Tempelhofer Feld, one of Europe’s largest urban open spaces, has long been a focal point of debate, particularly since its closure as an airport in 2008. Over the years, the site has sparked public protests, legal disputes, and heated discussions about its future. Now, after a highly anticipated international competition, the winning proposals have been revealed.
Winning Proposal by Some Place Studio, FWD Landscape Architecture and Shalini Vimal.
– Some Place Studio, FWD Landscape Architecture and Natural Resource Manager Shalini Vimal – bbz landschaftsarchitekten – Franz Reschke Landschaftsarchitektur – De Zwarte Hond, and Grieger Harzer Dvorak Landschaftsarchitekten – Schønherr – Raumlabor, and Klaus Overmeyer.
Out of 164 entries, their design was selected as the best to guide the future of Tempelhofer Feld. Four out of six winning proposals refused to build on the Tempelhofer perimeter. While Architects4THF long campaigned against the competition, which puts pressure to construct, the Berlin Senate decided to proceed. The process is said to be used to legitimise the development, despite the repeated public rejection of construction. The housing shortage is being cited as a justification for the development, but opponents contend that the real issue lies in high rents, not a lack of available land, and that tackling misuse of residential properties would be a more effective solution.
Site Plan. De Zwarte Hond, and Grieger Harzer Dvorak Landschaftsarchitekten.
An open statement has been issued by the four winning groups of participants, including Some Place Studio, FWD Landscape Architecture, Raumlabor, Franz Reschke Landschaftsarchitektur GmbH and bbz landschaftsarchitekten:
“As the four winners of the Tempelhofer Feld Idea Competition who did not propose construction on the field, we issue this joint statement with the aim of preventing the privatisation of the Feld. The THF-Law, democratically enacted through the 2014 referendum, currently protects the field from permanent construction. The recommendations emerging from the ongoing Dialogwerkstatt workshops have also been clear: a clear rejection from the public of any construction on the Feld.
Our plans are in accordance with the THF-Law and deliberately do not propose any new construction. Our concern is that an amendment to the law, justified by a potential enhancement to open spaces, might serve as a basis for introducing permanent development through the back door. Our designs must not be used as a pretext to change the law and push through development on the field.”
However, the Berlin Senate Department for Urban Development, Construction and Housing continues with a dialogue, centred on the future of THF. They proclaim public participation and use design proposals, and their exhibition in September, as a tool for public discussion. Choosing winning proposals that include construction is an obvious change of direction from the 2014 Tempelhofer Feld Law, which successfully prevented development on the site until now. One of the public dialogue figures, organised by the Senate, perhaps sums this process best with his statement:
“In principle, in a democracy, you are allowed to change laws”.
The Tempelhofer Feld is an exemplary case study of successful public action to protect a space. If Tempelhofer Feld is developed in Germany—a country often seen as a model of democratic engagement, what does that mean for other public participation processes and efforts, especially when compared to less democratic or economically weaker countries? Is it all in vain, or has the public opinion by now shifted, without being compromised by the city’s marketing strategies?
