Kaspar&Buehler Wahlenpark. Designanduses 2009

7/29/2019 Kaspar&Buehler Wahlenpark. Designanduses 2009

1/9

Planning, design and use of the public space Wahlenpark Heidi Kaspar, Elisabeth Bhler 21

Heidi Kaspar, Elisabeth Bhler, Zrich

1 Introduction

This article focuses on Wahlenpark, an urban publicgreen space in Zurich. Like other public spaces such asplazas, squares or boulevards, parks are celebrated byurbanists as inclusive places, as places for all wherestrangers meet (Sandercock 2005; Ward Thompson2002). However, there is a vast literature on exclusionaryprocesses in public space showing that public spaces arecontested spaces, imbued with unequal power relations,where different normative visions on publicity strugglefor assertion (e.g. Belina 2006; Mitchell 2003; Smith1996). Some authors argue that neo-conservative forceshave recently replaced liberal democratic conceptionsof public space legitimizing displacements of marginal-ized people from public space (Belina 2006; Mitchell2003). Smith (1996) states that since the 1980s parkshave been built in a more clearly arranged manner forthe purpose of social control. Feminist authors, however,question whether public spaces have ever been demo-

cratic spaces. They argue that democratic inclusion inpublic space and the Lefebvrian notion of the rightto the city (Mitchell 2003) mainly reflects white,male, bourgeois experiences and that women togetherwith some groups of discriminated men have beendenied equal access until the present day (e.g. Bondi &Domosh 1998; Fenster 2005;Garca-Ramon et al. 2004;Pain 2001; Paravicini 2003; Ruhne 2003; see also Vaiou& Kalandides in this special issue).

The aim of this article is to show the manifold percep-tions and experiences on inclusion and exclusion ofone and the same public place. For this purpose, thediverse spaces that have been created in Wahlenparkare presented and analysed from a constructivist pointof view. The following section of the paper discussesthe theoretical background of analysis, the meth-ods applied and the research context. Section threepresents and discusses the meanings of Wahlenparkfor the three main types of actors identified. Issues ofexclusion and inclusion at Wahlenpark are deliberatedin the concluding section of the article.

2 Theory, methods and research context

In compliance with Lw (2001: 13), spaces and placesare conceptualised here as being constituted through

action. From this perspective, space is a relationalorder(ing) (German: (An-)Ordnung) of bodies (under-stood as social goods and people) (ibid: 131, 153f.).Hence, actions and humans are both components ofspace (ibid: 154f.). Relational spaces, as the product ofsocial construction processes, are thus fundamentallydynamic, processual and changeable always in theprocess of being made (Lw 2001; Massey 2005; moreon this concept in the editorial of this special issue).

The findings presented in this article are based on semi-structured interviews with park users met in situ in thespring and summer of 2006 and 2007, semi-structuredinterviews with planners and designers and documentsof the municipality of Zurich. All three types of datahave been analysed with the coding procedures of theGrounded Theory Methodology according to Strauss& Corbin (1998).

This research is part of a larger project titled Sustain-able Design, Management and Appropriation of UrbanPublic Parks, supported by the National Research Pro-gram (NRP) 54 of the Swiss National Science Founda-

tion (SNF). Capitalising on a mixed methods approach,the project aims to identify elements of design, planningand management, which facilitate a socially sustainableappropriation of public areas (see also Ostermann &Timpf in this special issue). The research focuses on threecase studies in the city of Zurich, Wahlenpark being oneof them. Inaugurated in summer 2005, Wahlenpark isthe last of four recently created parks in the neighbour-hood of Neu-Oerlikon. Neu-Oerlikon is one of the larg-est inner city conversion areas in Switzerland. Duringthe last 20 years, an elaborated public private partner-ship planning process between the landowners and themunicipality of Zurich was carried out. The creation ofpublic spaces of high standing quality including thecreation of four new parks was one of the planning pri-orities aiming at enhancing the neighbourhoods image.

Wahlenpark is chosen as a focus here as it repre-sents a park design typical not only for recent parksin Zurich but for other cities in Switzerland as well: apark in the sober architectural style of modern sever-ity (Weilacher 2001: 13). According to Holland &Strassels (1996: 12f.) reflections on the design ofparks, Wahlenpark also contains considerable ele-ments of a postmodern park. Thus, Wahlenpark does

not offer any signification and norms precoded withan unambiguous intention. For a qualitative researchperspective relying on peoples narratives, this low

Planning, design and use of the public space Wahlenpark (Zurich, Switzer-land): functional, visual and semiotic openness


2/9

22 Geographica Helvetica Jg. 64 2009/Heft 1

degree of institutionalization of the site is an advan-tage. According to Lw (2001: 161f.), the production ofspace is not normally a discursive act but a routinizedone difficult to access. Hence, both the newness to

people and the challenge of interpretation, enhancesthe need for discursive reflexion by its users, therebyfacilitating narratives.

3 Meanings and experiences of Wahlenpark fordifferent types of actors

Three types of actors are identified as being con-nected to the development of Wahlenpark: city plan-ners, designers and visitors. City planners, in the roleof the constructor, specified their requirements andprospects for the future park and published a designcompetition. The designers, who drafted a designconcept, interpreted the planning requirements. Thismental space of the designers was then implemented.Visitors to the park now sojourn in it, pass through orignore it thereby creating their own spaces. In thefollowing sections the productions of spaces by theactors defined above will be analysed in more detail.It will be shown that openness is a key element of allproduced spaces and that this openness can take ondifferent forms: functional, semiotic and visual.

3.1 The Wahlenpark of the planners: a hybrid space

between school sports facility and public parkfor the neighbourhood

In the case of Wahlenpark, the municipality of Zurichwas the responsible constructor. The analysis of docu-ments (Grn Stadt Zrich, September 2001; StadtZrich, Gartenbau- und Landwirtschaftsamt, May2001) shows that Wahlenpark was scheduled by cityplanners from the very beginning as a hybrid freespace serving as an open sport ground to the adjacentschool of 800 pupils and as a multifunctional place forthe neighbourhood. Although the planning processof Wahlenpark was confined to a group of appointedexperts, it mirrors a notable commitment on the partof the municipality planners to create a space whereeverybody can feel comfortable and safe. In 2001,the municipality launched a design competition. Theannouncement contained several criteria expressingthe intended social functions of the park:- suitability for miscellaneous stakeholders and a het-

erogeneous public,- a large flat lawn for games,- avoidance of elements directed at the needs of spe-

cific groups or events,- acknowledgement of the safety requirements for

park use at dusk and at night.

The identification of the target audience as miscella-neous stakeholders and a heterogeneous public may

seem unspecific at first sight. Yet, supported by thedemand to abstain from monofunctional park ele-ments, this vagueness can be seen as an intentionalchoice of functional openness (German: Nutzungsof-

fenheit), reflecting a vision of Wahlenpark as a placefor all, as a multifunctional, and thus, inclusive publicspace. Hence, a request to pay attention to social diver-sity may be identified.

Yet, in the same announcement, planners confinethe degree of inclusiveness by specifying the aspiredmain user groups as residents, pupils and employees.This ambiguous definition of the target audience is adirect result of the double tracked characterisation ofthe place as a school sports facility and a public parkfor the neighbourhood. Whereas a school sports facil-ity is an earmarked open space with defined prioritiesof use, a public park is a multifunctional space opento various user groups at the same time (Grn StadtZrich 2006). As a result of this hybridism, the plan-ners created a functionally open space, i.e. a space forsports and physical activity without defining what kindof activity.

The planners further curtailed the primarily targetedinclusiveness of the space by making no mention ofpeople largely or partly excluded from urban publicspaces in general, such as females, marginalised per-sons and senior citizens (Landolt et al. 2006; see also

the cited literature in the introduction paragraph). Theplanners vision of Wahlenpark as a place for all musttherefore be called a half-hearted one, as an effort toactively include all kinds of people is missing.

In the following section, the designers interpretationand implementation of the requirements of the plan-ners is discussed in more detail.

3.2 The Wahlenpark of the designers: the pure, largearea

The first prize of the design competition was awardedto the project RGB of the bureau of landscapearchitecture Dipol Landschaftsarchitekten (since 2008Fontana Landschaftsarchitekten), Basel, and the artistC.T. Hunziker in Zurich. RGB stands for red, greenand blue, the colours which constitute Wahlenpark.According to the design concept, each colour consti-tutes a separate area: red stands for a corpus of redbeech trees, green for the grass playing field and bluefor a concrete element (long bench) with blue glassbricks, illuminated from inside at night (see Fig. 1 andFig. 2). The architects prioritized the aspect of action byascribing a maximum of space to this function. How-ever, the designers explicitly put no installations such

as paths or football goals on the lawn to avoid anypre-structuration of use. Hence, a semiotic open spacehas been created. In this context, semiotic refers


3/9


to the different significances an object may adopt fordifferent people. Consequently, the responsible land-scape architect called the playing field the pure, largearea and added: Here, people have to negotiate howto use this space themselves.

According to Mitchell (1995: 120), a space is not

truly public, when there are assigned places for spe-cific use, such as a volleyball field for example. Becauseclear ascriptions of places pre-structure the pattern of

users and exclude certain groups, whose legitimisa-tion as members of the public is as a consequence putin doubt. Thus, leaving the potential use undefined,the designers of Wahlenpark adapted the plannersvision of a place for all and in doing so created idealpreconditions to foster diversity and to facilitate theencounter of different social groups.

However, the playing field is not as pure of pre-structuration as intended by the designers. Viewed

1 Gravel with beeches (not shown), benches and tables

2 grass

3 long bench

4 lime trees5 roof providing shade

6 water basin

7 playground equipment

8 water fountain

9 ball catch fence and ood light post

1 gravier avec des htres (pas montrs),des bancs, et des tables

2 pelouse

3 banc long

4 tilleuls

5 toit donnant de lombre

6 bassin

7 quipment de jeux

8 fontaine

9 clture arrte-ballon et mt de lumire

1 Kiesbelag mit Blutbuchen (nicht eingezeichnet),Sitzbnken und Tischen

2 Wiese

3 Sitz- und Liegeelement4 Linden

5 Schattendach

6 Wasserbecken

7 Spielgerte

8 Trinkbrunnen

9 Ballfanggitter und Flutlichtmast

Fig. 1: Plan of Wahlenpark (Zurich, Switzerland)Plan des Wahlenparks (Zrich, Schweiz)Plan du Wahlenpark (Zurich, Suisse)Source: Grn Stadt Zrich (original plan); cartography: F. Ostermann, M. Steinmann


4/9


from a signal perspective (whereas signs are under-stood as legible material elements; see Hamm 1982:36), it would seem that the space of the playing fieldis pre-structured, albeit in a subtle way. The fence, putthere in order to keep balls from rolling away, and theillumination mast evoke the atmosphere of a footballstadium (see Fig. 3). These sculptural steel construc-tion elements remind the viewer more of ball games,in particular football, than of other activities, such assun bathing or picnicking. Indeed, both the designersand Mitchell (see paragraph above) are mistaken byassuming that a lawn isper se a pure, large area withno inherent codes of practice. In fact, the differencebetween the level of pre-structuration of a volleyballfield and a flat lawn is only a gradual one.

A research project on public free spaces in different

European cities directed by Paravicini shows thatparks containing open areas functionally earmarkedfor physical activity are usually appropriated by men

and boys (Paravicini 2003; see also Garca-Ramon etal. 2004). Women and girls sojourn at the peripheralareas of parks, where there is seating-accommodationand from where events can be followed. At Wahlen-park, the bosk with its benches (see Fig. 1) can be iden-tified as such a peripheral space of retreat. But Wahlen-park also contains semiotic open elements and blurredboundaries that support non-stereotypical gender pat-terns of use (Studer 2002): In the case of the concreteelement for instance, the boundaries between the areasof action and retreat are blurred due to its semioticopenness. On the one hand, according to the respon-sible designers, this park element is conceptualised asa tribune to the playing field. On the other hand, theconcrete element is visible from most parts of the parkand its design invites users to play on it. For this reason,the concrete element acts as a stage as well. Feminist

planning practice gives evidence that such permeableboundaries have the potential to diminish gender seg-regation within public parks (Studer 2002).

Fig. 2: Birds eye view of Wahlenpark in Zurich (Switzerland) with the bosk on the right, the lawn in the centre,the concrete element on the left and the water basin in the background

Der Wahlenpark in Zrich (Schweiz) aus der Vogelperspektive. Auf der rechten Seite ist der Buchenhain zu sehen,in der Mitte die Spielwiese, links der Sitzbalken und im Hintergrund das Wasserbecken.Vue arienne du Wahlenpark de Zurich (Suisse). A droite se trouve le bosquet, au milieu la pelouse, gauchellment en bton et en arrire-plan le bassin.Photo: H. Kaspar, September 2007


5/9


In the following section, attention is given to the wayspeople sojourning at Wahlenpark deal with theseopportunities what kinds of spaces do park usersproduce?

3.3 The Wahlenpark of the peopleCreative and nostalgic spaces: a sense of belonging.The semiotic open space that designers producedat Wahlenpark invites interpretation and offers anopportunity to independently and creatively interpretthe space according to personal needs. A 26 year oldfemale student uses the word fountain for the ele-ment that is called water basin by planners and design-ers and is predominantly used by children to flounderabout in the water. The woman lives in the neighbour-hood and loves to relax near the water. If she lackstime to visit her favourite place at the lake of Zurich,she goes to the nearby fountain in Wahlenparkinstead. For her, this fountain is not an ordinary one.Contrary to other fountains in the city, this one permits

the direct contact with water and therefore invites herto relax nearby. In this way, the fountain functions asher substitute lake.

A 57 year old nearby resident explains that his favouritepart of Wahlenpark is the group of copper beech trees.

It also has to do with childhood memories. () my par-ents had a huge copper beech behind their house (). Forme, it is simply the most magnificent tree (male resident,57).

In a very intuitive and straightforward way he feelsfamiliar with the place because this specific tree has aparticular meaning for him. This situation is a randomreality that is almost impossible to plan. Howeverrandom, memories serve as links between a placeand the personal history and therefore are links fromwhere a sense of belonging can be developed.

Thus, both the reinterpretation of space according toones personal needs and the discovery of a childhoodmemory in a park element are examples of ways ofbecoming familiar with a place. According to Fenster(2004a), feeling familiar with a place is an importantelement of a sense of belonging.

Not really a park: no sense of belonging. A 32 yearold nearby resident is disappointed with the design

Fig. 3: Water basin at Wahlenpark with ball catch fence and flood light post in the backgroundDas Wasserbecken im Wahlenpark, im Hintergrund das Ballfanggitter und der Flutlichtmast

Le bassin du Wahlenpark avec en arrire-plan la barrire et le projecteurPhoto: by courtesy of F. Schmit, summer 2005


6/9


of the place because neither her functional nor heraesthetic needs are met. Her aesthetic needs wouldrequire a greener park scenery. She finds the bosknot green enough as the leaves of the trees are always

brown like in fall. Wahlenpark is for her, therefore,not really a park. The woman also addresses func-tional deficits. When she is outdoors, she is usuallyaccompanied by her two young children and looksfor a place for them to play. At Wahlenpark, insteadof a playground she has to orientate herself aroundisolated playground equipment, equipment that sheperceives as too dangerous for her children and tooexposed to the sun. She would feel far more comfort-able if she did not have to worry about the safety andhealth of her children as much as is now the case. Herperception of Wahlenpark is one of emptiness and dis-like. Although she lives next to the park, it remains astrange place to her; she has no sense of belonging. Theresidents struggle to give meaning to the place toread the place illustrates that semiotic openness isnot only a chance for creative interpretation, but also arequest to do so. And as legibility of a place is a centralcondition of appropriation, semiotic openness can alsofunction as a barrier to appropriation of space. In thiscase, a person belonging to the defined target audience(see section 3.1) becomes an excluded person.

Feeling safe or feeling exposed: a sense of comfort?In contrast to the above quoted mother, a teenager a

nearby resident, too feels comfortable in Wahlen-park. She highlights the opportunity the park gives herto be outdoors on warm summer nights because sheperceives it as a safe place:

Yes, and above all you dont need to be afraid that,well, that nobody comes here, because it is so open. Thus,people just see the place and thats why you feel comfort-able. You are safe, well as a woman, and then this [to behere at night] is no problem (female resident, 16).

The teenager perceives the place as open concern-ing visibility in two different meanings. First, the parkcan be viewed from the outside, because there are noclear boundaries to the surrounding areas. The sensa-tion that people can or actually do look from the out-side into the park is supported by the fact that residen-tial buildings enclose the park on three edges. Second,the person refers to open visibility deriving from a wellarranged interior: the park has a flat topology that isweakly structured, leaving no unclear niches, whereweird persons, as she said, could be lurking around.The well arranged interior of the park allows the teen-ager to sojourn in public space far into the night onher own, to control space and therefore supports herautonomy.

Yet, simultaneously, her autonomy is impaired by herconfidence in and dependence on the social control byothers. The same visual openness appreciated by the

teenager is experienced in a clearly negative way bya 54 year old female visitor. This visitor stated thatshe would never relax on the lawn because on it youfeel exposed. Through this exposure to the gaze of

others, she feels controlled and misses security. Thus,the described examples illustrate two totally differ-ent experiences of the visually open park architecture.Visual openness provides a space of social control.For one user, this evokes a feeling of safety and hencecomfort. For another user, this leads to a feeling ofbeing exposed and thus discomfort.

Furthermore, the fact that the teenager reflects on herfeeling of safety as a woman mirrors the paradox ofgendered feelings of safety in public space, describedby Ruhne (2003): from a statistical point of view, it ismen who are at risk in the public space and it is in theprivate sphere, where women should fear harassmentmost. According to Kutschinske & Meier (2000),such a paradox situation is sustained by the dominantpublic discourse of womens fear in public space. Theconsequences of this discourse are effective: Wesely& Gaarder (2004) describe how women constantlynegotiate their concern and needs referring to theiractivities in public space. The frequently chosen strate-gies to avoid certain places and/or times signify a defi-cit of autonomy, a confinement of free space of move-ment and an arrangement with discriminating socialstructures. As a consequence, womens fear of violence

results in the partial exclusion of women from publicspace (Fenster 2004b).

Here, people have to negotiate how to use this spacethemselves: a place of encounter. When several per-sons simultaneously seize the chance for reinterpreta-tion of space it might result in a situation like the fol-lowing one:

I was just resting here after eating my lunch, just restinghere by myself, when this adult man, I dont know what hewas doing, somehow hit against this wall with a ball againand again and it disturbed me and so I asked if he couldnot go somewhere else as I would only be staying herefor five more minutes and if he could not take a break forfive minutes because I wanted to rest a little and then hesaid that he too would only be here another five minutes,but anyway he then went, he said it was okay (femalevisitor, 54).

The situation described above illustrates how differentrequirements and needs lead to different interpreta-tions of one and the same park element. Whereas thewoman spending her lunch-break outdoors wantedto rest, stretching out on the concrete element (thewall), the man thought it an ideal place to practisefootball. This example shows that semiotic openness

does not prevent conflict, it might even provoke it and,as a consequence, results in a situation where peoplehave to bargain their entitlement to space just as the


7/9


designers intended it (see paragraph 3.2). Mitchell(2003) regards such places of unmediated interac-tion as an essential political need for marginalisedpeople as it creates opportunities for them to (re-)

claim their right to the city. Thus, semiotic open parkelements can be understood as offering a space of self-determination not only on a political but also on anordinary level, too.

4 Conclusions

It has been emphasised above that openness is animportant reference point in the production of spacesat Wahlenpark by planners, designers and users, albeitwith different meanings. The openness of the city plan-ners is a functional one. They aim at a multifunctional,inclusive place by not defining specific uses. Designersemphasise the functional openness of the city plan-ners by reducing infrastructure to a minimum and byinstalling park elements without clear codes of prac-tice, encouraging experimentation and creativity inplay. In this way, designers created a semiotic open,minimally pre-structured space. The statements ofpark users show that they experience openness differ-ently, sometimes even in a contradictory manner.

Semiotic openness is seen as a chance to creativelyinterpret a place and find anchor points by which

to become familiar with it, as well as an ideal condi-tion for unmediated interaction fostering socialinclusiveness and self-determination in public space(Mitchell 1995). But, semiotic openness can also haveexclusionary effects. When a perceived space does notcorrespond to users needs or personal imaginations ofa public space and/or does not offer any anchor points,the semiotic openness might become illegible. Accord-ing to Hamm (1982), in such a case, the sender and therecipient do not share a common pool of symbols andfor this reason, communication fails. Semiotic open-ness also bears the risk of displacement. Situationswhere a person has to defend her or his entitlement tospace can be seen as temporal interruptions of a per-sons appropriation (see Goffman 1982). Thus, semi-otic openness bears the potential to both include andexclude people.

Also visual openness is experienced conflictingly. It canresult both in a feeling of safety and comfort and in thesense of discomfort and exposure. These contradictoryemotions of one and the same place highlight the vari-ability of subjective perceptions. They also draw atten-tion to the ambivalence of safety conceptualised as aquestion of physical measures: the momentary feeling

of safety is bought dearly by social control. The pos-sible gaze from the surrounding apartments and thepermeable arrangement of the park elements create a

situation of constant potential control at Wahlenpark,which according to Belina (2006), Klauser (2007) orSmith (1996) disciplines people or even keeps themaway.

Visual openness as a means of safety also reinforcesthe dominant discourse on womens fear in publicspace, which stereotypically views women as victims ofcrime and leaves the safety paradox untouched. Con-cepts of safety, which include confidence, autonomyand respectful self-regulation (Paravicini 2003) wouldseem to be far more effective, because they affect thesocial structures from which womens fears in publicspace stem.

In conclusion, it is argued that functional, visual andsemiotic open spaces bear the potential to becomeinclusive. By offering an area of self-regulation, cityplanners and designers provide a democratic space.This is essential to facilitate equal opportunities inrespect of the use of public spaces. It is not sufficient,though. Whether a place is experienced as an inclu-sive space (where one feels a sense of belonging) oran exclusive one depends highly on the social, situ-ational and personal context. While being a form ofsocial structure, spatial structures are not free of hier-archies, such as gender differences. As these structuresaffect the production of public space, they have to beincorporated in the planning and designing thereof in

a more thorough and resolute manner.

AcknowledgmentThe authors thank the Swiss National Science Founda-tion (SNF) for financial support.

ReferencesBelina, B. (2006): Raum, berwachung, Kontrolle:Vom staatlichen Zugriff auf stdtische Bevlkerung. Mnster: Westflisches Dampfboot.Bondi, L. & M. Domosh (1998): On the contours ofpublic space: a tale of three women. In: Antipode 30,3: 270-289.Fenster, T. (2005): The right to the gendered city: dif-ferent formations of belonging in everyday life. In:Journal of Gender Studies 14, 3: 217-231.Fenster, T. (2004a): The global city and the holy city:narratives on knowledge, planning and diversity. Harlow, New York: Prentice Hall/Pearson Education.Fenster, T. (2004b): Gendered cities. Notions ofcomfort, belonging and commitment in London andJerusalem. In: Cortesi, G., Cristaldi, F. & J. Droog-leever Fortuijn (eds): Gendered cities: identities,

activities, networks. A life-course approach. Rome:Societ Geografica Italiana: 25-41.Garca-Ramon, M.D., Ortiz, A. & M. Prats (2004):


8/9


Urban planning, gender and the use of public space ina peripherial neighbourhood of Barcelona. In: Cities21, 3: 215-223.Goffman, E. (1982): Das Individuum im ffentlichen

Austausch: Mikrostudien zur ffentlichen Ordnung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Grn Stadt Zrich (2006): Das Grnbuch der StadtZrich: Integral planen wirkungsorientiert handeln. Zrich: Grn Stadt Zrich.Grn Stadt Zrich (September 2001): FriedrichTraugott Wahlen-Park Zentrum Zrich Nord: Pro-jektwettbewerb. Bericht des Preisgerichtes. Zrich(unpublished document).Hamm, B. (1982): Einfhrung in die Siedlungssoziolo-gie. Mnchen: Beck.Holland, Y.J. & J. Strassel (1996): Zur semantischenAnalyse neuerer ffentlicher Pltze in europischenStdten. = Agis-Texte 12, Oldenburg.Klauser, F.R. (2007): Difficulties in revitalizatingpublic space by CCTV: street prostitution surveillancein the Swiss City of Olten. In: European Urban andRegional Studies 14, 4: 337-348.Kutschinske, K. & V.Meier (2000): Sich diesen Raumzu nehmen und sich freizulaufen: Angst-Rume alsAusdruck von Geschlechterkonstruktion. In: Geo-graphica Helvetica 55, 2: 78-84.Landolt, S., Schneider, S. & A. Odermatt (2006):Seeanlagen Zrich: Bedeutung, Nutzungen, Heraus-forderungen 2005/2006. Zrich: Geographisches

Institut der Universitt Zrich.Lw, M. (2001): Raumsoziologie. Frankfurt am Main:Suhrkamp.Massey, D. (2005): For space. London: Sage Publica-tions.Mitchell, D. (2003): The right to the city: social justice andthe fight for public space. New York: Guilford Press.Mitchell, D. (1995): The end of public space? Peoplespark, definitions of the public, and democracy. In:Annals of the Association of American Geographers85, 1: 108-133.Ostermann, F.O. & S. Timpf (2009): Use and appro-priation of space in urban public parks. GIS methodsin social geography. In: Geographica Helvetica 64,1:30-36.Pain, R.H. (2001): Gender, race, age and fear in thecity. In: Urban Studies 38, 5-6: 899-913.Paravicini, U. (2003): Public spaces as a contributionto egalitarian cities. In: Terlinden, U. (ed.): City andgender: international discourse on gender, urbanismand architecture. Schriftenreihe der InternationalenFrauenuniversitt Technik und Kultur 12, Opladen:Leske+Budrich: 57-80.Ruhne, R. (2003): Raum Macht Geschlecht: ZurSoziologie eines Wirkungsgefges am Beispiel von

(Un-)Sicherheiten im ffentlichen Raum. Opladen:Leske+Budrich.Sandercock, L. (2005): Difference, fear and habitus: a

political economy of urban fears. In: Hillier, J. & E.Rooksby (eds): Habitus: a sense of place. Aldershot:Ashgate: 219-234.Smith, N. (1996): The new urban frontier. Gentrifi-

cation and the revanchist city. London, New York:Routledge.Stadt Zrich, Gartenbau- und Landwirtschaftsamt(May 2001): Friedrich Traugott Wahlen-Park, ZentrumZrich Nord: Wettbewerbsprogramm. http://www.stadt-zuerich.ch/internet/gsz/home/planung/wettbe-werbe.html 20.02.2008.Strauss, A. & J. Corbin (1998): Basics of qualitativeresearch: techniques and procedures for developinggrounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Studer, H. (2002): Mdchenrume: landschafts-planerische Erfahrungen. In: Kramer, C. (Hrsg.):FREI-Rume und FREI-Zeiten: Raum-Nutzung undZeit-Verwendung im Geschlechterverhltnis. Schrif-ten des Heidelberger Instituts fr InterdisziplinreFrauen- und Geschlechterforschung (HIFI) e.V. 5,Baden-Baden: Nomos-Verlagsgesellschaft: 61-76.Vaiou, D. & A. Kalandides (2009): Cities of others:public space and everyday practices. In: GeographicaHelvetica 64, 1: 11-20.Ward Thompson, C. (2002): Urban open space in the 21stcentury. In: Landscape and Urban Planning 60: 59-72.Weilacher, U. (2001): Abstrakte Grten in der Schweiz:Ernst Cramers Suche nach einem modernen Ausdruckin der Gartenarchitektur. In: DISP 146: 13-17.

Wesely, J.K. & E. Gaarder (2004): The genderedNature of the urban outdoors: women negotiatingfear of violence. In: Gender & Society 18, 5: 645-663.

Abstract: Planning, design and use of the public spaceWahlenpark (Zurich, Switzerland): functional, visualand semiotic opennessWahlenpark is currently one of Zurichs most recenturban public parks. It is located in a neighbourhoodwhich has been totally rebuilt during the last 20 years.Based on a constructivist conception of space, this arti-cle looks at the kind of spaces that have been, and stillare, produced at Wahlenpark. It is argued that variousgroups of actors are, and have been, involved in thisproduction of spaces: city planners in the role of con-structors, landscape architects in the role of designersand the population in the role of users. By definingrequirements, city planners constitute space, at first ona mental level only. As constructors they perform through the designers plans a powerful spacingact: they physically construct a park. Park users in theirdual role as actors and park element subsequently(re-)produce manifold spaces by uniting social goodsand people to spaces (see Lw 2001).

It is argued that openness is an important referencepoint in the production and appropriation of space at


9/9


Wahlenpark by planners, designers and users, albeitwith different meanings. The statements of parkusers show that they experience openness differently,sometimes even in a contradictory manner, thereby

highlighting the variability of subjective perception,resulting in both the inclusion and exclusion of theperceiver. In view of greater inclusiveness of publicspaces, a better understanding of the manner in whichpeople perceive and use these spaces is needed.

Keywords: urban free space, subjective perceptions,planning and design, inclusion and exclusion

Zusammenfassung: Planung, Gestaltung und Nutzungdes ffentlichen Raums Wahlenpark (Zrich, Schweiz):funktionale, visuelle und semiotische OffenheitDer Wahlenpark ist zurzeit einer von Zrichs neustenffentlichen Parks. Er liegt in einem Quartier, welchesin den letzten 20 Jahren vollstndig neu gebaut wordenist. Basierend auf einem konstruktivistischen Raum-verstndnis beleuchtet der Artikel die durch verschie-dene Akteursgruppen hergestellten Rume. Fr dasBeispiel des Wahlenparks werden die folgenden dreiAkteursgruppen als zentral erachtet: die Stadtpla-nerinnen und -planer in der Funktion der Bauherr-schaft, Landschaftsarchitektinnen und Knstler in derFunktion der Gestaltenden und die Bevlkerungals Endnutzerin. Durch die Spezifizierung von Anfor-derungen, stellen Stadtplanerinnen und -planer einen

Raum her, der vorerst nur mental ist. Als Bauherr-schaft fhren sie sodann nach den in Plne gegos-senen Rumen der Gestaltenden einen machtvollenAkt der Raumproduktion durch. In ihrer dualen Rolleals Handelnde und Parkelemente (re-)produzierenParknutzerinnen und -nutzer anschliessend facetten-reiche Rume, indem sie soziale Gter und Menschenzu Rumen verknpfen (Lw 2001).

Der Artikel zeigt, dass Offenheit bei den von Pla-nerinnen, Landschaftsarchitekten und Nutzerinnenhergestellten Rumen ein zentrales Thema ist wennauch mit unterschiedlicher Bedeutung. Die Aussagenvon Parknutzern und -nutzerinnen verdeutlichen, wieunterschiedlich Offenheit erlebt wird, was wiederumzeigt, wie vielseitig die subjektive Wahrnehmung einesOrtes sein kann. So resultiert denn auch die program-matisch angelegte Offenheit im Wahlenpark gleich-zeitig im Ein- und Ausschluss von Parknutzerinnenund -nutzern. Fr eine Gestaltung urbaner ffentli-cher Rume mit mglichst integrativer Wirkung ist esdeshalb dringend notwendig, mehr ber die Art undWeise zu wissen, wie Menschen diese Rume wahr-nehmen und nutzen.

Schlsselwrter: stdtischer Freiraum, subjektiveWahrnehmungen, Planung und Gestaltung, Einschlussund Ausschluss

Rsum: Amnagement, design et usage de lespacepublic du Wahlenpark (Zurich, Suisse): ouverturefonctionnelle, visuelle et smiotiqueLe Wahlenpark est actuellement lun des parcs urbains

les plus rcents de Zurich. Il est situ dans un quar-tier qui a t entirement reconstruit durant ces vingtdernires annes. Bas sur une conception de lespaceconstructiviste, cet article analyse les types despacesqui ont t produits au Wahlenpark. Larticle suggreque plusieurs groupes dacteurs sont, et ont t, impli-qus dans la production de ces espaces: les amnageursurbains qui construisent le parc, les architectes paysa-gistes et les artistes qui le conoivent et la populationqui lutilise. En dfinissant des normes, les amnageursurbains sont tout dabord producteurs dun espacemental. En tant que constructeurs, ils construisent enoutre physiquement le parc en suivant les plans desdesigners. Les utilisateurs du parc, dans leur rle dualdacteurs et dlments du parc, (re)produisent ensuitede multiples espaces en unifiant les biens sociaux et lesgens aux espaces (voir Lw 2001).

Larticle montre que louverture est un thme centraldans la production et lappropriation des espaces duWahlenpark par les amnageurs, les architectes paysa-gers et les usagers, avec des significations qui peuventcependant varier. Les dclarations des usagers mon-trent quils exprimentent louverture diffremment,parfois mme dune manire contradictoire, illustrant

la variabilit des perceptions subjectives. Il en rsulte la fois linclusion et lexclusion des usagers. Dans laperspective dune plus grande insertion des espacespublics, une meilleure comprhension de la maniredont les gens peroivent et utilisent ces espaces estncessaire.

Mots-cls: espace libre urbain, perceptions subjectives,planification et conception, inclusion et exclusion

Dipl.-Geogr. Heidi Kaspar, Dr. Elisabeth Bhler, Divi-sion of Economic Geography, Department of Geog-raphy, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190,CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland.e-mail:[email protected]@geo.uzh.ch

Manuskripteingang/received/manuscrit entr le

8.6.2008Annahme zum Druck/accepted for publication/acceptpour limpression: 27.3.2009

Documents

Kaspar&Buehler Wahlenpark. Designanduses 2009