the citizens could get to know new things and were by the presentation of several concepts at all only in the position to make themselves a picture of what everything could be.

Documents and Internet archive at:
http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/aktuell/wettbewerbe/ergebnisse/2006/gleisdreieck/buergerbeteiligung.shtml

Public participation during the construction phase

After the intensive preliminary phase, there was a desire on both sides for the public to be further involved in the planning process. To this end, a new form of participation was introduced.

Planning forums
Planning forums were held at regular intervals for the interested, broad public, but especially for residents of the catchment areas of Kreuzberg, Tiergarten and Schöneberg. Essential planning steps were presented by the planners and subsequently discussed. The results were documented and fed into the planning process.

Initiative platform
During participation in the competition process, the initiatives and networks committed to the Gleisdreieck founded an initiative platform. From among them, the citizen representatives were elected, who participate in the regular meetings of the project-accompanying working group on the planning process Park am Gleisdreieck.

Project-accompanying working group
The project-accompanying working group (PAG) has accompanied the concretisation and implementation of the competition results since January 2007. It includes the citizens' representatives elected by the initiative platform, representatives of the districts, the Senate Department and Grün Berlin GmbH as the developer's representative.

In regular meetings and on multiple site visits, the members of the PAG discussed details of the planning and sought solutions in order to adopt a compromise in the event of controversial views. These discussions proved to be difficult: the representatives of the initiatives advocated the preservation of the existing vegetation as far as possible. Proposals for changes were often discussed in a very detailed manner, which led to protracted disputes. In addition, the majority of them did not accept the results of the competition and in some cases had unrealistic ideas about what the use of the area by all residents would entail.

This led to opposing positions that were difficult to overcome. The situation was somewhat balanced when additional residents from the neighbourhood management areas joined in.
The initial moderation of the process by the administration itself also proved difficult, as it had interests to protect and was therefore unable to moderate neutrally. In addition, the boundaries of participation were not adequately defined. In the planning of the Westpark, professional moderation was brought in, which had a positive effect. Here there was mainly dissent over the future of the allotments, for which a workable compromise was found.

With the opening of the first half, the East Park, it became apparent that the park was immediately widely accepted and used intensively. This very quickly invalidated the argument that the meadows were too large and paths too wide. This facilitated further work, especially as press coverage also changed considerably for the better.

Moderation: Martin Seebauer, Seebauer, Wefers und Partner, Berlin, on behalf of GrünBerlin GmbH

http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/soziale_stadt/partizipation/download/Handbuch_Partizipation.pdf , p. 246 ff

http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/stadtgruen/gruenanlagen/downloads/gleisdreieck_der-park-am-gleisdreieck_broschuere.pdf

User Advisory Board

After the completion of the park, a user advisory board was established. The advisory board advises the park management, can suggest topics as well as prepare responsible decisions and make recommendations. The advisory board meets on average three times a year and consists of the following representatives:

- Five elected citizen representatives and their five deputies
- Eight stakeholders and residents
- Four officials from the administration (Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment, district offices Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg and Tempelhof-Schöneberg, Grün Berlin GmbH)

https://gruen-berlin.de/park-am-gleisdreieck/beteiligungsmoeglichkeiten

back to overview

1. Introduction and representative empirical survey
2. Internet dialogue
3. On-site public participation - exploratory walks and workshops prior to the call for tenders
4. On-site participation between competition stages
5. The citizens' festival - conclusion and prelude at the same time
6. Public participation during the construction phase
7. User Advisory Board