Tempelhof Parkland Berlin Districts of Tempelhof-Schöneberg / Neukölln

Open landscape planning com­ petition followed by a negotiated procedure

Invitation to tender Open landscape planning competition Tempelhof Parkland Invitation to tender

Competition held by Senate Department for Urban Development Urban Planning and Projects Division Section II D Brückenstraße 6 10179 Berlin-Mitte

Translation part 1 and 2: Quintessenz Konferenzdolmetschen Robert Bryce Teterower Ring 39 D-12619 Berlin Tel: +49 (0)30 / 562 51 35 Fax: +49 (0)30 / 5630 1607 Mobil: 0179 21 333 25 [email protected] www.quintessenz-konferenzdolmetschen.de

Translation part 3: Norbert Zänker & Kollegen Dolmetscher und Übersetzer Lietzenburger Str. 102 10707 Berlin Tel +49 (0)30 / 88430250 Fax +49 (0)30 / 88430233 [email protected] http://www.zaenker.de

Cover photo Eckhard Lange Table of contents

Part 1 Procedure 9 1.1 Initiating authority 9 1.2 Type of procedure 10 1.3 Competition conditions 10 1.4 Eligibility 11 1.5 Jury and preliminary examiners 12 1.6 Access to the competition documents 15 1.7 Submission of the competition entries 15 1.8 Question-and-answer session and inquiries 16 1.9 List of the competition documents 16 1.10 Items required 17 1.11 Evaluation procedure and preliminary examination 18 1.12 Prizes 19 1.13 Further work after the competition 19 1.14 Ownership and proprietary rights 19 1.15 Author’s declaration 20 1.16 Announcement of the result / exhibition of the entries 20 1.17 Liability and return 20 1.18 Awarding Chamber 20 1.19 Timetable 21 1.20 Negotiated procedure 21

Part 2 Competition brief 23 2.1 The challenges - paramount aim 23 2.1.1 Fitting into the context 23 2.1.2 Rebranding Tempelhofer Feld 24 2.1.3 An urban parkland for the 21st century 24 2.2 Main themes for the development of Tempelhofer Feld 25 2.2.1 First main theme: Climate-friendly and resource-efficient city 25 2.2.2 Second main theme: Future-oriented economy of the city – the enterprising city 26 2.2.3 Third main theme: Integration – the cooperative city 27 2.2.4 IBA and IGA as engines of development 27 2.3 Spatial requirements – competition areat 28 2.3.1 Processual urban development - spatial matrix as the basis for the processual development of open spaces 28 2.3.2 Two-stage procedure 29 2.3.3 Working Area 30 2.4 The main IBA themes in the parkland - Three design modules 32 2.4.1 First module: The parkland as an inviting communal location 32 2.4.2 Second module: Use of the parkland for everyday urban activities 35 2.4.3 Third module: Climate-friendly and resource-efficient parkland 37 2.5 Further requirements 41 2.5.1 Staging of the 2017 International Horticultural Exhibition (IGA) 41 2.5.2 Public survey 41 2.5.3 Preservation of historical traces 42 2.5.4 Surrounding vistas 43 2.5.5 Integrated overall design for the spatial and sectoral land requirements 43 2.5.6 Maintenance and upkeep - sustainability 47 2.5.7 Budget for the park 47 2.6 Assessment criteria 48 Teil 3 Site Situation and Planning Principles 49 3.1 Context in Urban Topography 49 3.1.1 Site Delineation and Dimensions 49 3.1.2 Context in Urban Topography 50 3.2 Context in Urban Landscape 57 3.3 Historical Development 59 3.4 The Competition Terrain / Superordinated Aspects 71 3.4.1 Ownership Structure 71 3.4.2 Transport / Infrastructure / Noise 71 3.5 Urban Development Planning Criteria 79 3.5.1 Land Use Planning 79 3.5.2 Planning Policy for the South-East Region 81 3.5.3 District Development Planning 82 3.5.4 Historical Monuments 83 3.6 Landscape Planning Principles 85 3.6.1 The Landscape Programme 85 3.6.2 Garden Allotment Colonies 88 3.6.3 Cemeteries and Graveyards 89 3.6.4 Topography, Soil, Pollution Legacy 90 3.6.5 Groundwater 93 3.6.6 Climate 93 3.6.7 Protection of Biotopes and Species 97 3.6.8 Sealed Surfaces and Buildings 100 3.6.9 Technical Infrastructure 103 3.6.10 Energy 104 3.7 Planning History and Preliminary Planning 106 3.7.1 Informal Planning and Conferences of Experts 106 3.7.2 The Competition for the Columbia District 111 3.7.3 Revised Version of the Masterplan 2009 / 2010 112 3.7.4 International Building Exhibition (IBA) / International Garden Exhibition (IGA) 112 3.7.5 The Tempelhof Ideas Workshop 113 3.8 Expectations of User Groups 115

4 Appendix 123

5 Sources, other Literature and web-links 125

7 Table of Figures 126 Reason and objective When air traffic operations at Tempelhof Airport ceased on 31 October 2008, Berlin regained possession of a large inner-city site that had been outside the scope of urban development for decades and could now be gradually developed and reintegrated into the rest of the city. This new situation offers tremendous opportunities. The landscape planning competition for the future use of the former Tem­ pelhof Airfield encompasses all the open spaces on the site and the areas that interlink with the surroundings. Members of the public were invited to express their views before the call for tenders was made and there will be a repeated opportunity for them to do after the planning competition. In the subsequent negotiated procedure the focus will be on the inner part of the parkland. The competition is also intended to provide a review of the planning con­ cepts elaborated so far and especially their further development.

The competition brief must be approached with close reference to a mo­ del of urban development in which great store is set by efficient use of resources, a concern for partnership and social needs, and a focus on business enterprise. This model, which also envisages a key role for civic resourcefulness and initiative, is paradigmatic for the development of Tem­ pelhofer Feld. The implementation process will extend over many years and so there are likely to be changes in the planning parameters as time passes. At the moment, many of the defining conditions require more de­ tailed specification. This necessitates a method of procedure that is very much process-based. Berlin has successfully bid to stage the 2017 International Horticultural Exhibition (IGA), a major part of which will be located in the northern sec­ tion of the Tempelhof parkland. Currently under review is the possible sta­ ging of an International Building Exhibition (IBA) from 2010 to 2020 that will encompass the whole of Tempelhofer Feld and the adjoining inner-city districts, especially Neukölln. Depending on the outcome of this review, the development and design of the Tempelhof parkland will form a major part of both exhibitions or just of the IGA. The opportunity to develop a parkland of such dimensions in a densely built-up inner city area is unique – in Europe at least. The transformation of the area and its integration with the rest of the city will be an exacting task. Integration refers not only to the spatial links with the ground plans of the adjoining urban and open spaces, but also to the links with the various social milieus of Nord-Neukölln, Kreuzberg and Tempelhof-Schöneberg as well as with the new urban quarters planned to house exponents of the creative professions, future technologies and innovative, urban living. The idea is that, as a communal public space, the new parkland should assume a special mediating function in a spatial, social, aesthetic, ecological and economic sense.

For the transformation of Tempelhofer Feld three main themes have been set out which are to be pursued and elaborated on a project-related basis as the development of Tempelhofer Feld advances. The main themes for the overall development of Tempelhofer Feld are: 1. Climate-friendly and resource-efficient city 2. Future-oriented economy for the city – the enterprising city 3. Integration - the cooperative city The new parkland as one of the first major projects at Tempelhofer Feld is to act as a reference project for these main themes. The intention is to create a new type of urban parkland that meets the need for a natural setting within the city, an area where people can meet and exercise and new uses for the public space can be found. It is a place ca­ pable of promoting the integration of a multicultural, socially intermixed and ageing urban society. While certain groups can utilize parts of the parkland for their own specific purposes, the park must nevertheless remain open for general use. Public funds for maintenance are dwindling steadily. New management concepts are needed. All these factors will give rise to com­ pletely new scenarios of an urban parkland. A great deal will therefore be expected of the schemes submitted in terms of the design, content and functions they offer. The new parkland at Tem­ pelhof must become an attractive location not just for people living in the nearby neighbourhoods but for the whole of Berlin and its visitors. It should also help create a ‘brand’ for the entire development process. Competition entrants are also expected to contribute to the development of a new type of urban parkland both in aesthetic terms and as regards the amenities it provides. In addition, the parkland should play its part in an efficient use of resources and contribute to its own upkeep by means of the facilities it offers. The character of the site, the sheer size of which is currently a source of great fascination, must be maintained. At the same time improvements must be made to enhance its appeal for visitors, in particular through the planting of green spaces that afford shade. The complex nature of these factors notwithstanding, entrants in the competition must make their posi­ tion clear, taking due account of all the many different aspects involved. The runways must be kept and other traces of history must also be incor­ porated. The new parkland is to have multiple functions, serving as a green space for those who seek active recreation or just peace and quiet; a place where one can be close to nature or enjoy an artificially constructed expression of our contemporary understanding of nature; a showcase for intercultural urban society; and a venue for various forms of interaction and creativity. It is also a kind of nature preserve featuring rare and valuable species of flora and fauna in an open landscape as well as a site with a considerable history. Today’s increasingly diversified urban society requires a parkland which provides space and expression for its diversity, while at the same time creating a common framework for this openness. Incorporating these aims in a spatial and functional design, giving them an aesthetically pleasing form that takes account of the history, the char­ acter and changing identity of the place and ensuring that the whole has a contemporary appearance - such are the exacting requirements the com­ petition entrants have to meet.

Tempelhof Parkland / Part 1 Procedure 9

Part 1 Procedure

1.1 Initiating authority Initiating authority The federal state of Berlin, represented by the Senate Department for Ur­ ban Development in cooperation with the district authorities in the Ber-lin districts of Tempelhof-Schöneberg, Neukölln and Friedrichshain-Kreuz­ berg and GrünBerlin Park und Garten GmbH Client GrünBerlin Park und Garten GmbH Competition organised by Senate Department for Urban Development Urban Planning and Projects Division Section II D Brückenstraße 6 10179 Berlin-Mitte Almut Jirku, II D 21 Tel.: +49 (0)30 / 9025-2018 Fax: +49 (0)30 / 9025-2533 e-mail: [email protected] Tendering procedure prepared by Part 3, Appendix, Handling: ag.u Lange, Landscape architecture / environmental planning Eckhard Lange Köpenicker Straße 154a 10997 Berlin

Part 2: bgmr becker giseke mohren richard Landscape architecture Dr. Carlo Becker Prager Platz 6 10779 Berlin with sinai. Faust. Schroll. Schwarz. Freiraumplanung + Projektsteuerung GmbH Bernhard Schwarz Lehrter Straße 57 10557 Berlin

IT support for the competition will be provided by: Competitionline GmbH Charlottenstraße 95 10969 Berlin [email protected] www.competitionline.de Tempelhof Parkland / Part 1 Procedure 10

Responsible Chamber of Architects Chamber of Architects Berlin Karl-Marx- Allee 78 12243 Berlin www.ak-berlin.de

1.2 Type of procedure The invitation to tender will take the form of an open landscape planning competition in compliance with the Guidelines for Planning Competitions (RPW 2008). The aim of the procedure is to select approximately six plan­ ning designs. The total prize money will be distributed equally among the authors of the prize-winning designs. The competition procedure will be anonymous up to the conclusion of the jury session. After the competition is over, the general public will have a chance to participate. The selected designs together with the names of their authors will be presented in an exhibition and introduced to the public by the jury and the preliminary ex­ aminers. A weekend meeting will enable members of the public to discuss the designs with the jury and the competition prize winners. Recommen­ dations can be made at this meeting for further work on the designs duri­ ng the following negotiated procedure. The recommendations will then be evaluated by the initiating authority. Only the authors of the prizewinning designs in the competition will be invited to attend the presentation. Registration An entrants’ area for the competition will be set up on the website www. competitionline.de. Entrants can access the entrants’ area using their com­ petitionline login (e-mail address and password). They can register at any time using an online form. Registration is free of charge. All information distributed during the procedure will be sent to this e-mail address. Access to the entrants’ area The competition can be found in the bottom right-hand corner of the com­ petitionline homepage or called up by entering the following URL: http:// www.competitionline.de/3035662. The link to the entrants’ area is at the top right of the competition Internet page. Communication The competition language is German. In the event of any inconsistency between the German and English versions of the competition documents, the German version shall apply. Communication with the entrants will be via the competition entrants’ area at www.competitionline.de. It will be up to the entrants to keep themselves up to date on the stage the procedure has reached. Information on the invitation to tender will be provided and regularly updated in the entrants’ section

1.3 Competition conditions The competition will be conducted in compliance with the Guidelines for Planning Competitions (RPW 2008) and Circular No. 06/2009 issued by Division VI A of the Senate Department for Urban Development (introduc­ tion of RPW 2008). In accordance with RPW provisions, the Berlin Cham­ ber of Architects has acted in a consultative capacity before and during the preparation of the invitation to tender and will continue to do so after­ wards. The competition has been registered with the Berlin Chamber of Architects and given the registration number B-2010-04. The provisions of the Professional Services Contract Regulations (VOF) will be applied in accordance with the special regulations. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 1 Procedure 11

Please note that the RPW Guidelines and the Circular are available at www.ak-berlin.de Consent Every entrant, judge, expert adviser, preliminary examiner and guest parti­ cipating or collaborating in the procedure must consent to the present con­ ditions of participation and the application of RPW 2008. Announcements of whatever nature concerning the substance or order of events prior to and during the course of the competition procedure, including publication of the outcome of the competition, may only be made through Division II D of the Senate Department for Urban Development. Data protection Every entrant, judge, expert adviser, preliminary examiner and guest par­ ticipating or collaborating in the procedure must consent to the storage of his or her personal data by the Senate Department for Urban Development in the form of an automatic file created for the purposes of the above com­ petition. This consent must be confirmed on the author’s declaration or the declaration of consent. The file will contain the person’s name, address, telephone number, bank account details, commissioning in the competiti­ on, chamber membership and occupational title. Upon completion of the procedure these personal data can be deleted on request (in the form of a notice to this effect on the author’s declaration). Pursuant to Section 6 of the amended Data Protection Act, the consent of the persons concerned is required because of the lack of any special legal foundation for the keeping of this file.

1.4 Eligibility In line with the announcement in the Supplement of the Official Journal of the European Community of 2.3.2010, landscape architects as the leaders of an interdisciplinary team consisting of architects and/or town planners specialised in urban planning as well as specialists in the field of resource efficiency, traffic planning and water management plus other experts are entitled to participate in the competition. The team can be strengthened in the following negotiated procedure by specialists and/or advisers. The landscape architect(s) must be in overall charge. The following areas of specialisation must be represented in the team at a minimum: • landscape architecture • architecture or urban planning The following are eligible to participate: • natural persons who, pursuant to the legal provisions of their native country, are entitled to use the above occupational title and, in accordance with EC directives, can work in the Federal Republic of Germany as well as • legal entities, provided the purpose of their business, as stated in their articles of association, is the provision of planning services and is in compliance with the competition brief. In addition, one of the partners or one of the authorized representatives plus the author of the competition entry must fulfil the requirements made of natural persons. Conditions covering exclusion from participation are regulated pursuant to section 4, sub-section 2 of RPW 2008. The participation of individual members of teams in more than one team is inadmissible and will lead to the exclusion of all the teams affected. The aforementioned conditions of participation do not apply to expert advisers. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 1 Procedure 12

1.5 Jury and preliminary examiners

Assessors Christophe Girot Landscape architect Zürich, Paris

Undine Giseke Landscape architect, Berlin

Dr. Andreas Kipar Landscape architect, Mailand, Duisburg

Stephan Lenzen Landscape architect, Bonn

Christa Reicher Architect, Aachen, Dortmund

Deputy assessors Andrea Gerischer Landscape planner, Berlin

Dr. Ingo Kowarik Landscape planner, Berlin

Dr. Martin Prominski Landscape architect, Hannover

Antje Stokman Landscape architect, Hannover

Jens Mtz Architect, Berlin

Officials Regula Lüscher Senate Department for Urban Development,

Senate Building Director

Reiner Nagel Senate Department for Urban Development, Head of the Urban and Open Spaces Plan­ ning Division

Oliver Schworck Tempelhof-Schöneberg District Authority, District Councillor for Public Services, Regu­ latory Affairs, Nature and the Environment

Thomas Blesing Neukölln District Authority, District Councillor for Building and Construction

Deputy officials Manfred Kühne Senate Department for Urban Development, Head of the Urban Planning and Projects Division Tempelhof Parkland / Part 1 Procedure 13

Beate Profé Senate Department for Urban Development, Head of the Open Space Planning and Green Spaces Section

Christoph Schmidt GrünBerlin Park und Garten GmbH, Managing Director

Ute Heinrich, Tempelhof-Schöneberg District Authority, Head of the Nature and Environment Office,

Wolfgang Borowski Neukölln District Authority, Head of the Plan­ ning, Building Regulations and Surveying Office

Jutta Kalepky. Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg District Councillor, Building, Housing and Real Estate Services Department

Expert advisers Dr. Dagmar Tille Workshop Architecture Communication Cul­ tural Heritage Agency

Joachim Sichter Senate Department for Urban Development, Urban Planning and Investment Projects Section, Tempelhof Project Manager

Peter Ostendorff, Patrick Weiss, Almut Jirku Senate Department for Urban Development, Competitions and Selection Procedures Section

Ursula Renker Senate Department for Urban Development, Open-Space Planning and Urban Green Spaces

Dr. Michael Gödde / Annette Mangold-Zatti Senate Department for Urban Development, Nature Conservation and Landscape Plan­ ning

Rolf Bieser, Frank Sadina Grün Berlin Park und Garten GmbH

Christina Czymay Senate Department for Urban Development, Historic Buildings and Monuments Commis­ sion Tempelhof Parkland / Part 1 Procedure 14

Matthias Rehfeld-Klein Senate Department for Health, Environment and Consumer Protection, Water Management Division

Wolfram Müller Senate Department for Health, Environment and Consumer Protection, Renewable Energies Division

Andreas Baldow, Manfred Sperling Tempelhof-Schöneberg District Authority, Planning Unit

Gabriela Kausch, Michael Sydow Tempelhof-Schöneberg District Authority, Environment and Nature Office

Elisabeth Simmon Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg District Authority, Nature and Green Spaces Office

Andreas Wiesner / Andreas Pohl Neukölln District Authority, Urban Planning Unit

Gerd Kittelmann Neukölln District Authority, Nature Conserva­ tion and Green Spaces Office

Bernd Holm / Leo Lewandowski Senate Department of the Interior and Sport, Sports Development and Location Marketing Section

Gerhard Steindorf, Walter Leibl, Christine Kuhn Tempelhof Project, future development agency

Dr. Carlo W. Becker becker giseke mohren richard Land­ schaftsarchitekten

Bernhard Schwarz, Büro sinai, IGA Viability Study

Senate Department for Urban Development, Advisory Council on Women’s Affairs

Peter Trute geonet, Climate Tempelhof Parkland / Part 1 Procedure 15

Jochen Sandner Deutsche Bundesgartenschau - Gesellschaft mbH

Guests Peter Kever Berlin Chamber of Architects, Competition Expert Johannes Stumpf Berlin Chamber of Architects, Competitions Committee

Tempelhof-Schöneberg, Neukölln, and Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg District As­ semblies One representative for each of the political parties in the district assembly

Preliminary NN examiner Landscape architect

The preliminary examining team can be strengthened as required.

Additional expert advisers can be brought in as required for the second stage in the procedure. The assessors must be present throughout the jury session. In the event of their absence they will be replaced by a deputy up to the end of the session.

1.6 Access to the competition documents All the competition documents are available for downloading from the ent­ rants’ area. Competition documents can only be accessed in this way. The­ re will be no postal delivery. The documents may be downloaded as of the day on which the invitation to tender is extended. See item 1.2 of the invitation to tender for details of how to register for the competition.

1.7 Submission of the competition entries Entries to the competition can be handed in to Room 4.026, Senatsverwal­ tung für Stadtentwicklung (Senate Department for Urban Development) - II D, Brückenstraße. 6, 10179 Berlin, between 2 p.m. and 5 p.m. on 14 May 2010. Alternatively they can be sent to the same address by mail or courier on the same day, the latest possible postmark being 11.59 p.m. Submission at an earlier date is also possible. For entries sent by mail or courier a copy of the proof of dispatch must be forwarded to the initiating authority in the same anonymized way as the entry itself, i.e. marked with the relevant code. Entrants can check whether their competition entries have been received by the initiating authority. The codes of the entries delivered to the initiating authority will be published on the “Entries Received” page. To ensure anonymity, competition entries must be submitted in a sealed cover without the name and address of the sender or any other indication of the author’s identity, but marked with the code and labelled “Tempelhof Parkland Competition”. Entries sent by mail or courier should name the recipient as sender. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 1 Procedure 16

Entries sent by mail or courier (with no postal charges to be borne by the recipient) will be deemed to have been submitted on time if the postmark bears the date 14 May 2010 or an earlier date. Authors themselves are responsible for the legibility of the postmark on the consignment. Entries arriving late, whose postmark or proof of dispatch is missing, illegible or incomplete or whose correctness is in doubt, will also be judged subject to later proof of timely submission being provided by the entrant. Entries delivered after 31 May 2010 will initially not be admitted for evaluation. The final decision in this matter rests with the jury. For entries sent by mail or courier a copy of the proof of dispatch must be forwarded to the initiating authority in the same anonymized way as the entry itself, i.e. marked with the code. Labelling of entries All items of the competition entries must be labelled with an identical code consisting of six Arabic numerals and measuring 1 (one) by 4 (four) cen­ timetres to be located in the top right-hand corner of every sheet and do­ cument. The author of the competition entry must submit the author’s declaration (see 1.15) with his address in a sealed and opaque envelope marked with the same code with which he has labelled his competition entry. This enve­ lope must be submitted at the same time as the competition entry.

1.8 Question-and-answer session and inquiries Question-and-answer session On 26 March 2010 a question-and-answer session will be held for the com­ petition entrants after a tour of the competition area. The subsequent Q+A session is intended as an opportunity for an intensive discussion of the competition brief, not the provision of final answers to inquiries concerning the invitation to tender. These inquiries will be raised and answered defini­ tively in the Internet forum by 1 April 2010. Inquiries Inquiries concerning the invitation to tender may only be addressed to the competition inquiry forum in the Internet up to 26 March 2010. All the que­ stions raised will be displayed there directly and anonymously. This will enable all the entrants to read the questions that have already been raised. Each entrant is obliged to check whether the questions he has put have been displayed in the inquiry forum. When making inquiries, reference should be made to the relevant sub­ sections of the invitation to tender to which they refer. The inquiries will be discussed with the jury where appropriate. The record of the questions raised and answers given is a constituent part of the invitation to tender.

1.9 List of the competition documents The competition documents comprise: the present invitation to tender and the plan documents listed below for downloading from the Internet: Information plans Site plan as pdf file Aerial photograph as jpg file Tempelhof Parkland / Part 1 Procedure 17

Working plans Plan of environs as jpg file in two sections (b/w + colour) as a basis for urban and landscape integration (see 1.10) Site plan as dwg file to serve as a basis for the landscape-planning con­ cept (see 1.10) Appendix See Chapter 4 Important notice Every entrant to the competition must undertake to use the present digi­ tized data and plans solely for the purpose of taking part in the competition. Data generated as intermediate products in the course of the work and not submitted to the initiating authority must be deleted when the competition is over.

1.10 Items required Entrants are expected to submit the following: 1. Landscape and urban integration (scale: 1:10.000) 2. Landscape-planning concept on a scale of 1:2.500 showing the overall situation, spatial structures, and routes leading to destinations outside the area under review 3. Utilization concept with due regard for the processual design components (matrix / core elements, spatial structures, zoning of use areas, scenarios / flexible elements, experimental uses) 4. Freely chosen section of a key area as indicative of the designer’s style 5. Free representations to clarify the concept (e.g. sectional views, perspectives, pictograms on a suitable scale) 6. Inspection plans (folded) of the presentation plans 7. Explanatory report with reasons for the proposed design concept 8. List of documents submitted 9. Rigging plot 10. Author’s declaration (for form see Appendix)

Additional files required on CD-ROM • Presentation plans as Windows-compatible .tif files in a resolution of max. 300dpi (LZW compressed if necessary), max. file size 10 MB. • Presentation plans as pdf files with integrated pixel representations in a resolution of max. 300dpi (LZW compressed if necessary), max. file size 10 MB. • Explanatory report as pdf file.

Notes on the additional files required “Open” files from layout programs (e.g. InDesign, Quark Express, Illustra­ tor) cannot be considered. Pictorial material that is not submitted in the above-mentioned Windows-compatible format cannot be considered. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 1 Procedure 18

The document properties must not contain any indication of the author’s identity. The CD-ROM title is just the six-digit code with which the plans are labelled (e.g. 123456). The individual files on the CD-ROM must be named as fol­ lows: The first part of the file name is the six-digit code, which is followed by an underline and then the actual title of the file, followed by the format details, e.g. “tif”. Examples: Site plan 123456_siteplan.tif Inspection plan 123456_inspectionplan.tif The file name should contain no spaces or special characters, such as umlauts. The CD-ROM must be created on a Windows-compatible PC. No consideration can be given to Macintosh formats. For the presentation of competition entries two 2-metre-high mobile boards measuring 1.96 by 1.46 metres will be available. The working plans provided by the initiating authority are a suggested way of presenting the competition entry; they do not have to be used by the entrants. Each entrant may submit only one entry without a variant. In keeping with section 5, sub-section 2 of RPW 2008, representations which go beyond the requirements set out in the invitation to tender or contravene binding specifications made by the initiating authority will be excluded from the preliminary examination. Colour representations and explanatory sketches are permitted. Binding specification Competition entries that violate binding regulations will not be admitted for evaluation. In line with the need for innovation and the idea behind the competition, the specifications governing the competition brief will be limi­ ted to the following fundamental requirements: - No binding specifications Any competition entries that are published while the competition is in pro­ gress will be in violation of the anonymity required by section 1, sub-section 4 and section 6, sub-section 2 of the Guidelines for Planning Competitions (RPW) 2008 and will be excluded from the evaluation.

1.11 Evaluation procedure and preliminary examination Das Beurteilungsverfahren ist unter § 6 Absatz 2 der RPW 2008 darge- The evaluation procedure is described under section 6, sub-section 2 of RPW 2008. The jury will evaluate the competition entries in accordance with the criteria listed below. The entries submitted will be subjected to a preliminary examination on the basis of these criteria. In the performance of this task the preliminary examiners may draw on the support of expert advisers. Although the results of the preliminary examination will be made available to the jury as a decision-making aid, the evaluation of the entries is a matter for the jury alone. Evaluation criteria

• main idea – spatial and design quality • integration in urban and open-space planning • innovation as a contribution to an urban parkland • viability of the structural plan as the matrix and basic element of a processual development Tempelhof Parkland / Part 1 Procedure 19

• creation and interlinking of space • development and inner structure • usability, reflection of public wishes • soundness and sustainability • consideration of nature conservation requirements • suitability of the design as a reference project for the International Building Exhibition (IBA) • suitability of the design for the staging of an International Horticultural Exhibition (IGA) • adherence to budget, economic viability in creation and maintenance

1.12 Prizes The competition sum (section 7, sub-section 2 of RPW 2008) has been calculated in accordance with the Official Scale of Fees for Services by Ar­ chitects and Engineers (HOAI). Altogether €100,000 net will be available. This sum will be distributed in equal parts among the approximately six prize-winning entries. As regards the awarding of the prizes the jury’s deci­ sion is final and there can be no recourse to litigation. Value-added tax at the current rate of 19% is not included in the aforemen­ tioned sums and will be paid out additionally to domestic entrants.

1.13 Further work after the competition The competition will end with the decision made by the jury, which will issue a written recommendation for further work to be done on the com­ petition brief. The initiating authority, having due regard for the jury’s recommendations, will invite the authors belonging to the prize-winning group to take part in a subsequent negotiated procedure, which will be governed by the Professi­ onal Services Contract Regulations (VOF), and commission them to per­ form planning services. Before the negotiated procedure begins, a check will be carried out to establish whether the authors of the prize-winning entries are entitled to participate. If prize winners have contravened the rules of the competition and cannot therefore be considered, other partici­ pants in the competition will take their place in the order in which the jury ranked their entries, provided this procedure has been agreed by the jury. The prize-winning entries will be presented at a public exhibition and at meetings with members of the public (cf. 1.2 and 1.20). Parts of the overall competition area may be elaborated in subsequent realization competitions, especially those areas that will form the core area of the IGA, as well as other areas outside the ring. The competitions consti­ tute separate procedures and will be announced as such.

1.14 Ownership and proprietary rights The documents submitted as part of the prize-winning entries will become the property of the initiating authority. The proprietary rights and the right to publish the designs remain the in the possession of the author. The initiating authority is entitled to document, exhibit and publish - itself or via third parties - the entries admitted for evaluation without further re­ muneration, as they were after the closing date of the competition. In such cases the names of the authors will be made public. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 1 Procedure 20

1.15 Author’s declaration By affixing their signatures to the author’s declaration (see Appendix) the competition entrants confirm that they are the authors of the competition entries, are entitled to enter the competition in accordance with the con­ ditions governing it, accept a commission for further work on their entries and are in a position to execute the work in a professional manner and to complete it on time.

1.16 Announcement of the result / exhibition of the entries Subject to verification of their entitlement to participate, prize-winning ent­ rants will be informed of the result of the competition as soon as the jury has made its decision. All other entrants will have the jury record sent to them, while the public will be informed through the press. As soon as the complete record of the results is available, it will be published on the Inter­ net for downloading at www.competitionline.de and www.berlin.stadtent­ wicklung.de/aktuell/wettbewerbe. The entries admitted to the competition for evaluation will be put on public exhibition together with the names of the authors, their assistants and spe­ cialized experts, the prizes, inclusions in the shortlist, and the jury record four weeks at the latest after the jury has made its decision known. The time of the opening, venue and duration of the exhibition will be made known to the competition entrants and the press (section 8, sub-section 1 RPW 2008).

1.17 Liability and return The initiating authority will only be liable for damage to or loss of submitted entries in cases of demonstrable culpable negligence on its part. The non­ prize-winning entries submitted by entrants resident in Berlin may be colle­ cted from the Senate Department for Urban Development - II D - at a time of which they will be duly informed. Should these entries not have been collected, despite the issuing of a reminder, 10 weeks after the specified deadline, the initiating authority will assume that the entrants in question have relinquished ownership of their entries and will dispose of the said entries at its discretion. Non-prize-winning entries will only be returned if the said entries were sub­ mitted in transportable form and with re-usable packaging.

1.18 Awarding Chamber Public contracts which must be awarded in compliance with the EU re­ gulations for the awarding of contracts are subject to a legal protection procedure. For the public contractors of the Federal State of Berlin this procedure is conducted before the Awarding Chamber of the Federal State of Berlin.

Vergabekammer des Landes Berlin Martin-Luther-Str. 105 10825 Berlin Tel. +49 (0)30 / 9013 8316 Fax. +49 (0)30 / 9013 7613 Tempelhof Parkland / Part 1 Procedure 21

1.19 Timetable Access to the competition documents...... 2. March 2010 Information event...... 26. March 2010 Inquiries via Internet by ...... 26. March 2010 Answering of inquiries via Internet by...... 1. April 2010 Submission of entries ...... 14. May 2010 Jury...... 11./12. June 2010 Presentation of the results of the competition at public meetings ...... early July or late August 2010 Exhibition...... late August 2010

1.20 Negotiated procedure The subsequent negotiated procedure is not subject to agreement with the Chamber of Architects, since its advisory activities are related exclusively to the competition procedure. The registration number therefore applies to the competition procedure only. The jury will serve as an advisory body to the initiating authority in the negotiated procedure, which will concentrate on the inner part of the park­ land. Participation in the weekend meeting with members of the public is obliga­ tory for the selected offices. Services in the subsequent negotiated procedure: 1. Landscape integration (free choice of scale) 2. Landscape-planning concept on a scale of 1:2500 showing the overall situation, open spaces, development and processual unfolding 3. Landscape-planning concept on a scale of 1: 500 for selected sections of the implementation areas 4. Utilization concept with due regard for the processual design components (matrix / core elements, scenarios / flexible elements, intermediate use, pioneer use, experimental use) 5. Free choice of details, views, sectional views and perspectives with comments on processual development (free choice of scale) 6. Inspection plans (folded) of the presentation plans 7. Cost estimate on specified form for the implementation areas 8. Explanatory report with reasons for the proposed design concept and elucidation of the subject of “resource efficiency” (separate) 9. List of documents submitted 10. Rigging plot 11. Author’s declaration (for form see Appendix) The above-mentioned items must be submitted on paper. The initiating authority reserves the right to adapt the items to be submitted for the nego­ tiated procedure as a result of the outcome of the competition.

For the presentation of the entries in the negotiated procedure, three 2-metre-high mobile boards measuring 1.96 by 1.46 metres will be avai­ lable. In accordance with section 15, sub-section 2 of the VOF, the participants in the negotiated procedure will receive remuneration amounting to €66,400 for these planning services. Value-added tax at the current rate of 19% is not included in the aforementioned sum and will be paid out additionally to domestic entrants. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 1 Procedure 22

The criteria for the decision reached in the negotiated procedure are es­ sentially the evaluation criteria specified at 2.6 and the recommendations of the jury acting in its capacity as an advisory body. In the subsequent implementation of the project the client, having due re­ gard for the recommendations of the jury acting in its capacity as an advi­ sory body, will entrust an author belonging to the prize-winning group with performing further work on the task, comprising at least services 2, 3, and 5 (and 4 where applicable) as specified in section 38 HOAI, provided there are no serious objections to such a commission, especially in so far and as soon as the task on which the procedure is based is to be implemented. An essential condition is that the scheme selected can be executed within the budget. The selected author should at least be commissioned to implement rele­ vant parts of the matrix and basic elements. To these must be added the areas of inner parkland that are not part of the grounds of the future IGA and which have to be defined within the framework of the competition. The initiating authority reserves the right to commission the selected author to perform further services, with due regard for the recommendations of the jury acting in its capacity as an advisory body. Furthermore, the initiating authority reserves the right, with due regard for the recommendations of the jury acting in its capacity as an advisory body, to commission other authors to perform certain key tasks. In addition, the selected author will be appointed guardian of the green “master plan”, by which the initiating authority is to be guided in the course of further planning and implementation. In the event of further work being necessary, services already performed in the procedure up to the value of the prize awarded and of the expert’s fee will not be remunerated again if the design remains essentially unaltered as the basis for the further work to be done.

Timetable for the negotiated procedure Issuing of the brief ...... early September 2010 Inquiries via Internet ...... late September 2010 1st interim Q+A session...... late September 2010 2nd interim Q+A session ...... late October 2010 Submission of entries ...... early November 2010 Selection decision...... early December 2010 Exhibition...... approx. two weeks later

The precise timetable for the negotiated procedure will be decided on after the conclusion of the competition.

Landscape architects awarded a contract, who are not members of the Berlin Chamber of Architects, are obliged under section 6 of the Chambers of Architects and Building Contractors Act to enter their names in the Regi­ ster of External Architects of the Berlin Chamber of Architects. Where ap­ plicable, it is recommended that the services of a contact office be sought. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 2 Competition Brief 23

Part 2 Competition brief

An urban parkland for the 21st century

2.1 The challenges - paramount aim When air traffic operations came to an end at Tempelhofer Feld in October 2008, Berlin regained possession of a 384-hectare site that can now be transformed from a transport facility into an urban development area. The airfield, which served military purposes for two hundred years and was separated by air traffic from the surrounding urban fabric for almost a cen­ tury, has the potential to become a new element of the inner city inside the suburban railway ring - a great opportunity and a testing challenge for the urban development of Berlin. Tempelhof Airport has a very special place in the collective memory of West Berlin, standing as it does for the determination of the besieged half of the divided city to survive in freedom in the post-war era. Thus the lo­ cation is charged with emotions. It is therefore expected that any new de­ signs submitted must encourage Berliners to move on into this next new chapter in the city’s history. The former airport at Tempelhof is a historic monument of European rank. Any development of Tempelhofer Feld into a parkland should make clear the functional connection between the extensive airfield and the airport building. As the development of the entire area will extend over a long period, all designs must allow for changes due to circumstances as yet unforeseen. Hence all planning efforts are geared to the idea of a process-oriented, strategic design. The basis for development is the processual master plan for Tempelhofer Feld, which was updated in early 2008. The possibility of laying out such a large parkland within the built-up inner city represents a unique opportunity for the further development of Berlin as a European metropolis. The alternation of compact urban quarters and wide open spaces has the potential to give Berlin a special identity and quality of life. All designs submitted must bring this out strongly. 2.1.1 Fitting into the context The transformation of the area and its integration with the rest of the city will be an exacting task. Integration refers both to the spatial links with the ground plans of the adjoining urban and open spaces, and to the links with the various social milieus of Nord-Neukölln, Kreuzberg and Tempel­ hof-Schöneberg as well as with the new urban quarters planned to house exponents of the creative professions, future technologies, and innovative, urban living (cf. 3.1). The idea is that, as a communal public space, the new parkland should as­ sume a special mediating function in a spatial, social, aesthetic, ecological and economic sense. Because the airfield was inaccessible for decades, a kind of inner periphe­ ry has emerged at the fringes. Paths and roads led away from the airfield. This is to be reversed by making Tempelhof the destination. Restoring con­ necting paths or creating new ones is an important task to be carried out within different time horizons. After decades of isolation the new urban and landscape space of Tempelhofer Feld is once more to be integrated with the surrounding urban quarters. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 2 Competition Brief 24

2.1.2 Rebranding Tempelhofer Feld Tempelhofer Feld with its central building and airlift monument is a sym­ bolically charged location and a Berlin landmark. This is brought home by the imposing effect of the large central building, the concrete apron, and the vast expanse of the airfield itself, with its two runways, each over two kilometres long. The design of an urban parkland for the 21st century is intended to help en­ rich the Tempelhof brand with new, seminal content and positive associa­ tions for the population of the whole city. The space has to be rededicated. The park should lend enhanced status to addresses in both the existing and new urban quarters. The new parkland at Tempelhofer Feld will become a place of importance to the whole city, not only because of its size, but also because of the ove­ rall concept, the range of uses offered, and its design qualities. Pointing the way – building an image The termination of flight operations at the airfield has given Berlin a unique opportunity to preserve a complex and significant legacy, develop a new part of 21st century Berlin in a central urban location, and integrate it into the surrounding parts of the city. In staging the parkland competition the initiating authority wishes to provide an impetus for the development of the site. This requires a clear form of expression and the sending out of clear signals. The parkland at Tempelhofer Feld is to become a space with a character of its own, enabling it to stand out from Berlin’s current and future parks. The historical Tempelhof brand with the dominating central building will thus be transformed by the parkland into a prestigious address within the city. The competition is intended to help create this new image for Tempel­ hof. 2.1.3 An urban parkland for the 21st century The parkland is to be understood and developed as a public space within the city, as a place for the expression of urban culture. The focus is on the inhabitants of the city, who want to enjoy, use and adapt this space. This makes tough demands on the design, if an attractive, contemporary and inviting parkland offering a wide range of facilities is to come into being in the midst of the metropolis. Natural environment - multiple functions The new parkland is to have multiple functions, serving as a green space for those who seek active recreation or just peace and quiet; a place where one can be close to nature or enjoy an artificially construc­ ted expression of our contemporary understanding of nature; a showcase for intercultural urban society; and a venue for various forms of interaction and creativity. It is also a kind of nature preserve featuring rare and valu­ able species of flora and fauna in an open landscape (for more details see 4.08g-j) as well as a site with a considerable history. In terms of sustaina­ bility the parkland is also part of the city’s green infrastructure and is inten­ ded to set an example of the innovative approach to natural resources and energy in the city. Thus, designing the parkland and connecting it to the city represents both an opportunity and a challenge. Incorporating these aims in a spatial and functional design, giving them an aesthetically pleasing form that takes account of the history, the character and changing identity of the place and ensuring that the whole has a con­ temporary expression – such are the exacting requirements the competiti­ on entrants have to meet. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 2 Competition Brief 25

Public space for the diversity of urban society Today’s increasingly diversified urban society requires a parkland which provides space and expression for its diversity, while at the same time creating a common framework for this openness. Depleted public coffers, demographic change and a more hetero­ geneous, international and individualized society have changed the traditional appearance of parks. Today’s parks assume increased appro­ priation of the space by self-organizing groups and hence a greater degree of independent initiative on the part of urban society, which is reflected in the design of parks. This can and should give rise to new aesthetic visions. The forms such appropriation can take are very varied, ranging from the provision of refreshments, recreational sports facilities and fitness fa­ cilities to urban gardening and cultural and educational amenities. Uses of this kind promote the emergence of a parkland with self-sustaining areas. This gives rise to new private-public areas in the parkland, the purpose of which is to extend the range of facilities on offer beyond the usual public spectrum. Park with depleted public coffers The 21st century parkland will be a multi-faceted and lively space in which various social factors and lifestyles will be on display. It will be a particular challenge to skilfully allocate the prescribed budget so as to achieve a highly effective basic structure in the vastness of the space, which leaves scope for elaboration and changes in the course of its further development. Allowance must be made at the planning stage for the on-going mainte­ nance costs. The conversion of Tempelhofer Feld is intended to serve as a forward­ looking example of how the requirements of a 21st century parkland can be met by means of a strategic spatial design concept.

2.2 Main themes for the development of Tempelhofer Feld For the transformation of Tempelhofer Feld three main themes have been set out which are to be pursued and elaborated on a project-related basis as the development of Tempelhofer Feld advances. Efforts are currently under way to put flesh on the bones of these main themes in the context of an International Building Exhibition. The main themes for the overall development of Tempelhofer Feld are: 1. Climate-friendly and resource-efficient city 2. Future-oriented economy for the city – the enterprising city 3. Integration – the cooperative city The new parkland as one of the first major projects at Tempelhofer Feld is to act as a reference project for these main themes. 2.2.1 First main theme: Climate-friendly and resource­ efficient city When new urban quarters are being planned in a metropolitan area, the key question is how to prevent urban development and economic growth from leading to negative environmental consequences. The aim is to adopt a strategy of sustainable and efficiently resourced urban development while reducing the ecological footprint1 to a minimum or even eliminating it altogether. Tempelhofer Feld is intended to illustrate the contribution a 1 The ecological footprint assesses the area of land needed to supply the resources and energy consumed by a single individual (cf. 4.08c Expert Report on the Development Strategy for Tempelhofer Feld in the Appendix). Tempelhof Parkland / Part 2 Competition Brief 26 parkland can make to the infrastructure of the city by exerting a beneficial effect on its climate and natural resources as part of an innovative system of urban nature conservation. The existing natural setting is seen as a qualitative feature and integral part of the development of the parkland. As a model contribution that a metropolitan region can make to preserve and ensure the sustainable use of biological diversity, the aim here is to show how the special features of Tempelhofer Feld can be preserved and at the same time used for novel social interaction facilities.

Climate change has led to the pursuit of two core approaches: CO2 -reduc­ tion strategies and adaptation (of urban structures to climate change, with special reference to the urban heat island phenomenon and changes in the hydrological balance). Experts stress that climate protection and cli­ mate adjustment strategies must be seen in relation to all resources: water, energy, air, land use, biodiversity and raw materials. The particular challenge posed by the parkland at Tempelhofer Feld is how to find ways of combining the design and structural requirements, recrea­ tional functions, leisure value and characteristics of the place with the re­ quirements of efficiently resourced urban development. This challenge is aggravated by the fact that the relevant strategies have to be implemented against the background of limited financial resources to cover construction and maintenance. 2.2.2 Second main theme: Future-oriented economy of the city – the enterprising city Public parks have traditionally been financed by public money, and their upkeep has been seen as a service provided by the municipal authorities as a matter of course. But now towns and municipalities are increasingly reaching the limits of their economic capacity. This necessitates the de­ velopment of new strategies to make efficient use of the scarce resour­ ces available and to devise ingenious new economic concepts for creating more self-financing structures in large parklands like Tempelhofer Feld. Another challenge will be to find ways of integrating enterprising con­ cepts in a public space without fundamentally restricting that space. On the contrary, the public space should be used as a showcase for urban society in the sense of being a focus for all sorts of independent initiatives that would enrich it in qualitative terms and make it more attractive. The parkland could become a space with room for action groups, associations, spatial pioneers, intermediate users and green investors, whose multifa­ rious activities reflect a diversifying urban society. This would give rise to new private-public areas which should be integrated into the structure of the parkland and thus enrich it. If it proved possible to form new alliances for the public space between lo­ cal authorities and urban society with a view to generating certain sources of income, local economies could be strengthened and the range of uses offered by the park extended. This would also help locate and strengthen self-financing structures in the parkland. The competition is intended to challenge entrants and to define the frame­ work within which new added-value chains can be forged in a future-orien­ ted form of park management. The intermediate users and spatial pioneers have shown how much open spaces lend themselves to active cultivation and how these spaces can be enriched. Small businesses of the kind that promote the local economy should be approached in this connection, so there is no question of having large-scale, fenced-off commercial amuse­ ment parks as an integral element of the public space. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 2 Competition Brief 27

Within the framework of the competition a spatial structure should be de­ veloped that is robust and open enough to encourage such new ventures, thus enhancing the public space. Potential spaces for new ventures should be opened up and at the same time rules and limits formulated on the forms of interaction permitted. Furthermore, entries must propose ways of integrating these disparate elements in a single design. 2.2.3 Third main theme: Integration – the cooperative city Urban society is becoming more and more differentiated, heterogeneous and ethnically mixed, and this will be reflected in the public domain as long as the requisite space and facilities are on offer. The park as a public space must be utilised so that it is not only a green space, but one that is designed to serve the various interests of the city’s inhabitants. By offering facilities for cultural, sporting and artistic contacts and activities the parkland of Tempelhofer Feld acts as a showcase of urban society that provides space for new alliances and forms of cooperation between diffe­ rent generations and cultures with their specific customs and ways of life. The public space should thus keep up with the times as a place of in­ tegration for a diversified urban society. The particular challenge for Tempelhofer Feld is how to bring together the new urban quarters, inhabi­ ted by members of the high-tech and creative professions, known for their innovative ways of living, with the existing residential quarters of Neukölln, Kreuzberg and Tempelhof-Schöneberg, not only in a geographical sense, but also socially. The parkland could act as a bridge. The competition envisages the development of potential spaces and faci­ lities so as to strengthen the parkland as part of an intercultural and co­ operative city. A forward-looking, socially and spatially integrated concept for an urban parkland for the 21st century should be developed along the lines of these three main themes of the planned International Building Exhibition (IBA), which are also at the heart of the overall development of Tempelhofer Feld. Ideally, entries will combine these components, for example by the addition of private sports and leisure facilities, venues for cultural events, or the planting of renewable crops to enhance the attractiveness of the space and to help develop the local economy. The introduction of a decentralized system of rainwater retention could cause the storm-water charge to be dropped. The proceeds could go to the upkeep of the park, thus making a contribution to climate-proofing and creating a location of interesting de­ sign that, as a result of our visual expectations and aesthetic notions, may strike us as a little unusual at first. Another possibility might be the combi­ nation of integrative aspects, such as intercultural or community gardens to enhance the variety of plants on display, some of which could be culti­ vated by private citizens. 2.2.4 IBA and IGA as engines of development In order to speed up the development of Tempelhofer Feld, including the parkland, while still ensuring high standards, the possibility is being con­ sidered of whether and how an International Building Exhibition (IBA) could serve as a useful instrument. With this in mind the state government of Berlin has successfully applied to host the International Horticultural Exhibition (IGA) in 2017. The site chosen for the IGA 2017 will be the parkland at Tempelhofer Feld. The basis for the overall development of Tempelhofer Feld is the processu­ al master plan. The IBA and IGA are to be used as instruments to concre­ tize and accelerate the development of the parkland as regards innovation requirements. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 2 Competition Brief 28

The parkland as a reference project for the IBA 2010-2020 The main themes of the IBA are to be applied to the parkland, articulated and visualized. A key requirement is that while the main themes of the IBA should be interlocking and synergetically complementary, the parkland should be given a high recreational and leisure value. This will make it an outstanding reference project for the IBA and an image factor for the ove­ rall development. The themes and locations of the IBA will not be limited just to Tempelhofer Feld, however. They will also extend to the adjoining urban quarters where they will be developed over a period of 10 years (see 3.7.4 and 4.04a for the IBA plan). The special impetus of the IGA 2017 Now it has been decided to hold the International Horticultural Exhibition (IGA 2017) at Tempelhofer Feld, it is part of the competition brief to prepare the framework for it. The IGA 2017 is a concrete project within the overall process, which makes the transformation of Tempelhofer Feld visible as a high-profile event that appeals to a larger audience. Apart from exemplifying the main ideas and thus also the themes of the International Building Exhibition (IBA), the IGA, being a product of the structural plan, is intended to serve as an accelera­ tor for the entire development of the parkland. Also, the ideas put forward for the IGA should provide inspiration for the development of the park. The sections of the parkland that are particularly attractive as an exhibition site are to be made the core area of the IGA in the exhibition year 2017. The area to be covered by the IGA will measure about 107 hectares, mainly in the north of Tempelhofer Feld. 80 hectares are to be allotted to the perma­ nent features and 27 hectares to the temporary ones (see also 4.05a+b). The IGA plan is based on the current state of the discussion on the future options for using Tempelhofer Feld, for which the requisite space must be reserved. In this connection it is important that the manifold uses have room to develop and interact with one another, since it is essential that a wide range of different neighbourhoods should emerge and synergies be created between the various actors. The layout should be designed in such a way that it can react flexibly to the future process of dynamic development. In the course of the planning and design process the space allocations will gradually take on concrete shape. Entries are expected to contain proposals on the layout of the IGA and its integration into the parkland as a whole. The IGA grounds will be visited by a wide range of people from home and abroad. This public is to be shown a model of how a forward-looking urban and open-space plan can be implemented. Since the holding of an IGA in 2017 involves deadlines that cannot be missed, its implementation by that date must be feasible.

2.3 Spatial requirements – competition areat 2.3.1 Processual urban development - spatial matrix as the basis for the processual development of open spaces In view of the history, size and particular features of the site, the Tempelhof parkland will have a significance for the entire city of Berlin and not just the adjoining residential quarters. The purpose of the competition is to produce a robust matrix and basic structures that will point the way to the future development of the parkland at Tempelhofer Feld, thus facilitating the processual and gradual realiza­ tion of the individual sections. At the same time the matrix should be open Tempelhof Parkland / Part 2 Competition Brief 29 enough to allow scope for a gradual intensification of uses and designs while also leaving space for new ideas. Given the size of the area, the limited funds available and the longer-term development of the urban quarters, the conversion of the parkland will pro­ ceed in stages, which will require thinking in long time spans. In the initial stages it will be necessary to develop a matrix that will enable the space to be made accessible and used for certain anchor functions. When it is opened, the parkland should be attractive in its own right, irrespective of how much progress has been in the main part of the site. This makes it particularly important to set a matrix and the basic elements required to create the framework, which will then be developed on a modular basis. The question arises as to what the matrix and basic structures can do to make the space more tangible. How can spaces and structures be gradu­ ally supplemented so as to attract demand and investment funds? What spaces are to be deliberately left open and undefined in order to anticipate unforeseeable developments? Thinking in long time spans with many in­ termediate stages will be a challenge, bearing in mind that the first injection of funds must promote accessibility and usability. Entrants are called upon to organize their designs in processual deve­ lopment stages, which do not just consist in a temporal sequence and phasing of construction stages, but in necessary settings for the matrix and basic structures, for the atmosphere and activities involved in such a pro­ cess. It may be assumed that a spatial concept must always be associated with a development strategy. The concept thus provides the necessary “guard rails of a development corridor” that is open and flexible, enabling it to react to changing future conditions, new actor constellations and emerging trends. The relationship between the settings for the matrix, the basic structures, and the scope for the gradual accumulation of uses will have to be defined. This development strategy must also take account of intermediate users and spatial pioneers as possible actors. The 2017 International Horti­ cultural Exhibition is to be seen as a special event and catalyst in this development. This event, which 3.5 million visitors are expected to attend, will generate great public appeal. A processual, flexible planning approach is also necessary because the structure of the urban quarters in relation to the open spaces has not yet been defined and the time frame cannot be exactly determined. For this reason intermediate stages must also be included, during which the parkland is still surrounded by open spaces and not by urban quarters. The surrounding built-up areas will only make their appearance later and have their own spatial requirements, for which the requisite space must be left.

2.3.2 Two-stage procedure The procedure is divided into two stages and is comparable to the relation­ ship between structural town planning and landscape architectural design. 1. Competition Structural plan with matrix and basic elements of the parkland. The win­ ners of the competition will be admitted to the subsequent negotiated pro­ cedure. 2. Negotiated procedure Spatial and landscape-architectural specification of the matrix and basic elements. In the competition candidates are invited to submit a processual struc­ tural plan for the parkland consisting of a matrix and basic elements. The Tempelhof Parkland / Part 2 Competition Brief 30 structural plan must be sufficiently open-ended to permit reactions to chan­ ging conditions and provide scope for additional ideas and requirements. The structural plan for the parkland is thus an important component of the processual master plan, which will be regularly updated for the whole of Tempelhofer Feld. The structural plan for the parkland is intended to define its profile. Necessary guidelines and settings for the spatial matrix and basic structures, such as the main access roads, land use zoning, vege­ tation structure, space creation and the strategic development concept, should be highlighted. The structural plan must be sufficiently specific to give an indication of how to proceed in the subsequent planning stages. It is essential that the parkland scheme be placed in relation to the planned urban quarters and the surrounding fabric. Sample solutions are therefore expected for the interfaces between the parkland and the adjoining facili­ ties and urban structures. Thus special attention must be paid to its relation to the apron and central building, the transitions to the new urban quarters, and the correspondences with the sports, recreational and green spaces in the outer parkland and neighbouring residential quarters. Consideration should also be given to the establishment of longer-range links via Tem­ pelhofer Feld to the rest of the city. A clear notion of what to do about the ring is also expected. Entries in the negotiated procedure should give more precise form to the proposals for the matrix and basic structures, particularly for the area of the inner parkland. It is assumed, for example, that detailed accounts will be given of the main traffic network, the vegetation structure, special sites and localities or areas of utilization or activity, and that they will take on concrete form. In general it should be shown how the paramount themes for the development of Tempelhofer Feld can be fleshed out, using the new parkland as an example. The idea is to show how the 21st century park­ land can be translated into reality. The message of the design, the creation of an attractive new setting and the atmosphere it generates, has to be communicated. There should be a definition of areas that can be realized independently of the surrounding construction work, along with others that should be kept open to meet later, as yet unforeseen requirements. Sepa­ rate realization competitions, based on the structural plan, can be held for parts of the overall competition area, especially the IGA sites and sectors of the outer parkland. This means defining those areas and elements of the matrix and basic structures that are essential to the realization of the design entry and those that will only assume more precise shape in the wake of further competitions. The structural plan is intended to provide the parkland with a robust framework that achieves a powerful effect with the funding available. The requirements for the IGA 2017 are to be seen as concrete specifica­ tions in both the competition and the negotiated procedure. The IGA areas are to be defined in the design. 2.3.3 Working Area The working area consists of all the grounds belonging to the former air­ port. Account should also be taken of areas that interlock with the adjoining urban and landscape spaces. The basic spatial structure for the processual master plan for Tempelhofer Feld is derived from a 1999 design by Kienast Vogt and Partner and Pro­ fessor Bernd Albers (see 3.7.1), which was revised in 2008 by ASTOC and bgmr Landschaftsarchitekten and now constitutes the current status of the master plan. At present this master plan is being revised by Büro Urbane Prozesse with special reference to traffic concerns and the planning of commercial areas. More detailed competition results are available for the Tempelhof Parkland / Part 2 Competition Brief 31 area of the Columbia quarter, but they have been rejected, above all, by the adjoining districts. The working area is divided into three sections: • the inner parkland (core area) • the outer urban fringes with the outer parkland • the surrounding area The surrounding area essentially comprises the city in its present form. Suggestions can be made for a stronger reference and adaptation to this space. Particular attention should be paid to the improvement of the links to existing urban and landscape spaces (cf. 2.1.1, Fitting into the context).

White arrows: connections planned for long-term Figure 1: Open Space Connectivity (our own presentation)

The outer urban fringes are defined and structured by the master plan. Within this ring lies the outer parkland with close links to the new urban quarters. The basic structures of the master plan are to be built upon, while the current positioning of urban and open spaces, spatial and design features, typological transitions and links with the adjoining urban quarters and areas under use in the outer parkland are open to further development. The updating of the master plan and the elaboration of the traffic scheme may entail even greater adjustments for the commercial area in the south. The current state of planning indicates that a greater coverage depth is to be expected for the building plots in this area, which would shift the posi­ tion of the ring further inwards. This means that a high degree of flexibility is essential in the planning of the ring and the adjoining areas (see also Chapter 2.5.4: Ring). The inner parkland (within the surrounding ring, 200 hectares approx.) constitutes the core area for which the matrix and basic structures must be developed together with the links to the outer urban fringes and the surrounding parts of the city. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 2 Competition Brief 32

Extensive sections of the ‘ring’ follow the former taxiway, making it the interface between the inner parkland, on the one hand, and the outer park­ land and new urban quarters, on the other. The ‘ring’ thus has an important hinge function and is part of the matrix. In the competition, entrants should define and highlight the structural plan for the parkland with the matrix and basic structures, indicating what areas should be realized first. Since the development framework for the inner parkland has largely been clarified, it would be a good idea to set priorities here. For the negotiated procedure detailed designs of the matrix and ba­ sic structures should be submitted. With regard to the intensity of utilization and development, priorities are to be set in the northern and north-eastern area of the inner parkland around the “Old Airport”, while the areas further south will be subject to less exten­ sive development and use. Consequently it is assumed that there will be a gradual reduction in the intensity of utilization and development from the north-east to the south. Smaller, more intensively developed areas relating to the other urban quarters should also be planned. All these zoning propo­ sals will have to be reviewed by the entrants and further qualified. As a longer-term option a site will be kept open for a new suburban railway (S-Bahn) station in the southern area of Tempelhofer Feld as well as a road bridge over the railway tracks at Oberlandstrasse. This will improve traffic links in the south (see 3.4.2).

2.4 The main IBA themes in the parkland - Three design modules Three design modules derived from the main IBA themes (cf. 2.2.4) have been set out as paramount aims for the development of the parkland. The initiating authority expects a critical examination, constructive further de­ velopment and innovative concretization of the modules, which should be merged to form an overall spatial and strategic concept as an outcome of the competition. It is assumed that the parkland will be developed in such a way as to create a multidimensional space, in which multiple utilizations and synergy effects are desired. 2.4.1 First module: The parkland as an inviting communal location How can Tempelhofer Feld be turned into a new kind of place that is a pleasure to visit, one that reflects social plurality, that provides space for doing things and interacting with other individuals, while also offering an opportunity to enjoy the generous expanse and beauty of nature in the middle of a city, and that provides facilities for leisure and recreation and various other forms of indulging the senses? Account must be taken of the fact that parkland today is often expected to satisfy the need for stimulation and variety, including contact with other people, rather than for mere recreation. Contemporary working conditions and the increase in the proportion of people who do not work (any more) call for different facilities than those that were required fifty years ago. An open space in the vastness of Tempelhofer Feld will always offer scope for many kinds of exercise and sport. Current trends, such as the incre­ ased individualization and diversification of sport in the city, demographic changes, and the search for new effects and challenges, should also be taken into consideration. However, open urban spaces are not only meant for engaging in activities, but also intended as places of solitude, reflection, contemplation and aesthetic enjoyment. The need for room to enjoy quiet recreation in a plea­ sant, attractive atmosphere is clearly there and growing. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 2 Competition Brief 33

The topography, the urban backdrop, the traces of history and the wide expanse of the airfield generate a special atmosphere even now. A park with an atmosphere that makes people keen to visit it is what should emerge from the competition. With regard to the aesthetics of the new parkland the search is on for new forms of expression. Entrants could examine ways of drawing on current movements in art and culture and using them imaginatively to embellish the new space. The New Romantic style can serve as a source of inspira­ tion here, given its quest for new atmospheres and moods and its ability to evoke yearnings and emotions. It also involves a new way of looking at na­ ture, which not only incorporates what one sees, but also what one knows, i.e. it is conveyed by the media. The New Romanticism seeks a synthesis of the past and the present, of emotions and discourses. A park of this or­ der of magnitude could accommodate such tendencies, running the gamut from the active pursuit of sport to the creation of imaginary worlds. The sense of space, history and scenic interest should be further deve­ loped as particular features of the site, although familiarity should not en­ gender boredom. The users from the adjoining urban quarters should also be able to experience it as a place where they can relax and feel at ease. The experience of the wide open space, the sky and the horizon cur­ rently puts everything else in the shade and is the subject of much positive comment from observers. This should also be a quality of the parkland as seen from a pedestrian perspective. During the civic participation phase a desire was expressed for practical spaces that would offer protection from the elements (sun, wind) and the prospect of peace and quiet. Structuring the space without dissolving it is a special challenge for the layout of the parkland. The space is integrated into a skyline which looks different at night and in the daytime and has many points of reference. Various factors have to be considered in the positioning of the spatially effective, large-scale vegetation structures: space creation, aesthetics, lines of sight, quality of ambience (shade), air exchange and species protection. Special facilities for recreation, leisure and sport are to be developed and incorporated in a spatial matrix. It has to be established whether these sports, leisure and recreational facilities can become a unique selling pro­ position. Since sport is increasingly conquering the city as a whole and is not just confined to the traditional playing fields, the development of innovative ideas for a parkland as a place of exercise, leisure and relaxation is an express wish of the initiating authority. The space should be designed in such a way as to create a communal place where members of an active urban society can feel happy and at ease.

This module gives rise to the following programmatic requirements. They follow here in descending degrees of intensity of use and development from north/north-east to south. Intensive parkland The area to the north of the northern runway opposite Kreuzberg and Neu­ kölln, which includes the ”Old Airport”, is seen as an intensively designed area of parkland in keeping with conservation concerns – a place with a special atmosphere designed mainly to serve the recreation needs of the residents of the adjoining residential areas and the planned urban quar­ ters. It also encompasses the grounds of the IGA. Entrants are also expected to examine whether intensive parkland areas should be laid out opposite the future urban quarters, especially in the Nord-Neukölln area. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 2 Competition Brief 34

More natural parkland In the transition from the more intensively usable areas of parkland in the north and north-east to the less used open landscape in the south less intensively used areas of parkland can be laid out and embellished with occasional aesthetic interventions and various uses. This area is chiefly concerned with the ability to experience nature. It can be opened up by a generous network of paths and serves as a back­ ground. Landscape can be experienced without having to be appropriated in its entirety. Facilities for resting, nature observation and recreation can be concentrated in certain “nodes”. Sports - games - exercise Major significance attaches to sports, games and exercise. In addition to traditional playing fields there should be space here for various new forms of sporting activity and exercise, a co-existence of formal and informal sport. Particular emphasis should be given to opportunities for sporting activity that can be pursued independently of club sports and practised by individuals or groups. The parkland will thus become home to many vari­ eties of sport, although none will have a dominating role. In view of the size and width of Tempelhofer Feld particular importance at­ taches to endurance sports, such as running, skating, Nordic walking and cycling. Tempelhofer Feld could acquire a reputation as a centre of phy­ sical exercise and endurance sports. Supplementary facilities in existing buildings, such as hiring centres, changing rooms, lockers and training courses, can support these forms of sport in the parkland. The neighbouring districts have reported a need for large-sized playing fields for hockey and football. Since the financing of such large-sized pla­ ying fields is uncertain at the present time, designs are needed that set them aside as options to be realized at a later date. For this reason a basic structure should be created in the parkland that permits the addition of up to six large-sized playing fields at a later date. The future playing fields should preferably be assigned a sport-related intermediate use. Likely spots are located to the north and south of the future Neukölln urban quarter in the neighbourhood of the Jahnsportplatz and the Werner See­ lenbinder Sportpark. On the Tempelhof-Schöneberg side the creation of facilities for inline and roller skating, roller-skate hockey and the like would be desirable. In choosing the areas to be reserved, care should be taken to ensure that they are not too close to planned or existing residential housing so that no inconvenience is caused by noise or floodlights. Access requirements should also be borne in mind. The new concept of private-public areas may generate synergies from a sports programme involving informal facilities not tied to membership of a sports club. Private investors, pioneers and intermediate users could act as providers and operators of informal sports facilities, such as beach vol­ leyball, street ball, kiting and skating, in combination with catering, service, training and hiring centres, thus making them an integral part of a sports park. Furthermore the use of the runways for sporting activities and exer­ cise requiring a lot of space should be considered. The long, broad sur­ faces are particularly suited for roller-skating, skate-boarding, hang-gliding and surfing. Entries should contain proposals on the location, size, type and distribution of the facilities for sports, games and exercise. It should be remembered that, as sport increasingly makes use of all sorts of urban open spaces, Tempelhof Parkland / Part 2 Competition Brief 35 the various activities should not be confined just to the traditional playing fields. Attraction A place of particular interest is the stretch of meadow in front of the pa­ ved apron and the main building. The former check-in hall of the main building and the apron provide a very spectacular point of access to the parkland. As intensive use is made of the apron for numerous events, the adjoining parkland should contain special attractions. In their entries participants are expected to check what role and special function this area might assume, e.g. by means of design interventions, art projects or the use of water (see 4.06c). 2.4.2 Second module: Use of the parkland for everyday urban activities New private-public areas New private-public areas form an integral part of the public parkland. They offer spaces for special, privately organised outdoor activities for the gene­ ral public that supplement what the public authorities can offer. Such areas can be served by a range of different commercial providers and/or charita­ ble organisations as well as by individuals working on a not-for-profit basis. On the one hand, the park is a place where people can get together, play games, engage in sporting activities, relax and recuperate. This should be taken into account in the basic structure of the park in the form of paths, recreation spots, sports amenities and laid-out areas. On the other hand, there is an increasing trend for people not to rely simply on what others have to offer but to do things themselves. Civic commit­ ment generates a demand for opportunities for self-organisation and the assumption of responsibility. These novel, do-it-yourself trends require space to develop. A public park could provide a platform for the active cultivation of such trends. Active cultivation paves the way for the emergence of new private-public areas in the park. New group-based activities for the exercise of social, cul­ tural and economic practices can take place there. Thus the park would not only be a recreational site made available by the public authorities, but also an area where people in the city can actively pursue their interests and activities (see 4.06b for examples). The customary facilities to be found in a public park can thus be supple­ mented by a wide range of other amenities, thus making the parkland more attractive for a diversified urban society with a multiplicity of lifestyles. Cooperation with schools, day care centres, further training institutes and social service agencies can help to introduce an educational dimension into the park through the incorporation of the relevant facilities (cf. 4.06b – article on New Private-Public Areas). Other forms of use could focus more on establishing a local economy in the park with the aim of extending the range of amenities on offer for vari­ ous interest groups. The attractiveness of the parkland can be considerably extended and en­ hanced by the provision of catering services (restaurants, beer gardens and bistros) and sports and recreational activities (e.g. beach sports, golf, speedminton, BMX, softball, etc.). The new private-public areas will thus be invigorated by wide-ranging, not­ for-profit civic engagement and will benefit from the added value contribut­ ed by private entrepreneurs in the park. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 2 Competition Brief 36

Initial project ideas have already developed out of the call for ideas issued by the Senate Department for Urban Development. The following clusters were identified as possible sources of input for new private-public areas in the park: catering, urban gardening, energy / urban farming, health / social and therapy work, sports, culture, art and educa­ tion. Translated into spatial and design terms, this means that sites or claims will be integrated into the parkland by the individuals, organisations, action groups or investors concerned, who will arrange and utilise them within a framework that has yet to be defined. The existing buildings, from the petrol station to the weather station, can serve as a starting point. The initiating authority envisages many of the social and educational projects, together with the intercultural gardens, as being located in the proximity of the urban quarters in Neukölln. In the Kreuzberg area an emphasis could be placed on sports in the light of current sporting activities in the district. Other local priorities can be proposed as part of the scheme. ‘Rules’ must be drawn up for the incorporation of these new private-public areas so that they do not dominate the public domain but augment it in cul­ tural and social terms. Consideration will need to be given to the distance between these facilities, especially those that are in daily use, and nearby residential quarters. Competition entrants are thus expected to propose a strategy for the spatial integration of these private-public areas. Special relevance attaches here to the following:

• access for members of the public • location, development, clustering • link-up with existing and planned service installations • legibility and visibility as a feature of the design of the parkland • avoidance of obstacles and the provision of paths throughout the park • integration into the parkland and potential to enhance attractiveness for park users The park as a stage for the urban community Tempelhofer Feld is already being used for functions and events (e.g. Berlin Festival, Pyromusicale, Bread & Butter). Such uses should continue to be possible in the parkland and thus add to its appeal. The paved apron with its proximity to infrastructural installations and the runways would pro­ vide suitable locations. Competition entrants will need to examine how one or several such areas can be incorporated into a long-term utilisation plan. Other artistic activi­ ties, exhibitions and sports events are conceivable in addition to the major events mentioned above. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 2 Competition Brief 37

2.4.3 Third module: Climate-friendly and resource-efficient parkland The parkland is intended to make an innovative contribution to a climate­ friendly and resource-efficient city. The following aspects are considered feasible and desirable. Spacious open landscape and parkland as a species pool The vast expanse of open land against the backdrop of a magnificent ci­ tyscape makes Tempelhofer Feld a very distinctive location (cf. the film Wings of Desire by Wim Wenders), whilst at the same time providing the environment for a major species pool in the very heart of Berlin (cf. Inven­ tories 3.6.6 and 4.08g-j). Extensive grazing and mowing have given rise to wide-ranging natural and dry meadows, large parts of which provide legally protected biotopes and habitats for typical open-land birds. Wherever possible, interference in these areas should be avoided. The task and challenge facing the entrants in the competition is to work with the existing natural landscape and present it as an inherent quality feature of the location. A spacious natural landscape in the heart of the city has potential as a unique selling proposition. Innovative design ideas should be elaborated to carefully develop the existing area of open land. Features that are new in terms of their use or design, e.g. observation stations, should be introduced sparingly. The entire area should be made accessible with the help of an extensive system of paths, but at the same time ground-nesting birds, such as the skylark, should be able to survive here. Several areas, each covering at least 20 to 30 hectares, can be de­ signated for this purpose. They should be laid out in such a way that the birds can successfully breed there. Creative and ecologically well-founded ideas are needed for the (multiple) use and upkeep of these areas and of the entire open landscape. Wherever possible, intelligent, cost-effective systems should be employed for this purpose, including grazing and mo­ wing or combinations of the two. Plans for grazing could conceivably be linked with opportunities for social interaction and the mowed grass used as biomass to generate energy. Integrated water management The infiltration of rainwater replenishes the groundwater and relieves the burden on the receiving streams in the city. Rainwater piped to larger per­ colation fields also has a positive effect on the climate in the city. If rainwa­ ter infiltrates where it falls and is not drained off into the sewage system, no storm-water charge is levied. Thus the ecological effect can be supple­ mented by an economic gain. Resource-efficient water management can thus have a multiple impact if it is seen as a design task. Storm-water drainage in the urban quarters A city aspiring to make efficient use of its resources must ensure local in­ filtration and utilization of the storm water at the urban quarter level. Prefe­ rence is therefore given to local rainwater management systems to reduce the lengths of pipeline laid in the city. Should rainwater be needed for the purposes of the design, however, it can be taken from the urban quarters concerned. It needs to be borne in mind here that • rainwater falls periodically; • the quality of the water means it cannot be used for bathing; • feed inlets must be installed one to two metres below ground because of the need to ensure frost-free feeds and sections. Heed must be paid to the need for pipeways to be as short as possible. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 2 Competition Brief 38

Relocation of the storm-water retention tank The connection of the Columbia quarter to Südstern and the expansion of sports activities there will entail a relocation of the storm-water retention tank in Lilienthalstraße, which is fed for the most part by the storm water falling on the main airport building and the apron. An alternative site must be found for this tank enabling a short-length connection to be established with the existing water mains system. The following water management parameters must be taken into account in the positioning of the storm-water retention tank (cf. 3.6.8 and 4.08e): • storage capacity / minimum size • inflow height Since the time at which the storm-water retention tank is relocated will de­ pend on the development of the Columbia quarter and the fixing of a date is not possible at present, the relocation will have to take place at a later date, which means that interim statuses will need to be taken into account. This staggered timetable must be taken into account with respect to the solutions that are proposed. The relocation and conversion of the storm-water retention tank into a re­ plenishing basin is also intended to serve as a reference project for the aesthetic integration of a water management plant into the parkland (dual use) and to reduce the ecological footprint. When the basin is designed, it should be borne in mind that rain falls pe­ riodically and that, if it is not immediately infiltrated or constantly drained off, the inferior quality of the water will necessitate its preliminary cleaning. Pre-clarification and immediate infiltration can ease the strain on the recei­ ving streams (Landwehrkanal) and enhance climatic relief (e.g. evaporati­ on cold via strips of reeds). The relevant expert report does not recommend the use of rainwater to set up or fill a bathing facility. ‘The park as a producer’ (productive parkland) Energy Biomass is generated within the parkland; geothermal energy is available below the surface; roof surfaces offer potential for the use of solar ener­ gy. A sustainable energy strategy will be important in helping to reduce the size of the carbon footprint. The expert report on energy issues examined the possibility of an energy strategy being pursued that would make Tempelhofer Feld neutral in its use of primary energy. It came to the conclusion that such a strategy would be sensible and practicable (cf. 4.08c Strategy for the use of energy at Tempelhofer Feld in the Appendix). As regards energy, Tempelhofer Feld in its entirety requires a compre­ hensive approach, to which the park, too, can make a contribution. There is a need to examine the extent to which the issue of energy can be me­ aningfully integrated in terms of both the layout and the use of the park. The expert report proposes an integrated plan involving the cultivation of biomass and the production of biogas for use in a block heating and gene­ rating plant together with photovoltaics, solar thermal energy plus aquifer heat and cold storage. When developing their schemes, the competition entrants will need to exa­ mine whether and to what extent the cultivation of renewable raw materials can be harmoniously integrated into the parkland on the scale mentioned in the expert report and whether it will fit in from a design and structural use point of view. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 2 Competition Brief 39

The temporary incorporation of the areas of land earmarked as potential building sites is also conceivable. The biomass yield could subsequently be replaced or supplemented by organic waste from the new quarters. If renewable raw materials form part of the scheme, their use should be treated as a design task and design element that combines usefulness with attractiveness. If the ecological footprint and gardening maintenance costs can be reduced as well, synergy effects can be achieved for the long-term development of the park. There is no wish to have renewable raw materials grown in the form of a monoculture. On the contrary, the preference is for an exemplary approach to the handling of the issue that encourages further examination of the task, improves the image of renew­ able raw materials by means of good and varied solutions and raises the level of knowledge about them, for instance by means of nature trails and the like. In a nutshell, there should be a demonstration of how energy crops can be introduced as a new quality characteristic of the park. Radar monitoring rules out the generation of wind energy using wind tur­ bines with a hub height of 80 to 120 metres. The initiating authority does not want to have them for aesthetic reasons and because the parkland will be used for recreational purposes. Urban Gardening und Farming Futurologists forecast that the urban-rural trend will gain in significance in the future. The issue here is not enticing people away from the countryside and into the city, but rather the search for quality characteristics that are attributed to the countryside, e.g. healthy foodstuffs, relaxation, peace and quiet, open spaces, roots, health, contemplation. Enabling the quality fea­ tures of rural life to be experienced in a condensed form in an urban setting poses a special challenge. Urban gardening, community gardens, intercultural gardens, healthy food­ stuffs, ’edible landscapes’ are part and parcel of this trend. At the same time, many of these types of garden have integrating and social effects. Schemes for urban forestry in combination with recreational and other ser­ vices, ranging from horse riding to pick-your-own flowers / fruit / vegeta­ bles, are coming more to the fore and are in demand as a quality feature of city life. Competition entrants are called upon to examine the extent to which such elements are conceivable and meaningful in design and func­ tional terms and how they can enhance an inner-city setting. An assess­ ment should be given of the potential contribution such activities can make to a parkland consisting in part of self-sustaining areas. If animals are to be used to maintain, cultivate or invigorate the landscape (e.g. landscape management, urban farming), an explanation should be given of the requisite forms of enterprise and of the economic effects to be achieved. While an examination of ‘the park as a producer’ is not obligatory for the entrants, they should look into whether innovative targets can be achieved and indicate how these can be fulfilled within the scheme Climate Tempelhofer Feld is currently a climatologically important area that produ­ ces cold air. This function is to be maintained and, if possible, improved. Given the planned multi-dimensionality of the parkland, it can be assumed that priority will not be given exclusively to its climatic function. However, this factor should be borne in mind at all times as an integral element of the design concept. Heed should be taken of the dual functions of Tempelhofer Feld: the eve­ ning out of the climatic extremes that occur in the normal daily course (e.g. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 2 Competition Brief 40 because of a high percentage of wooded areas) and the night-time cooling of the urban environment (through cold air production in the green spaces). In the urban climate study of Tempelhofer Feld (see 4.08a) it was esta­ blished that the cold air ventilation zones are particularly important for the relief of the adjoining urban spaces and that, for climatic reasons, they should be between 100 and 200 metres wide. These zones should have minimum roughness, i.e. a low level of sealing, no obstructing buildings and no closed vegetation structures. Denser areas of vegetation should preferably be located on the edges of the ventilation zones and not positi­ oned so that they form an obstacle between the open inner parkland and the ventilation zone. Standard trees should be given preference over the planting of shrubs or hedges. Wood-like groups of trees should be 150 me­ tres away from the transition areas between fields and cold air ventilation zones. The open landscape is absolutely crucial to safeguarding the climatic ef­ fect. A roughly 30 per cent share of woodland in the open landscape is acceptable. An arrangement of the wooded areas in the inner part and the maintenance of largely wood-free areas on the edges to enable copses to be planted in the inner park at a depth of 50 to 75 metres is regarded as being particularly suitable, since there will then be no hindrances to the peripheral ventilation of the adjoining districts. In drawing up their schemes, entrants should consider to what extent these demands can be reconciled with the requirements for the design quality and use of the parkland. Given that varying microclimatic zones are essential for a sense of well­ being in the open areas of Tempelhofer Feld, provision should be made for attractive rest areas that can be shaded / unshaded and exposed to / protected from the wind. Other ideas or approaches to enhancing the con­ tribution the park can make to climate-friendly and resource-efficient urban development will be welcomed, provided they meet the conditions for the design quality of this space and the recreational requirements it must fulfil. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 2 Competition Brief 41

2.5 Further requirements 2.5.1 Staging of the 2017 International Horticultural Exhibition (IGA) In addition to the considerable knock-on effect that the 2017 International Horticultural Exhibition (IGA) will have for the development of the Tem­ pelhofer Feld parkland, the exhibition must prove a major success itself in terms of its impact on the marketing of Berlin and its own economic viability. The criteria for success are, above all, positive coverage in the domestic and foreign media, a high level of customer satisfaction and, as a con­ sequence of these two factors, the achievement of the target number of visitors; for Berlin the forecast is for 3.5 million visitors, i.e. roughly 20,000 visitors a day for the duration of the exhibition. A central theme and scenario must therefore be developed for the layout of the 2017 International Horticultural Exhibition within the confines of the Tempelhofer Feld parkland that should build on the following criteria: • highly attractive exhibition site • presentation of a special theme • broad horticultural programme • good accessibility and development Permanent horticultural and plant displays are to be arranged over ap­ proximately 20,000 square metres of the 107-hectare IGA exhibition site (80 hectares permanent, 27 hectares temporary); in addition some 80,000 square metres of temporary plant displays / exhibitions are planned for 2017. The IGA should fit in with the landscape architecture structural plan for the parkland. Together with other projects the IGA will be a key component in the further improvement of the park and can serve as a partial accelerator for its overall development. Since the design for the IGA will be the subject of a subsequent competition going into more detail, the entrants in the present competition are not expected to produce a design for the horti­ cultural exhibition site. However, the IGA must be ‘mentally incorporated’ in the respective structural plan. Initial spatial and thematic ideas can be formulated to this end. Important factors that should be borne in mind here are the proximity to the main building with the hangars functioning as ex­ hibition halls, the imposing city backdrop and the good accessibility to the site developed hitherto in the northern section, including temporary areas in the Columbia quarter (cf. also 3.7.4). 2.5.2 Public survey The Senate Department for Urban Development commissioned a public survey in preparation for the competition. In addition, members of the pu­ blic were invited to attend two weekend debates in autumn 2009 on the future parkland at Tempelhofer Feld. The following points emerged as being of central significance. • The densely built-up residential quarters in the immediate surroundings of Tempelhofer Feld underline just how important it is for the recreation of the local populace. Special importance therefore attaches to good accessibility. • The overriding expectation of the parkland is that it should provide peace and quiet and opportunities for relaxation. • At the same time there are many demands for the provision of space for recreational sports activities and play areas for all age groups. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 2 Competition Brief 42

Frequent mention is also made of the need for catering facilities in the park. • In addition, the residents wish to engage in a wide variety of different activities. These should be reflected in a broad spectrum of amenities in the park, e.g. for multifarious sports activities, cultural amenities, sports facilities that do not require club membership, meeting places for picnics and barbecues and areas for communal gardening. • In the written survey the best marks were given to the park scenario which had the most groups of trees. This wish goes hand in hand with the desire for small spaces on a manageable scale. On the other hand, a large number of the respondents would like to have extensive areas of grassland and meadows. During the on-the-spot survey, when there was an opportunity for respondents to experience the wide open spaces at first hand, far higher marks were given to large areas of parkland offering the chance to view the cityscape. Park scenarios in which there were fewer trees also met with greater approval on the part of these respondents. • Repeated calls are made for the traces of the use of the site as an airport to remain visible. • There is a strong demand for near-natural areas and opportunities for nature observation; this demand was even more prominent among the on-the-spot respondents. The willingness to support protective measures is also very marked. (For more detailed information see 3.8 and the Public Survey 4.07a-c). The results of the public survey must be taken into account in the scheme that is devised. At the same time they should be examined with reference to the overall design and, where compatible, integrated into the develop­ ment scheme. 2.5.3 Preservation of historical traces Tempelhofer Feld has a long history, the traces of which continue to make the site very special. The former airport at Tempelhof came to significance during three distinct periods. The history of Tempelhof Airport began in the 1920s, as can be seen from a number of features that are still visible. Then came the building of the monumental terminal with the extended airfield. In the third period after World War Two, additions were made to some of the buildings and an extensive airport-related infrastructure was installed. The paved apron of the building is a prominent feature of the airport, as are the asphalted runways and taxiways and the eastern warm-up area in the southern sec­ tion (for more detailed information see 3.3). The history of the site should continue to be legible as one of its identifying features and be integrated into the scheme. The traces and evidence of these three periods of time should be made visible and accessible. Before the site was used as an airport there was a ‘green lane’ running across Tempelhofer Feld which connected Tempelhof with Rixdorf (see fi­ gure 14 and 22). Entrants should examine the possibility of this ‘buried’ pathway being revived and used as a source of external access to, and connection with, Tempelhofer Feld and thus with the parkland. The ‘old airport’ was located between the northern runway and the ring. This was the site of the first airport at Tempelhof which, when it opened in 1923, was the world’s first-ever commercial airport. The entrants should indicate how they intend to handle these historical traces. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 2 Competition Brief 43

The present topography of Tempelhofer Feld goes back to the time the site was levelled to build the airport. Given its dimensions and the lack of any topographical elevations, Tempelhofer Feld offers a unique opportuni­ ty to contemplate the huge area it covers. This spatial quality is of crucial importance and should form the point of departure for the design. Special significance also attaches here to the relationship between the airfield and the building. There should continue to be an unhindered view of the buil­ ding from the airfield. The runways should be preserved as relics from the time the site was used as an airport. They must be included by the entrants in their schemes as an element of overriding importance. An indication should also be given of the future uses to which the runways can be put (e.g. roller-skating). Large sections of the taxiway, a clearly legible sign of the use of the site as an airport, have been reproduced in the ‘ring’. Buildings within the park The existing buildings are part of the fundamental structure of Tempelhofer Feld. Thought should be given to their possible preservation not merely as ‘traces of history’ but as an anchor for new potential uses. The buildings, which are spread over the entire site, are very varied in nature, their original uses ranging from greenhouses, air traffic control buildings, transformer substations and sheds to isolation wards, etc. (see 4.06f Buil­ ding Atlas). A few of the buildings will continue to be used for their current purpose. Now that the site is no longer used as an airport, however, most of the present buildings stand empty. They might prove to be interesting starting points for the concept of new private-public areas with spatial pi­ oneers and intermediate uses. The existing fabric can thus serve as a point of departure for new temporary and/or permanent uses. 2.5.4 Surrounding vistas From Tempelhofer Feld you can gaze into the distance for miles around, even though you are in the very heart of the city. The site offers an unhin­ dered view of the city skyline that is unmatched anywhere else in Berlin. Such vistas are to be an integral feature of the future park landscape. Re­ ference should therefore be made at appropriate points to the views of the main building and the city skyline of Tempelhof, Neukölln and Kreuzberg. Urban conservationists consider that special emphasis should be given to the view from the eastern warm-up area of the main building and from there to the memorial in Kreuzberg. The full dimensions of the site must remain visible from selected vantage points. 2.5.5 Integrated overall design for the spatial and sectoral land requirements Numerous demands and land requirements were made of the parkland du- ring the preparations for the competition brief. If all these individual requi­ rements were to be added up, they would cover an area far larger than the parkland itself. Hence the objective must be to have an integrated design approach to the parkland in which the various land requirements overlap and sites can be used for dual or multiple purposes. The following diagram provides a schematic illustration of the need for an integrated, multi-use approach to the design. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 2 Competition Brief 44

Figure 2: Schematic reproduction of the overlapping uses and multiple coding of an inte­ grated design approach to the parkland (Diagram by bgmr)

External connecting routes With a view to the development of the parkland, proposals must be sub­ mitted both for the external connections as well as for the paths running through the park. For decades Tempelhofer Feld was a fenced-off part of the city which people had to walk or drive around. Once it has been re­ opened, the area can function as a connecting element in the urban struc­ ture that links the adjoining districts. The entrants should therefore also examine the surrounding routes to see how the parkland can be meshed with the urban fabric and the adjoining green and open spaces. They will be expected to take a close look, in particular, at the location and layout of the points of access (see 3.2). Layout of the ring The ring is to be developed as a large-scale figure peculiar to the urban environment and as a consistent element. It will separate the 200-hec­ tare inner parkland from the outer parkland with the urban quarters. At the same time the ring will provide access to the park and, in part, to the urban quarters to be built in the future. It will therefore be a striking feature in its own right that interacts with the inner park and the outer urban fringes. The solutions proposed for the ring should therefore take due account of this hinge function (see 4.04a). Following publication of the traffic survey results, the ring will not assume any major access and circulation function for road traffic. Service roads will be possible in the urban quarters, but not mandatory. However, more precise information on this matter will only be forthcoming when the plans for the urban quarters reach a more detailed stage. The diversity to be found in the park notwithstanding, the ring must have a readily recognisable identity of its own, based on its length and location, so that its continuity and accessibility are not determined solely by the cen­ tral part of the parkland. Hence the special challenge in the layout of the ring will be to achieve a balance between its function in the urban structure and its inherent identity. The plans envisage the ring performing a number of functions. Given the dimensions of Tempelhofer Feld, it will provide a connection with the urban Tempelhof Parkland / Part 2 Competition Brief 45 fabric, since the planned urban quarters will be adjacent to these parts of the park. The use of the ring to provide access and circulation for the urban quarters will help to give the park a pronounced profile. It can also function as part of the traffic access installations or supply sec­ tions of various footpaths or cycle paths. At the same time, the special hi­ storical conditions at the site mean that it will need to have a strong identity of its own. This can be achieved in various ways – by means of powerful, continuous design elements or geometrical features recurring at regular intervals around the ring. The ring also establishes direct connections and is open. It acts as a hinge between the inner parkland and the adjoining urban quarters as well as the outer parkland. The basic structure and position of the ring are fixed. However, there are likely to be alterations and adjustments in the wake of the future fine-tuning for the planning of the urban quarters, especially in the southern section. With that in mind, a certain flexibility and variability should be ensured. As regards the cross-sectional configuration of the ring, sample illustra­ tions should be provided of the desired adjoining urban typologies so that the spatial impact of the ring can be assessed in relation to the neighbou­ ring urban quarters. The idea has also been mooted of having about eight works of art by ma­ jor artists resident in Berlin installed along the ring. About half of them will need a certain amount of surrounding space to achieve the requisite im­ pact; the other artists seek proximity to social movements. There are also plans for a competition to be staged every two years for up-and-coming young artists, whose works – numbering about twenty all told – could like­ wise be placed along the ring for a certain period of time. Suggestions for appropriate locations are expected. The provision of green and open spaces is included in the budget for the park. Separate financing will be required if the ring is to fulfil access and circulation functions as well. Allotments The development of Tempelhofer Feld will entail the relocation and rear­ rangement of a number of garden plots, for which replacement sites can be created in Tempelhofer Feld. Suggestions can therefore be made for a suitable substitute area within the parkland. The Association of Allotment Owners is interested in laying out about a dozen show allotments. The gar­ den plots can be arranged to merge with existing allotment sites or be set up at various places along the edges of the park. These allotments could conceivably also be put on offer in combination with other forms (intercultu­ ral gardens, community gardens, etc.). Alternatively, private gardens could be connected with public gardens with a view to establishing new forms of urban gardening. The quality of the soil should be taken into account in the selection of appropriate sites (see 3.6.2). Recreational amenities There are insufficient playgrounds in the neighbouring districts. Amenities for games and recreational pursuits for children and adolescents should therefore be integrated into the overall scheme. Traditional playgrounds for the current and future residential quarters will be arranged near the housing on the outer ring. Given the special situation and size of the parkland, the layout of the games amenities is expected to go beyond the customary facilities in the residential districts and be something ‘special’. Games amenities, venues, path-side play areas, etc. should be devised that can be integrated into the inner parkland. Provision should be made Tempelhof Parkland / Part 2 Competition Brief 46 not just for the needs of children, but also of youngsters, adolescents and people of all generations. The public survey revealed an interest, among­ st other things, in adventure playgrounds for the young as well as play­ grounds for senior citizens and multi-generational facilities. The entrant’s scheme should not focus on the design of individual play areas but on positioning a site within the basic structure. Nature adventure trails and nature experience trails Nature adventure and experience trails are a special means of providing playful access to nature. They offer children an opportunity to actively en­ gage with natural materials and give them specific shapes and forms. Whe­ reas back-up from teachers and an introduction to nature play an important role in the nature adventure trails, the focus in the nature experience trails is on enabling children and adolescents to experience and change the natural environment themselves. There are also plans to provide nature observation points and guided tours along special trails. Competition entries should make suggestions as to how such special ad­ venture and experience trails can be integrated into the overall scheme. (For recommendations on the design see 4.06e) Cemeteries While there is a general surplus of cemeteries in Berlin, there is insufficient space for the burial of Muslims. A rededication of former Christian ceme­ teries for use as Muslim cemeteries is not desirable for both communities for religious reasons. Consideration should be given to whether some two hectares of land could be earmarked for a Muslim cemetery, if possible linking up with the existing cemetery to the south of Columbiadamm (see 3.6.3). Bathing facilities – incorporating the Columbiabad baths An investigation was carried out into the potential offered by a bathing lake covering an area of 20 hectares, but after an extensive discussion of the financing, maintenance costs, sustainability and efficient use of resour­ ces the idea was rejected. Nevertheless, many people would like to see water-based amenities provided. Suggestions on how the park could be made more attractive by the incorporation of the potential offered by water would therefore be welcome, but they must be able to be financed out of the construction costs and their maintenance should be as inexpensive as possible. The Columbiabad baths on the outer urban fringes are to be incorporated into the overall scheme. Pathways should be laid out to provide links to Ha­ senheide and connect the baths with the parkland. There are no grounds at the moment for assuming that there will be any major overhaul of the baths. The option of an extension of the baths into the parkland or a com­ bination with other uses should be kept open.

Tempelhof Parkland / Part 2 Competition Brief 47

Catering Almost every large park has catering facilities of different sizes and types, e.g. restaurants, beer gardens, cafés, lounges and bistros. Catering facilities should therefore form part of the scheme. Attention must be paid here, in particular, to the need for the relevant services, supply and disposal facilities and the impact they will have within the parkland. Poten­ tial locations should be indicated as part of the matrix, which comprises fundamental elements of the processual structure plan. It should be borne in mind that catering services will be in private hands. For that reason con­ sideration should be given to intermediate states. Dog run Dogs in parks and valuable natural environments regularly lead to sharp conflicts. Hence there is a wish for a different or new approach to the issue. Proposals submitted are expected to go beyond the usual dog exercising areas. 2.5.6 Maintenance and upkeep - sustainability Special importance attaches in Berlin to the financial aspect of the mainte­ nance and upkeep of the city’s green spaces. Given the size of Tempelho­ fer Feld, schemes are needed that for the most part will prove viable with only modest resources for maintenance and upkeep. Hence thought must be given to future maintenance needs when the scheme is being devised. This means that the respective expenditure on maintenance must be taken into account at the planning stage. The customary assessments of costs in Berlin leave little room for manoeuvre and so priorities must be established within the overall project. A differentiated progression is therefore required in the use of funds for maintenance, preparations for which should be made in the form of a differentiated design scheme. Design approaches are wanted that will enable maintenance costs to be funded by other players (new private-public groups, spatial pioneers, interim users, caterers, educational and social organisations, private sports sup­ pliers / hire companies, landscape management firms, urban agricultural or­ ganisations). Past experience shows, however, that these players generally only take over limited areas that they use themselves. For that reason this approach should not be taken too far. 2.5.7 Budget for the park The budget for laying out the parkland is limited. On average the amount available is €25 gross per square metre, including planning and ancillary costs, plus 19% VAT. The entrants have a free hand in prioritising the dis­ tribution of the costs. The view at present is that there should be a progres­ sion from the more intensive park areas in the north and north-east to the less intensive south where the open land will be situated. The cost of providing green and open spaces along the ring is included in the budget for the parkland. Vehicular infrastructure will require separate financing. A proposal is expected for an inexpensive basic structure as a consistent element that can be extended on a modular basis depending on the development of the surrounding urban areas. The cost of relocating and constructing the new central storm water re­ tention tank and the provision of the water management functions is not included in the budget. The design for the parkland should illustrate the approach to, and fundamental design of, the new ‘rainwater landscape’. Special resource-efficiency measures do not form part of the budget either. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 2 Competition Brief 48

2.6 Assessment criteria • Central theme – spatial and design quality • Integration in urban and open-space planning • Innovation as a contribution to a 21st century urban parkland (climate­ friendly, resource-efficient, economically forward-looking, enterprising and cooperative city) • Viability of the structural plan as the matrix and basic element of a processual development • Creation and interlinking of space • Development and inner structure • Usability, reflection of public wishes • Soundness and sustainability • Consideration of nature conservation requirements • Suitability of the design as a reference project for the International Building Exhibition (IBA) • Suitability of the design for the staging of an International Horticultural Exhibition (IGA) • Adherence to budget, economic viability, maintenance Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 49

Teil 3 Site Situation and Planning Principles

3.1 Context in Urban Topography 3.1.1 Site Delineation and Dimensions The competition area is located within the Berlin S-Bahn circle line (Ring) and forms an integral part of Berlin’s southern inner city. The terrain of the former Tempelhof Airport covers approx. 386 hectares. It is delineated by the Tempelhofer Damm to the west, the Columbiadamm to the north, the “Schiller-promenade” district to the east and the S-Bahn cir­ cle line to the south. The airfield itself (not including the airport build-ings) covers a space of approx. 330 hectares. The areas of concern for the competition are given in the figure below and are the free spaces of the inner and outer park landscape marked in green and orange as per the revised version of the master plan (see also Section 3.7.3), of which approximately 260 to 270 hectares are located within the currently fenced-in area. To the south the boundaries under current discus­ sion are dotted in green (inner park landscape of 205 - 209 hectares). The area also to be considered in the competition takes account of the airport buildings, the construction spaces as per the revised version of the Master­ plan together with further adjoining sport and leisure usage.

Figure 3: The Competition Area

The following figure shows the surrounding metropolitan area interlocked with the competition area. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 50

Figure 4: Surrounding Metropolitan Area (Status as of summer 2009), Source: bgmr sum- mer 2009

3.1.2 Context in Urban Topography The central urban location of the (former) Tempelhof airfield (hereinafter “Tempelhof Field”) is underlined by its proximity to the Berlin centre points at Breitscheidtplatz / Bahnhof Zoo railway station, Friedrichstraße and Ale­ xanderplatz.

Location of the Tempelhof Field in Berlin

Figure 5: Large-scale Setting and Distances, Source: D-Sat and our own presentation

The centrally located main railway termini and the German Parliament and government district are approx. 4 km way. The new Südkreuz terminus on Hildegard-Knef-Platz / corner of Sachsendamm is merely around 1.8 km as the crow flies from the main airport building. It is approx. 12 km to the major Berlin-Brandenburg-International airport (BBI) currently under construction. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 51

The greater part of the terrain of the former airport is situated in the munici­ pal borough of Tempelhof-Schöneberg. To the north-east (Garnisonsfried­ hof, Columbiabad am Columbiadamm) and east (Oderstraße, Werner- Seelenbinder-Sportpark) the borough of Neukölln covers only a small part of the airport terrain, while to the north of the Colum-biadamm by the police barracks the borough of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg borders on the former airport terrain.

Figure 6: Aerial View

Description of the Neighbouring Areas In terms of urban development the official boundary separat-ing the muni­ cipal boroughs of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg and Neukölln to the north and east of the airport terrain has no noticeable impact. Both boroughs show a preponderance of block development residential housing from the Wil­ helminian period, parts of which (e.g. the area around Graefestraße and Jahnstraße in Kreuzberg, and the Rollberg district on both sides of Werbel­ linstraße in Neukölln) have been remodelled by comprehensive refur-bish­ ment measures. As a clear contrast to the Wilhelminian period buildings of the neighbourhoods bordering the east and the north stands the area to the west known as the “Aviators’ Settlement” (Fliegersiedlung) with its highly greened rows of terraced houses, and the Tempelhof district bordering to the south which is partly commercial and partly residential with less high­ density perimeter block development (see Figure 10). Of note are also the large-area open spaces between the various neighbourhoods such as the Hasenheide Park to the north, the cemeteries on Columbiadamm and in Neukölln, as well as various allotment gardens and sports facilities. In sociological terms, the airport represents a line of rupture separating the highly disparate social milieus of the various neighbourhoods. While the neighbourhood around the Chamissoplatz and Bergmannstraße may be seen as average in terms of their social structures and have proven popu­ lar with large numbers of tourists, the neighbouring residential districts of Neukölln are characterised by an extremely high proportion of residents from an immigrant background, high unemployment and low income or lar­ ge numbers of people living below the poverty line. The percentage of im­ Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 52 migrants with Turkish background – which still form the main demographic immigrant group – is steadily falling so that composition of the immigrant population is gradually becoming more heterogeneous.

Figure 7: Urban Structures, Source Senate Department for Urban Development

Figure 8: Population Density in Surrounding Areas, Source: Senate Department for Urban Development

The differences in social structures between the surrounding neighbour­ hoods are also apparent in an extrapolation of figures from the study Mo­ nitoring Social Urban Development 2009 evaluating data from the obser­ vation period 31 December 2007 to 31 December 2008 on the level of 447 planning areas. An Overall Development Index has been compiled for the Map Development Index 2009 using 12 key indicators like “Unemploy­ ment”; “Immigration Background” and “Mobility”. The Development Index represents contentious social issues in the area in terms of values with lower categories corresponding to more pressing social problems (see Fi­ gure 9). Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 53

Gesamt-Index Soziale Stadtentwicklung

Figure 9: Social Monitoring 2009, Source SenStadt 2010, Source: Senate Department for Urban Development

Figure 10: Surrounding Neighbourhoods, Source: Senate Department for Urban Develop- ment and our own presentation

The Platz der Luftbrücke in the north-west section of Tempelhof airport is bound by various administrative buildings, in particular the Berlin police headquarters and various airport terminal buildings, and to the south-west of the square by residential and commercial buildings dating back to the time before the First World War. Continuing along Dudenstraße you reach the Viktoriapark whose eastern extension (Methfesselstraße) almost ex­ tends up to the Platz der Luftbrücke. Administrative buildings on the Bounded by Gneisenaustraße, Südstern, the Platz der Luftbrücke and Platz der Luftbrücke Mehringdamm, the Bergmannkiez or local village has steadily become an evermore popular tourist attraction over the past few years. Bergmannstra­ ße itself is a lively focal point for the local community and tourists alike with its many cafés, restaurants and small shops, including the Marheineke covered market, the newly renovated amenity. Located to the south of the market, Chamissoplatz with its homogeneous architecture of renovated Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 54

Wilhelminian period buildings is one Berlin’s most beautiful squares. The cemeteries on the Bergmannstraße are bounded by Züllichauerstraße, Golßenerstraße and Jüterboger Straße and constitute a barrier in this area. The police building on the block between Friesenstraße, Jüterboger Straße and Columbiadamm has a barrier impact in the urban context. To the north-west the Südstern is located with its underground station and small complex of shops. On the corner of Columbiadamm / Golßener Straße a memorial was un­ veiled in December 1994 to commemorate the concentration camp at the The Marheineke Market Hall on Berg­ mannstraße / corner of Markeinekeplatz Columbia Haus. The steel monument designed by the sculptor Georg Sei­ bert shows a house of prison cells. The concentration camp at the Colum­ bia-Haus was originally built in the late 19th century as a military prison to the south of the present-day police headquarters and later used as a detention centre by the Gestapo. It was used as a concentration camp from 8 January 1935 to 5 December 1936. The Columbia-Haus was de­ molished in 1938 to make way for the new Tempelhof airport. Many famous politicians were imprisoned in the Columbia-Haus including Leo Baeck, Hermann Duncker and Erich Honecker. Income and employment levels for the area are only slightly below the Berlin average. With its multinational demographic make-up, the wide di­ The Memorial to the Columbia-Haus Concentration Camp versity of cultural and culinary offerings this brings with it, and its tangible green-alternative-liberal political outlook, the neighbourhood is no longer just a keenly sough-after place to live but is increasingly developing into a major pole of attraction for tourists from all over the world. The annually organised Carnival of World Cultures which wends its way through the neighbourhood streets attracts over one million visitors and compellingly exemplifies the tolerance and exuberant zest for life which is the mark of the Bergmann village community. To the north of the airport terrain and to the east of Lilienthal-straße is a major sports centre and a cemetery covering around 10 hectares which borders on the Volkspark Hasenheide (Hasenheide Public Park). Co­ vering an area of some 50 hectares, the park offers local residents a wide range of opportunities for sport and leisure activities. At the same time it is also notorious as a centre for drug-dealing. Lilienthalstraße is a period ave­ nue that forms a major greened axis to the square at Südstern, domina­ ted by the neo-gothic church in its middle with its landmark soaring spire. View of the Hasenheide Park from St.-Johannes-Basilika (St John’s Basilica), the largest Catholic church in Columbiadamm Berlin, is also located on Lilienthalstraße, close by the Südstern. The new building was consecrated in 2001 by the Apostolic (papal) Nuncio. To the west of Lilienthalstraße between Bergmannstraße and Züllichauer Straße is the cemetery mentioned whose grounds covering approx. 20 hectares also border on the Bergmannstraße. Close by the Columbiadamm, the Garnisonsfriedhof (old military cemete­ ry), the Sommerbad (open-air swimming pool) and the Jahn-Sporthalle (Jahn Sports Hall) and Jahn-Sportplatz (Jahn Sports Stadium) are also to be found. The latter two facilities owe their name to Friedrich Ludwig Jahn, the “father of German gymnastics” who founded Germany’s first pu­ blic gymnastics exercise grounds in the Hasenheide Park to the north of Columbiadamm in 1811. The neighbouring Neuköllner Wohnquartiere (Neukölln residential district) has a high proportion of children, young people and young adults with an extremely low number of old residents. Its demographics are further characterised by high numbers of residents with immigrant backgrounds, high unemployment rates, low incomes or people living below the poverty line. The 2009 Urban Monitoring report placed the district on the Neukölln side in the lowest district category which is considered as exceptionally Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 55 problematic in terms of social structures and which is characterised by high fluctuation rates, extremely high unemployment rates and consequently by large numbers of long term jobless people receiving social benefits (see Figure 9).

Figure 11: The Surrounding Urban Neighbourhoods, Source: IGA Bid, SenStadt 2009

The Hermannstraße village neighbourhood around Wissmannstraße and Karlsgartenstraße by the Hasenheide Park was established at the begin­ ning of the last century as an entertainment district with beer gardens, theatres and dance halls. Today the neighbourhood is largely residential and contains a large number of social infrastructure amenities (the (Karls­ gartenschule primary school, child day-care facilities). Hermannplatz with the Karstadt To the north the Hermannstraße ends at the Hermannplatz which with its Department Store excellent transport connections and high number of retail outlets has beco­ me an important shopping centre for the residents of Neukölln and Fried- richshain-Kreuzberg. The Sonnenallee to the south-east of the square, and in particular the Karl-Marx-Straße, are also important retail centres in the lower price segment. In both streets the presence of large numbers of residents with migration backgrounds can clearly be felt. The neighbourhood around the Schillerpromenade is a traditional urban district to the east of the airport terrain characterised by a homogeneous architectural style from the turn of the last century – it was built as a “resi­ dential district for the well-to-do” – and the grandiose central green corri­ The Schillerpromenade in Neukölln dor of the 50 meter wide Schillerpromenade. Another historical axis runs from east to west along the Herrfurthstraße from the Tempelhof Field over the centrally positioned Herrfurthplatz with its Genezarethkirche (Galilee church) built in 1906 through to the Hermannstraße. In 1990 the area be­ came a focal point for the Urban Renewal Programme and two years la­ ter was declared a rehabilitation study area. At the same time the district has been placed under a conservation order as per § 172 of the Feder­ al Building Code (BauGB). Since 1999 the district has also been under Neighbourhood Management (Quartiersmanagement). Neighbourhood Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 56

Management is an instrument for urban development that has been de­ ployed in Berlin since 1999 for areas with particularly serious social pro­ blems. It essentially aims at empowering local residents and trades people and tapping their previously unused resources and potential to give their local neighbourhood long-term better quality of life. In the Schillerprome­ nade neighbourhood there is a flagrant discrepancy between the structural quality of the residential property, some of which is in a truly superb condi­ tion, and the problematic social situations of the people who live in it. One underlying cause of the social problems is the peripheral situation of the area due to its proximity to the airport. Residents expect that the opening up of the airport terrain will provide a vital impulse for the revitalisation of their neighbourhood. Directly adjoining the Tempelhof Field are also various historical ceme­ teries which were established in the 19th century prior to development of the surrounding residential settlements during the Wilhelminian period. The residential areas adjoining the airport field mainly date from the 1920s and 30s. Situated between the graveyards, the Warthekiez neighbour­ hood forms its own separate island. To the south of the Warthekiez, neigh­ The Warthekiez Village in Neukölln bourhood, between the Tempelhof Field and the Oderstraße bordering the railroad tracks are the sports facilities of the Werner-Seelenbinder­ Sportpark with various playing fields, a sports hall, and an ice rink. The old stadium rotunda now features one grass and two synthetic turf playing fields. The smaller stadium on Oderstraße is now only used for training. Between the sports park and the railway tracks there is a commercial zone with entry from the Oderstraße and a garden allotment amenity. To the south of the rupture line in urban topography given by the S-Bahn lines and the urban motorway and forming a separate topographical entity, Entrance to the Berliner Union-Film Site lies the Bärensiedlung residential estate built between 1929 and 1931 in the Oberlandstraße around the Oberland and Germania gardens. The west part of Oberlandstraße is marked by historically listed industrial buildings like the Gillette factory buildings and the film studios of the UfA. Built in 1922, the UfA studios are now used by television and other produc­ tion companies. The historical factory buildings form part of a major indu­ strial zone extending south of the railroad tracks and the urban motorway along Oberlandstraße and further south beyond the Teltow canal. The Tempelhofer Damm runs south of the S-Bahn tracks to Alt-Tempelhof Gillette Factory Buildings on the Oberlandstraße where traces of the ancient village centre of Tempelhof can still be found among the Wilhelminian period buildings around Tempelhof town hall. At the intersection of Tempelhof Damm and the Teltow canal, are the Ullstein­ haus and Hafen Tempelhof – two architectural landmarks of distinction. The Hafen (Harbour) was refurbished in 2009 and turned into a modern cultural, retail and culinary centre. Directly adjoining it, the “ufaFabrik Ber­ lin International Culture Centre” was founded in 1979. To the south of the Wolffring, the “Gartenstadt Neu-Tempelhof“ (Garden City New Tempelhof – Aviators’ Settlement is a low density housing Department Store on Tempelhof Damm settlement composed of linear, mainly terraced housing, developments from the 1920s and 30s bordering on the highly built up inner city areas. With its private gardens and scattered park landscapes, this settlement offers a particularly high quality of living. The district of Neu-Tempelhof with its greenery and central location remains a much sought-after residential area. The Paradestraße is the main greened axis in an east-west direction, run­ ning from the centrally located Adolf-Scheidt-Platz through to Tempelhof Terraced Housing in the “Gartenstadt Neu-Tempelhof” Damm (the underground station at Paradestraße) and the airport terrain. A belt of parks (Bäumerplan, Rumeyplan, Wolfring) encircles the inner area of the settlement extending over the Bundesring to the Tempelhof Damm. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 57

3.2 Context in Urban Landscape The Berlin System of Open Spaces (Berliner Freiraumsystem) consists of an “inner park ring” and an “outer park ring” together with a “green axes of coordinates”. The Tempelhof Field is located in the “inner park ring” which encircles the high-density inner city built during the Wilhelminian period with numerous allotment gardens, cemeteries and public parks. Following closure of its airport operations, the intention is to integrate the Tempelhof Field into the ring of parks as a new and major green space in the inner city.

Figure 12: The Berlin System of Open Spaces / Superordinate Open Space Connections, Source: Senate Department for Urban Development

In close proximity to the area designated for the competition may be found: the Viktoriapark to the north-west; the playing fields on the Züllichauer Straße; the old military cemetery on the Columbiadamm and the Moham­ med cemetery (the oldest Islamic cemetery in Central Europe and the only independent burial ground for Muslims in Berlin); the TiB playing fields; the Columbiabad open air swimming pool and the Jahnsportplatz playing fields with the Jahn Sports Hall. Attention should also be given to the green spaces of the „Bäumerplan“ in the “Aviators’ Settlement” bordering the airport terrain to the west (west of Tempelhof Damm); to the tree-lined avenue of the Schillerpromenade; to the cemeteries of Neukölln in the Schiller district to the east; and to the Werner-Seelenbinder-Sportpark bordering the Tempelhof Field to the south-east. Potential green space linkages connecting to the areas designated for the competition are: In the north-west: • Linkage to the park at Gleisdreieck now under development over Viktoriapark to the Platz der Luftbrücke in the north: • Line of connection from the Landwehr canal (Urban Habour) via the historical grounds of the Urban Hospital (redevelopment as a residential area) and the Fontanepromenade to the Südstern and continuing along the Lilienthalstraße to Columbiadamm. • From the Bergmannstraße via the cemeteries to the Jüterboger Straße / Golßener Straße and Züllichauerstraße to Columbiadamm. • From the Grimmstraße / Fontanestraße or Graefestraße and Jahnstraße over the Hasenheide Park to Columbiadamm. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 58 in the east: • line of connection to the east of the Columbia Building to Oderstraße (as continuation of Hasenheide Park) • Extension of the Herrfurthstraße green axis over Herrfurthplatz to the Tempelhof Field • Connection as extension of Thomasstraße with the adjoining cemeteries as part of the historical route of the Grüne Weg (Green Lane)

White arrows: connections planned for long-term Figure 13: Open Space Connectivity (our own presentation) in the west: • Extension of the green axis from the “New Tempelhof” Garden City,Wolfring, Bäumerplan and Rumeyplan (New Tempelhof Park Ring) In the south-west: • - Line of connection from the Francke-Park / Alter Park (Tempelhof) over the Dorfanger Tempelhof to the planned park entrance at S/U-Bahnhof Tempelhof station In the south (can be realised in the long-term): • Line of connection as extension of the Bärensiedlung residential settlement and the Komturstraße, a possible line of connection is currently broken by the tracks of the S-Bahnring and the motorway; a tunnel could be possible with the planned development of new S-Bahn stations at Oderstraße and Komturstraße or with one single S-Bahn station equidistant between these two stations. The “Inner Park Ring” Green Route No 18 encircling the Berlin inner city for a distance of approx. 44 km along the S-Bahn circle line should cross the southern area of the Tempelhof Field. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 59

3.3 Historical Development Development up to 1923 (opening of the airport on the Tem­ pelhof Field) First mentioned in official documents in 1351, and used as grazing land, fallow land and arable land until the 19th century, the Tempelhof Field was created around the year 1200 by the transformation of forest into arable land that the settlers of the time could cultivate with their “modern ploughs”. The Tempelhof Field was owned by the Knights Templar and until the end of the 19th century covered an area outside the gates of the city on the heights of Teltow. The Field and the (Hasen-) Heide were important sour­ ces of food for the newly founded towns of Cölln and Berlin. King Friedrich-Wilhelm I used the site for the first troop parade of the Berlin garrison in 1722, thus initiating a tradition lasting 200 years which turned the Field into a key parade ground for the Prussian military. To connect it to the seat of royal power, the paths from Hallesches Tor to the Tempelhof Field and the Hasenheide were developed as causeways Sheep Herds and Troop Exercises on and new wide spacious avenues were added linking it with the new de­ the Tempelhof Field velopment of Friedrichstadt in the south (Wilhelmstraße, Friedrichstraße, Lindenstraße, see Figure 15 “The Tempelhof Field in 1857”). In the 19th century the Tempelhof Field was bounded on its northern and eastern sides by the advancing tide of high-density tenement buildings. To the south its bounds were set by the connecting railway (1871) and later by the S-Bahn circle line, and to west by the railway lines of the Berlin- Anhalter station. The avenue to Tempelhof built from 1836 to 1838 cut the undeveloped part of the Tempelhof Field in two. After acquisition by the Prussian state, which bought the land from the Tempelhof farmers, from 1828 to 1918 it served the Berlin garrisons as an exercise and parade A Picnic on the Tempelhof Field ground.

Imperial Parade on the Tempelhof Field

Figure 14: Tempelhof Field in 1802, Source: Map of Berlin 1802

The present-day route of the Columbiadamm

Green Lane Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 60

Südliche Friedrichstadt

Hallesches Tor Kottbusser Tor

Schlangenpfuhl

Figure 15: The Tempelhof Field in 1857, Source: Map of Berlin & Charlottenburg 1857

The present-day route of the Columbiadamm

In 1850 barracks were built on the periphery of the Field, some of which are still standing today, like the barracks of Queen Augusta’s Guards Gre­ nadier Regiment. At the same time the military terrain developed into a po­ pular excursion spot for Berliners, especially those who lived in the highly congested city districts of Kreuzberg, Neukölln and Tempelhof. They met here to picnic, stroll, watch and take part in gymnastic and sporting events, meetings and demonstrations. Horse racing took place here until the Hop­ pegarten race course was built in 1867. It was then replaced by bicycle racing. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 61

Schlangenpfuhl

Figure 16: The Tempelhof Field in 1900, Source: Pharus Plan of Berlin 1902

The present-day route of the Columbiadamm

Despite the rapid pace of urban development and the rapid growth of the population, even after the German Reich was established in 1871, the Tempelhof Field still remained a largely open green area due to the impor­ tance of the role it played for the military who allowed the public free ac­ cess to it whenever troop exercises were not being held. The Schlangen­ pfuhlsee water was a popular place for bathing and recreation. And the open field was used for such sports as football and kite flying. The Hasen­ heide (the heath area and hare preserve) which then extended into the present-day Tempelhof Field were used from 1876 onwards as an artillery The Tempelhof Field in 1907 range. During World War One, as during the Franco-German war of 1870/71, a mobile military hospital was erected on the Tempelhof Field. At the beginning of the 20th century flights in balloons were added to the attractions. The maiden flight of the Zeppelin airship triggered a wave of “national euphoria”. After various experimental flights by Arnold Böcklin and Otto Lilienthal, in 1909 the first spectacular air shows were held on the Field with aeroplanes. It should also be mentioned that it was on the Tempelhof Field that the American aviation pioneer Orville Wright set two An Air Show around 1910 world records. Neither the military nor the Tempelhof municipal authorities, however, had any interest in building an airfield. It was only when the military training ground on the Döberitzer Feld to the west of Berlin was given easy access by the construction of the Heerstraße that the army lost interest in the Tempelhof Field. The area then turned into building land for residential housing as new building plans were drawn up. In 1910 a 145 hectare area The Tempelhof Field Garden of land to the west of the Tempelhof Chaussee was sold to Tempelhof City around 1911 council. Founded by the municipality of Tempelhof, the Tempelhof Feld AG für Grundstücksverwertung (Tempelhof Field Public Limited Company for Real Estate Development) completed the first phase of building operations in 1912/13. The “Tempelhof Field Garden City” was completed after the First World War in the 1920s.

Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 62

Development from 1923 to 1933 (opening of the airport on the Tempelhof Field) As the provisional aerodromes at Johannisthal and Staaken could no lon­ ger meet growing requirements, it was decided to build an inner city airport on the Tempelhof Field. In 1922 the disused military exercise ground was flattened and building work began on the first airport facility. There was a difference of up to 10 meters in height between some parts of the area, and the slight inclination displayed by the whole terrain had likewise to be le­ velled. The backfill also included common household rubbish. When finally levelled, the area was planted with grass and fertilised as the grass seed would not germinate in the sandy ground. To maintain the grass in good condition, a flock of sheep was introduced which dispensed with the need for grass-cutting and fertilisers and stabilised the ground. On 8 October 1923 Berlin Airport on the Tempelhof Field was officially ope­ ned, after one year’s building operations resulting in some rather unassu­ ming buildings, as the world’s first transport airport. The areas of land in the Shed for Waiting Passengers at the eastern part of the Tempelhof Field south of the Columbiadamm continued Airport in 1923 to be used as a public park and playing fields. A plan of 1928 still shows the Preußen playing field, the home of Berlin’s oldest football club, in the middle of the allotment gardens along Tempelhof Damm. In the following years, development continued apace on the airport ap­ proached by the Lilienthalstraße. In 1924 the first three solid hangars were built on plans by the Berlin architects Heinrich Kosina and Paul Mahlberg. In 1925 two further hangars were added. From 1926 onwards a new airport terminal was built designed by Klaus and Paul Engler. In spite of the rapid increase in the number of passengers, further extensions were not built due to the depressed economic situation after 1929.

Aviation Day on Tempelhof Central Airport

Figure 17: Network of Scheduled Flights in 1935, Quelle: ???

Remains of the old airport buildings can still be seen today on the airport terrain south of the Picnic Area (the “old airport”). Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 63

Figure 18: 1928 Berlin City Plan showing Position of Airport Buildings and Playing Fields on the Edge of the Airfield, Source: Schmitz (1997) (changed)

Present-day route of the Columbiadamm

Figure 19: The Main Building around 1929 Figure 20: Berlin Airport (Tempelhof) in 1935 Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 64

Figure 21: Berlin City Plans 1932 and 1936

Present-day route of the Columbiadamm The city plans of 1932 and 1936 still show the playing fields along the Oderstraße as laid out in the 1820s according to the plans of Ottokar Wag­ ler, director of the Neukölln parks and garden department. The ribbon of playing fields extended from the railway tracks in the south to the Colum­ biadamm in the north. The playing fields to the north of the former Grunerstraße were given up to make way for extensions to the runways during the Berlin Airlift in 1948. Remains of the boundary fences and steps can still be easily recognised on the periphery of the former airfield. Today’s Werner-Seelenbinder Sport­ park to the south-east of the airport terrain was built on the site of these sports facilities from the last century..

A Pharus Plan from 1944

Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 65

Planning and Building 1933 to 1944 When the National Socialists seized power in 1933, new plans for the res­ haping of Berlin were developed which also including construction of a new airport terminal. Air transport should serve as a means of demonstrating the power of the state. With its new terminals, a vastly enlarged Tempelhof Airport should form a quadrant on the north-south axis planned by Albert Speer and impress and awe through its sheer size and appearance. Ernst Sagebiel was commissioned by Göring’s Ministry of Aviation to de­ sign a monumental building with capacity for six million passengers or thir­ ty times the actual number of passengers at the time of construction. The Berlin-Tempelhof Airport was conceived as the central European aviation hub and the centre point for global air transport. The entire airport complex is designed on an axis to the Kreuzberg Monument to which an architec­ turally designed avenue should lead. Four storey administrative buildings intended as the offices of the airline companies are grouped around a se­ micircular open square. Sagebiel’s plans for an imposing circular forecourt at the intersection of the street axes which would open up to the forecourt of the airport reception hall and departure terminal never came to fruition. The reception hall leads into the 1.3 km wing of departure gates and main­ tenance halls, the ground segment bordering the elliptic airfield. In the middle are the departure gates opening onto the airfield and connected on both sides to hangars. This is all roofed with a wide projecting steel construction which, with its 40m long cantilevers, is considered an engi­ neering masterpiece. Passengers board the waiting planes under the roof of the departure gate. The hangars to both sides consist of a recessed wing of offices and workshops and the front maintenance area. The fronts facing the airfield can be closed by electronically operated doors. The side facing the city is clad in huge plates of limestone chalk and punctuated each 70m by a series of massive staircase towers. These towers were not merely intended to provide access to the offices but also to the rooftop grandstands which were supposed to accommodate up to 100,000 specta­ tors for air shows and parades of the Luftwaffe. The rooftop tribunes, which Speer’s Plan were never realised, were intended to extend the form of the planned oval as stepped walls which could also serve as tribunes for large-scale spec­ tacles. The National Socialists knew how to use the airport for their own purposes: on 1 May 1934 two million people gathered on the Tempelhof Field for the ceremony organized by the NSDAP. In terms of its transport connections and internal organisation, Berlin-Tem­ pelhof Airport was intended to be the most advanced airport in Europe. The Airport in 1939 overlaid Access roads and ramps lead from Tempelhof Damm and Columbiadamm on a Map of 1888 to the sunken utility halls on both sides of the reception hall. The airport also had its own railroad connection with a line branching off from the ring railway and leading through a tunnel directly to the freight level under the reception hall. The various levels are connected to the departure area through staircases and ramps. The architecture of Tempelhof Airport unites two architectural tendencies of the 1930s. The city-facing side is more traditional in tone and designed to impress with its grandeur. Here Ernst Sagebiel drew on a pragmatical­ ly simplified form of classical design with sharp angled lines and smooth walls devoid of ornament. The side facing the airfield, however, conveys a totally different impression and is one of the most breath-taking examples of contemporary engineering. In 1937 work was completed on the skeleton structure of the new airport The planed airport overlaid on a photo Überlagerung des geplantenof the undold airport des and a “topping out” was held. Completion of the new airport and demolition alten Flughafen Modellfoto, Stand 1936 Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 66 of the old were scheduled for 1939. The skeleton of reinforced concrete was covered with a facade of natural stone slabs, with the eagle motif serving as wall decoration. Passengers should proceed from the vast fore­ court with a diameter of 250 meters over the grand entrance court to the reception hall and terminals and finally to the roofed-over departure area. Customs clearance for passengers and handling of luggage and post were planned for different levels. The basement level featured a system of tun­ nels as well as air raid shelters. The Second World War delayed completion of the “Tempelhof World Air­ port”. Building works were finally suspended in 1943. At that time the inside of the building was nearly completed and the curved building on the round forecourt was half completed. Work on its western extension never began Airport Planning on an Axis to the nor were the spectator tribunes and the two runways planned by Sagebiel Kreuzberg Monument (Overlaid on the ever realised. Even so, the oval form of the airfield which is still such a old Airport) distinctive feature of the airport together with its space-delineating large­ scale building was securely in place. It should be noted that the National Socialists themselves only viewed Tempelhof Airport as an interim solution. Plans had already been drawn up for a much bigger airport to the south of Berlin. The Pharus Plan of 1944 shows the extension of the airport terrain in the later part of the 1930s from 100 to 400 hectares. In the south the road connecting Thomasstraße to Tempelhof station, and the adjoining garden allotments in the south have all disappeared. The airport building was erected on the site of the playing fields and garden allotments on Tempel­ hof Damm. The road linking the old airport building to Tempelhof Damm was sacrificed to the airport extension as was the public park to the south Airport Buildings with Platz der Luft­ of Columbiadamm with its toboggan run and open air stage. Only the ce­ brücke (Planning meteries on the Columbiadamm managed to withstand the onslaught. Air traffic continued to operate at the old airport until the end of the war, but by then had shrunk to a bare minimum. During the war fighter planes were produced in the new airport underground tunnels and the administrative buildings were used for military purposes. The old airport was practically destroyed during air raids – unlike the new airport building, only parts of which were badly damaged. In 1945 the airport terrain was first occupied by Soviet troops but when the Photo of Model (View from the Kreuzberg Monument) Allies divided Berlin to sectors, the area came under American control. The Americans cleared the war damage and used the airport mainly for military purposes.

Pharus Plan of 1944, not showing Tem­ pelhof Airport Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 67

Blockade and Airlift 1945 to 1949 After the end of the Second World War, the Allies divided Germany into four occupation zones. As a four-sector city, Berlin held a special status but was surrounded by the Soviet-occupied zone and was considered by the Russians as an integral part of their territory. In November 1945 an agreement was reached on three air corridors to Berlin – from Hamburg, Hanover and Frankfurt am Main. For the most part, air transport operations along these corridors ran smoothly. On 24 June 1948, the day the Deutsche Mark was introduced to the we­ stern sectors of Berlin, the Soviet occupying forces imposed a blockade on The Air Corridors land and water routes leading to West Berlin. Their intention was to control the passage of freight and people and thus force the western Allies (Fran­ ce, Great Britain, USA) to leave Berlin, thus pre-empting the formation of a government friendly to the West. The Blockade meant that the western sectors of Berlin were completely cut off from all supplies from the then western zones of Germany. Construction of the Twin Runways On 26 June 1945, the western Allies reacted with the Berlin Airlift to supply in the South, 1948 the people of Berlin with foodstuffs, medicines, coal, newspapers and raw goods. In very short intervals the transport planes of the western Allies – which also became known as “Candy Bombers” (Rosinenbomber) – lan­ ded in Tempelhof. Two 1,600m long runways were concreted and civilian air transport operations were suspended. The airports at Gatow and Tegel were also used for the Airlift. A new 2,400 meter long runway was installed at Tegel, which was the longest runway in Europe and also laying the foun­ dations for later civilian airport operations. During the Airlift, over 277,000 flights brought in some 2.3 million tons of freight to Berlin, the major part of them coming in via Tempelhof Airport. The people of West Berlin welcomed A Candy Bomber of the Type Douglas the “Candy Bombers” with great enthusiasm, Tempelhof Airport became a C-54 Skymaster lands in Tempelhof symbol of freedom for the western world and the legend of the Berlin Airlift was born. In May 1949 the Soviet Union put an end to the Berlin Blockade, and on 24 May 1949 the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany came into force. However, the Berlin Airlift continued to operate until October 1949 with a view to further securing the independence of Berlin. Since this time, at least in West Berlin, Tempelhof Airport has been associated with the people of West Berlin’s spirit of resistance and the support given them by the western Allies. The forecourt on Tempelhof Damm was renamed Platz der Luftbrücke (Airlift Square) and the memorial erected there in 1951 – known locally as the “Hungerharke” due to its similarity with a famished person’s exposed ribs – still commemorates the Berlin Airlift as does an annual ceremony held there each year on 12 May. The Blockade was the first crisis in the Cold War. The behaviour of the So­ viet Union served to strengthen the fight against communism in the west, and the Berlin Airlift effected a seachange in the way the western powers were perceived by west German society, changing them from occupying forces to friendly protectors. Thus the Berlin Airlift also served as a turning point in relations between the vanquished (west) Germans and the we­ The Memorial to the Airlift stern Allies. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 68

Entwicklung seit 1950 In 1950 part of the airport was returned for use by civilian air traffic and handed over by the US Air Force to the Berliner Flughafengesellschaft (BFG). As the main terminal was too damaged, a new and smaller termi­ nal was built along the curved front of the hall and opened in 1951. The smaller building soon proved inadequate to cope with the rising numbers of passengers. In 1961 the partition of Berlin was cemented by the building of the Berlin Wall. In the same year Billy Wilder shot “One, Two, Three!”, the most fa­ mous film ever made using Tempelhof Airport as part of its setting. Tem­ On the Set of “One, Two, Three!” pelhof Airport was also the Berlin gateway for politicians, film stars and rock stars like The Rolling Stones who landed here in 1965 to give their legendary concert in Berlin’s Waldbühne. Travelling to West Berlin by land over one of the few transit routes was still fraught with a great number of obstructions. A journey from the Federal Re­ public through the German Democratic Republic (DDR), founded on 7 Oc­ tober 1949, to West Berlin involved numerous controls and unforeseeable delays. Travelling to West Berlin by car or train was widely perceived as being both uncomfortable and risky. The Rolling Stones 1965 Until the establishment of transit corridors through the DDR, air transport was the only safe means of moving between West Berlin and the Federal Republic. In these years West Berliners viewed Tempelhof Airport as their “Gateway to the World”. With rapidly increasing numbers of passengers in the 1960s, Tempelhof Airport reached the limits of its capacity. Accordingly, it was once more refurbished and extended. In 1962 after various refurbishment measures, the main terminal was reopened. And even before the new terminal facilities were opened, two of the three run­ ways were extended to around 2,100m (the middle runway was removed in 1957/1958). As the airfield was unsuitable for the new-fangled jet engines, it was deci­ ded to develop Tegel as the international airport. In 1975 the Berlin-Tem­ pelhof Airport was closed for civilian aviation, even though it remained in operation as a military airport for the US Air Force which was stationed on the airfield until 1993. In 1982 Tempelhof returned to domestic civilian flights, mainly for small planes chiefly used for business journeys. During celebrations marking the 750th anniversary of Berlin in 1987, a spectacular firework display on 8 August was seen by over one million people assembled on the airfield. German reunification in 1990 gave the inner city airport a new lease of life. In 1992 the Americans handed the airport over to the Berlin Airport Association (BFG) and in 1993 they left. Ever since then a great deal of space in the buildings has been vacant. Tempelhof Airport was no longer fully occupied. What’s more, it was now also quicker and cheaper to travel by train. Use of the airport for short haul and mid-haul flights by a range of air carriers only brought a slight recovery. In 1996 the federal states of Berlin and Brandenburg and the Bund (Fede­ ral Republic of Germany) signed the so-called “Consensus Resolution” by which Schönefeld Airport situated to the south of the city boundaries was Open Day in 1979 to be the only airport to be developed as the system of three airports in the city was economically unsustainable. This would also serve to reduce noise pollution from planes in the inner city area. The new Berlin-Branden­ burg-International (BBI) is now scheduled to be fully operational in autumn 20112.

2 The airport shall be renamed Willy Brandt Airport in 2011, after the former Mayor of Berlin, and later Federal Chancellor and Nobel Peace Prize winner. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 69

The Interessengemeinschaft City-Airport Tempelhof (ICAT), a syndicate of various interest groups, moved to hold a referendum in spring 2008 in a bid to keep the Tempelhof inner city airport open. The proposal put forward by a referendum is supported if it receives a simple majority of the votes cast – but the sum of votes cast must represent at least 25 percent of the population eligible to vote. A referendum does not have any binding legal force on the Berlin Senate. As less than 25 percent of the population of Berlin eligible to vote actually voted in the referendum held on 27 April 2008, the referendum failed. Yet voting patterns clearly revealed that interest for the continued maintenance of Tempelhof Airport was significantly lower in the eastern part of the city than in its western part, which reflects the different emotional attachments people can have in a formerly divided city. As scheduled, Tempelhof Airport was finally closed for air traffic on 31 October 2008. Highlighting the Traces of History Of all the transport connections which have grown up over the course of time between the adjoining neighbourhoods to the Tempelhof Field or over the Tempelhof Field in the direction of the village centre of old Tempelhof, the following play an especially important role in terms of the networking of urban space (see figure 22): a. The east-west connection Schwiebusser Straße <-> Jüterboger Straße <-> Züllichauer Straße to the north of Columbiadamm opened for the building of the first airport. . b. The sequence of streets Adalbertstraße <-> Kottbusser Tor <-> Admiralstraße <-> Grimmstraße <-> Fichtestraße, which crossed the Hasenheide through to the Tempelhof Field. In the early 20th century this line of connection was extended along the eastern periphery of the airfield in a line of playing fields along Oderstraße through to the ring railway. c. The sequence of streets Urbanhafen <-> Fontanepromenade <-> Südstern <-> Lilienthalstraße which even in the 19th century already formed a historical connection between Südstern and the Tempelhof Field through to the old village centre of Tempelhof. d. Subsequently Lilienthalstraße terminated with a linear extension through to the first airport buildings. e. Friesenstraße, a main route linking Marheinekeplatz and the airfield. f. The Grüne Weg (Green Lane) representing a historical connecting route from Alt Rixdorf over the cemeteries on Hermannstraße and the Tempelhof Field to the Tempelhof village green (see figure 14). This connection was ruptured by construction of the first airport on the Tempelhof Field. Proposals for the competition should take account of these historical fea­ tures, and if need be develop and modify them. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 70

Figure 22: Historical Features, Source: Yade Rasterdaten 2008 and our own presentation Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 71

3.4 The Competition Terrain / Superordinated Aspects 3.4.1 Ownership Structure Since 1 September 2009 the land of the former airport including the airport buildings has been the property of the Land of Berlin with the exception of an 80 x 80m plot of land around the Radar Tower with its own access from Columbiadamm which remains in the possession of the Bund (Federal Go­ vernment). The land located between the Werner-Seelenbinder Sportpark and railway tracks to the south, and the garden allotments on the southern periphery of the airfield is all privately owned. The Radar Tower on Columbiadamm

Figure 23: Ownership Structure, Source: our own presentation / Senate Department for Urban Development

3.4.2 Transport / Infrastructure / Noise Local Public Transport (ÖPNV) Infrastructure S- and U-Bahn – Urban Railway and Underground Systems The wide area of terrain covered by the terrain designated for the compe­ tition means that even if U-Bahn and S-Bahn lines run close by, only parts of the airport terrain are well served by them. The U-Bahn line 7 runs to the north of the airfield along the Gneisenaus­ traße – Hasenheide axis. Underground stations at Südstern and Gneisen­ austraße are situated at approx. 750m to 850m distance to the Columbi­ adamm. The airfield is also connected along Tempelhof Damm to U-Bahn line 6 (North-South Line, Alt-Tegel – Alt-Mariendorf) and on Tempelhof Damm and Hermannstraße to the S-Bahn ring railway which encircles Berlin’s inner city in less than one hour. The U-Bahn stations at Platz der Luftbrü­ cke and Paradestraße, and the Tempelhof U+S-Bahn station are situated Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 72 in immediate proximity to the western area of the airfield. The Südkreuz national railway station is only one stop away from the Tempelhof S-Bahn station. To the south the S-Bahn ring borders on the terrain of the former airport. On the ring railway between the Tempelhof U+S-Bahn station and the Her­ mannstraße U+S-Bahn station directly on the airport periphery, the Land Use Plan (FNP) makes provision for the long-term planning of two further stations – one on the level of Komturstraße and the other on Eschershei­ mer Straße. An alternative proposal is now under consideration, as pre­ sented in the planning work for south-eastern area, whereby one new sta­ tion would be built equidistant to both the above mentioned stations (see Figure 32).

Figure 24: Local Public Transport Connections, Source: BVG 2008

The U-Bahn line 8 runs along Hermannstraße at a distance of approx. 550m to the east of the competition terrain. Of relevance to the competition terrain are the U-Bahn stations at Boddinstraße, and Leinestraße and the S+U-Bahn station at Hermannstraße cited above. Bus Connections The Columbiadamm is served by bus line 104. Bus line 248 also has a connecting function as its route runs via Gneisenaustraße U-Bahn station over Friesenstraße to the U-Bahn station at Platz der Luftbrücke and conti­ nues for around 1.8km to the S-Bahn, regional and national railway station at Südkreuz. Bus line 246 runs south of the ring railroad and the federal motorway, while bus line 344 runs parallel to U-Bahn line 8 on Hermannstraße. Automobile Connections The airfield is bordered on three sides by main arterial roads - Columbia­ damm to the north, Tempelhof Damm to the west and the city motorway and Silbersteinstraße to the south. A further main artery (Hermannstraße) runs in a north-south direction to the east of the airfield at a distance of approx. 550 metres. Through the Tempelhof Damm and Oberlandstraße the competition terrain is connected in the south to the BAB A 100 (city ring road). In May 2008 the motorway ring (BAB A 100) was connected via the (newly opened) BAB A 113 directly to the motorway to Dresden and thus to the BBI Berlin-Bran­ denburg-International airport now under construction. Works on the exten­ sion of the city motorway in a north-easterly direction to the Elsenbrücke Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 73

(Elsen Bridge) at Treptower Park should be completed by 2017 and are then to be followed by a further stretch via Ostkreuz to Frankfurter Allee. The competition terrain is located within Berlin’s Environmental Zone which came into force on 1 January 2008 and covers the whole of the Ber­ lin inner city within the S-Bahn ring and extends to the S-Bahn tracks on the southern edge of the airport terrain. The Environmental Zone is a zone which only permits vehicles that comply with set emissions standards. The present internal transport infrastructure of the airfield essentially con­ sists of the two runways (2.2km long for departures, 2.1km long for in­ coming flights) together with a circular system of “taxiways” that connect the eastern and western sides of the two disused runways. Further access to the airfield is granted by the (currently locked) gates on Tempelhofer Damm, Columbiadamm and Oderstraße. The 2010 revised version of the Masterplan makes the following provisions for main infrastructural connections for automobile traffic. Given the general surrounding conditions and the additional traffic load created by the development of the new districts in the Masterplan, con­ nection of each of the individual new sub areas to the surrounding main road network by two junctions is deemed sufficient. The positioning of the new connection points and the distance between the individual junctions is aligned on the superordinated traffic requirements in terms of the overall surrounding network Columbia District Extension of the historical route of Lilienthalstraße to Columbiadamm and further on into the district will provide the main connection. In addition, a further connection to Columbiadamm is envisaged to the west. Neukölln Urban District Connecting up Oderstraße between Columbiadamm and Silbersteinstraße will give a good road infrastructure to the north, apart from the present con­ nection to the south. This is currently under discussion. Tempelhof Süd Urban District For the mainly industrial Tempelhof Süd urban district, development of a new high-capacity road connection to Oberlandstraße is envisaged which will offer a short distance to the BAB 100 motorway via Oberlandstraße connection point. The connection to the Tempelhof West urban district bordering to the north­ west serves internal connection purposes. The connection to Tempelhofer Damm this creates has merely a subordinate connecting function for the THF Süd district. A connection parallel to Ringbahnstraße running east to Oderstraße for opening up / connecting the existing and forthcoming areas is still conside­ red as a meaningful network extension. Tempelhof West Urban District Given the traffic load on Tempelhofer Damm, the opening up of the plan­ ned urban district via a maximum of two main junctions with traffic lights should be ensured. Positioning of junction points should take account of the requisite integration of their traffic lights in the dependent traffic light coordination system along Tempelhofer Damm. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 74

Figure 25: New Road Infrastructure Connections according to the Masterplan

Traffic Congestion and Noise Exposure The traffic survey conducted in 2005 by the Senate Department for Urban Development found that the section of Columbiadamm to the west of Gol­ ßener Straße had an average (weekday) traffic load of 33,400 vehicles in 24 hours while the section to the east of Golßener Straße had an average (weekday) traffic load of 23,600 vehicles in 24 hours. It was estimated that given its present traffic situation, Columbiadamm still had some untapped reserve capacity. With from 50-60 thousand and 40-50 thousand vehicles per 24 hours (weekdays), the traffic load on Tempelhof Damm and Hermannstraße is clearly much higher than that of the Columbiadamm with its load of 20-30 thousand vehicles per 24 hours (weekdays). The neighbouring southern section of the A 100 motorway has a traffic load of up to 170 thousand vehicles per 24 hours. According to the Strategic Noise Chart 07.05.1 the airport terrain is parti­ cularly affected in the south-west (Tempelhof Damm) and the south (near the A 100). Directly by the streets noise levels of over 75 dB(A) are to be expected. Noise exposure through rail traffic was given in Chart 07.04.01 (2005 edition) of the Environmental Atlas as > 55 dB(A) or 55 - 60 dB(A). The Strategic Noise Chart 07.05.1 also found noise levels of from 60 – 65 dB(A) in an approx. 20 metre deep section of the Columbiadamm. A further, more recessed section at around 100 metres deep still recorded noise levels in the range of 55 - 60 dB(A) or a noise level in excess of the DIN 18005 benchmark for green open spaces of 55 dB(A). Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 75

Figure 26: Average Daily Traffic Flow (for 2005), Source: Senate Department for Urban Development

Noise exposure decreases (obviously) the further one moves towards the centre of the airfield. Along Tempelhof Damm, due to its somewhat sunken street level, there is a pronounced reduction of the noise level at a relative­ ly short distance from the source of noise. The strongest noise exposure is to be found in the area by the A 100 motorway. Noise from this area can still be heard around the middle of the airfield where according to Chart 07.05.1 noise levels of between 55 - 60 dB(A) are to be still found. Thus the whole of the south-west part of the investigation area is subjected to noise levels in excess of the DIN 18005 recommended benchmark for green and open spaces of 55 dB(A).

Figure 27: Noise Exposure, Source: TOPOS, Ökologie & Planung Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 76

Bicycle Paths The following details are taken from the preliminary transport study for the conception of Master Plans for the Tempelhof Field. The present system of cycle paths in the areas surrounding the Tempelhof Field is well integrated in the Berlin city network of cycle paths and ways. Situated to the north, Columbiadamm and running to the west, Tempelhof Damm feature cycle paths on both sides of the road. Likewise, Oberland­ straße to the south of the Tempelhof Field has its own cycle track facilities. With its designation as a traffic-calmed area and „Zone 30“ where maxi­ mum speeds of 30km are allowed, Oderstraße on the eastern periphery of the Tempelhof Field is also used as a cycling street. Integration with existing Cycle Path Routes Berlin currently has two international, three inter-regional and twelve re­ gional cycle routes beginning on the Schlossplatz in the borough of Berlin- Mitte and radiating out to various destinations along the Berlin city limits. Two of these designated cycle routes run in a north-south direction close by the Tempelhof Field. Oderstraße on the interface between Tempelhof Field and the socially dis­ advantaged district of Neukölln-Schillerpromenade forms part of the RR10 regional route which runs from the Eichwalde forest on the southern most point of Berlin to the Schlossplatz in Berlin-Mitte.

TR 4

RR 10

RR 11

Figure 28: The Extended Cycle Path Route Network, Status: April 2009, Source: Senate Department for Urban Development

Cycle route RR11 running to the west of Tempelhof Field (Mahlow bei Ber­ lin - Schlossplatz) traverses the residential area to the west of Tempelhof Damm and offers a traffic-calmed alternative to the cycle paths on Tempel­ hof Damm itself. Cycle routes RR1 - RR12 which radiate out from the Schlossplatz are con­ nected with one another by tangential routes TR1 - TR8. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 77

The nearest tangential route to the north of Tempelhof Field is the TR4 which runs along Bergmannstraße in the former borough of Berlin-Kreuz­ berg at approx. 600m distance. To the south, more than 2km from Tempel­ hof Field, is the tangential route TR 3 which runs over Westphalweg. External Connections of the new City Districts The new urban districts are planned as settlements on the periphery of the existing Tempelhof Field grouped around the city park planned for the middle of the Field. Since the existing streets running at tangents to the planning area - Tempelhof Damm, Columbiadamm, Oberlandstraße and Oderstraße – are well integrated in the existing inter-regional cycle path route network, it may be expected that external connections for the plan­ ned new urban settlements will be of a similar order. Besides cycle route RR10 which comes from the north and crosses the Hasenheide Park and Columbiadamm to continue along Oderstraße – further cycle routes along Columbiadamm are also planned. This should establish quick, safe transport connections between Tempelhof Field and the Columbia estate planned for the north, and also with the existing neigh­ bourhoods of the former borough of Berlin-Kreuzberg which touch on the Field to the north.

Figure 29: Footpath and Cycle Path Connections, Source: FPB / Büro up, Working Draft 01/2010. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 78

Two of these new planned cycle path connections should run through Lili­ enthalstraße and Golßener Straße, and a further one from Friesenstraße should lead there. To ensure safe passage for cycles, two new connections branching off from the west of the RR11 cycle route to the Tempelhof Field will pass over the two planned intersections on Tempelhof Damm. These two access routes for cyclists will link up the planned urban sett­ lement on Tempelhof Damm with extant residential areas to the west of Tempelhof Damm. A further connection is also planned from the Tempelhof U- and S-Bahn station in an easterly direction. From the south a connection with Oberlandstraße is planned. Crossing of the existing sunken tracks of the S-Bahn circle line is on the level of the planned S-Bahn station. A further connection in this area along the existing industrial tracks and crossing them via an existing railway bridge is still under investigation. The section of route RR10 than now runs through Oderstraße should be relocated to the park side of the planned Neukölln urban district. This will afford cyclists a view of the planned city park and the silhouette of the main building of the old airport behind it. Internal Connections of the New City Districts Planning of the inside of the Tempelhof Field as a city park opens up a ran­ ge of excellent opportunities for an internal network of cycle paths. These will fulfil a variety of functions. They will serve for internal connection of the new urban settlements and for linking up the extant neighbouring areas in the districts of Tempelhof, Neukölln and Kreuzberg with one another while the present cycle ways in the vicinity of Tempelhof Field will also receive additional cross-connections. At the same time – given the large area of land covered by the Tempelhof Field – simplified access will be given to the surrounding stopping points of public transport (ÖPNV). For instance, they will enable quicker access to the ring line S-Bahn stations from the planned Columbia district or quicker access to U-Bahn line 6 from the Neukölln district. In addition to this, there are also the recreational effects of leisure-time cycling, promoted by the new park. The whole length of the outer ring of the park planned for the middle of Tempelhof Field will be given its own cycle path with connections to the whole of the internal cycle path network. The two cycle path crossings through the planned park correspond to the placement of the two former parallel runways. The more southerly of these two crossings extends in a straight line to the west to the Tempelhof U- and S-Bahn station while the northern crossing connects the planned Tempelhofer Damm city settlement with the district of Neukölln. One or more cycle path connections cross the planned city park in a north­ south direction. Their precise location will be decided on within the frame­ work of the competition. Further planned cycle paths within the existing area of Tempelhof Field but outside of the planned city park, serve to give enhanced internal connec­ tivity to the various new residential areas and to provide them with better access to the outside. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 79

3.5 Urban Development Planning Criteria 3.5.1 Land Use Planning Preamble The Land Use Plan (Flächennutzungsplan - FNP) is the comprehensive preliminary Master Development and Town Planning Scheme in which the municipality presents its basic intentions in terms of urban development and an outline of the types of land utilization these entail. It forms the inte­ gral strategic basis on which decisions regarding land use, and manage­ ment of spatial investment are grounded. The Land Use Plan has binding effect, both on the municipality itself and the various public planning Administrations involved in its compilation. It forms the planning basis for the development of the definitive Master De­ velopment and Town Planning Scheme. It is not directly binding on citi­ zens, but it does clearly reveal to the public the structural overall urban development goals of the municipality. The Berlin Land Use Plan was approved by the Berlin Senate and has the assent of the Berlin parliament. The Land Use Plan for the area of land covered by Tempelhof Field is cur­ rently undergoing revision. The resolution to put forward a Land Use Plan was announced on 21 April 2008. Early public participation in the process was granted from 1 September to 6 October 2008, and public consultation was held from 15 June 2009 to 16 July 2009. Following closure of public consultation, the amended version together with a report on public participation and a review weighing up the results was presented to the Berlin Senate and Berlin Parliament. The folder with the amended version is included in the appendix 4.09b. Draft of the Amended Land Use Plan As far back as 1994, the Berlin Land Use Plan contemplated closure of Tempelhof Airport and its replacement by buildings and green spaces. The amended version of the Land Use Plan in tandem with a deepening of planning concepts through competitions and other planning instruments forms the urban planning basis for stage-by-stage development of the area over the coming years. The core element in the presentation is the central green space of the Tempelhof park landscape and its connections to the neighbouring city districts. Mixed building land use (M2) is envisaged for the historically listed main airport buildings on the Platz der Luftbrücke, along Tempelhof Damm and to the north of the S-Bahn circle line. A broad variety of development op­ portunities present themselves here for various kinds of uses. Consolidation of the Neukölln district area should serve to revitalise the area round Oderstraße / Schillerpromenade. In this respect, residential building land (W2) is cut back to the present control path, and the urban fabric on Columbiadamm and Lilienthalstraße is extended and declared as residential building land (W2). The previously represented residential building land sections (W2) are now relocated in relation to the central open space. The aim here is to create structural linkage between the neighbourhoods around Bergmannstra­ ße, Südstern and Oderstraße / Schillerpromenade with account taken of landscaping and climatic features. On the southern periphery, the commercial building land is retained alt­ hough its boundary line is changed. These presentations open up a wide range of opportunities for different kinds of uses such as services, enterpri­ se, research, culture and Administration. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 80

The symbols designating overarching uses of land for public use and the uses of open spaces are given in a non-specific manner. Issues of histo­ rical conservation will be addressed in subsequent planning phases (see Appendix 4.09c). Future representation of building land is based on a classification of the extant built-up areas and the deployment of existing access roads and rail tracks for local transport.

See Appendix 4.09b for Key Figure 30: Draft of the Amended Land Use Plan (Status: Public Display, June 2009)

There are different views as to the future uses which should be made of the land on both sides of Columbiadamm. This mainly concerns the presentation of the “Columbia and Lilienthal” neighbourhood. The draft amendment to the Land Use Plan envisages this area for W2 residential purposes while informal area development planning by the borough council (see the following Section) dedicates it to usage as open space. The neighbouring boroughs of Tempelhof-Schöneberg, Friedrichshain- Kreuzberg and Neukölln reject the new residential settlement. They take a critical view of its isolated position on Columbiadamm, and at the same time fear that building up the area of the Columbia estate as planned would impede the flow of cold air from Tempelhof Field to the north. Accordingly, a climatic study of the impact of various scenarios on the urban climate has been prepared (see Appendix 4.08a). The Public Consultation amended version of the Land Use Plan took ac­ count of climate-related requirements by retaining a green construction­ free corridor along, and in extension of, Golßener Straße and the area around the Columbiabad open-air swimming pool. While building around the peripheral areas of Tempelhof Field and increasing building density in the area beyond Columbiadamm would indeed lead to a loss of volume in the cold air flow to the neighbouring districts, the situation in terms of air temperature would not be noticeably changed. The precise impact of such effects is dependent on the specific form subsequent planning building operations take, and may be minimised by adopting a type of construction that makes minimum use of resources and land, and by keeping cold air channels open. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 81

3.5.2 Planning Policy for the South-East Region In terms of the development of Berlin, the south-east region is one of the key strategic areas. The Senate Department for Urban Development has been interested in the south-eastern area of Berlin since the 1990s and in the year 2000 published the first planning policy document for this region with a concept that ranged over set administrative boundaries. With account taken of the new BBI airport, the area of inclusion has been extended in the new version of planning policy for the south-east region in order to bring the closeness and connections of the airport and its imme­ diate area into a much closer relationship with the south-easterly districts of Berlin and the Berlin inner city. This means that the revised version now includes the axis of the rail link to Dresden and the Tempelhof Field which has returned into public ownership. Approx. 800,000 people live in the overall inclusion area which also provides over 250,000 jobs.

Figure 31: Planning Policy for the South-East Region Source: SenStadt, (Status: 2009)

In future too, the south-east region will continue to be an important centre of employment with its development corridor comprising of the BBI air­ port, the business and technology parks, and the existing major industrial zones. Ever since the decision to build the new airport was finally confir­ med in 2007 and building operations began, there has been a significant increase in demand for commercial space. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 82

At the same time the south-east region also offers a great range of oppor­ tunities for attractive living, leisure and recreation. Thus the aim here is to use the leverage of economic opportunities for urban development, and to continue to improve the quality of both the urban fabric and the landscape as well as providing urban residential districts with a better network of wa­ ter bodies, parks and woods. The Masterplan presents previous planning measures in context and sup­ plements them with structural planning proposals. Drawn up in association with stakeholder municipal boroughs and councils and in some areas ex- tending over the boundaries of the State of Berlin, Planning Policy for the South-East Region is a basis on which to seize the opportunities offered by the development of the south-eastern region.

Figure 32: Planning Policy for the South-East Region (Extract), Source: SenStadt, (Status: 2009)

3.5.3 District Development Planning District Development Planning (DDP) is an informal kind of planning that closes the gap between comprehensive urban planning (Land Use Plan­ ning) and local planning (construction planning). District Development Planning is where councils draw up proposals for the intended use of land for their whole districts or certain parts thereof which are generally asso­ ciated with the setting of priorities for planning and measures. This means that District Development Planning – which is binding for the authorities concerned – is not just an instrument for forward-looking land Use planning, but also an instrument of co-ordination that can be used to harmonise various specialised planning measures. District Development Planning for the Inner City (2002) gives a compilation of the various district development plans within the S-Bahn circle line.3 The airport building complex with its forecourts was included and designated as an area for public usage with the special purpose of “administration”. The airfield is intended as an open green space with the special purpose of a “green space” (park amenity) and the southern area to the west of the

3 DDP for the sub-district of Kreuzberg was adopted in 2005 by the district council assembly of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg. In the borough of Tempelhof-Schöneberg all DPP measures were adopted by the borough council assembly. However, the area represented by Tem­ pelhof Airport did not form part of the resolutions. Presentations for the airport building enjoy a special status and are to be decided on by the internal administration. DDP for the sub-district of Neukölln has not yet been adopted by the borough assembly. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 83

Werner Seelenbinder Sportpark has likewise been designated as an area of public use. Both Oderstraße connecting Tempelhof via Neukölln to the Hasenheide Park and Kreuzberg, and Thomasstraße as the connection to Richardplatz are shown as key superordinated pedestrian and bicycle ways in the im­ mediate vicinity. Another direct connection to the airfield runs from Colum­ biadamm through the complex of buildings onto Tempelhof Field. On the southern edge of the airfield, a green corridor is shown running from east to west.

Legende siehe Appendix 4.09c Figure 33: DDP for the Berlin Inner City, Status: March 2002, partly revised in 2005, Source: Bo- rough of Tempelhof-Schöneberg in Berlin (eds.) and under inclusion (drawing on DDP for Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg, Status: 2005)

The report on the DDP adopted by the borough of Friedrichshain-Kreuz­ berg in 2005 highlighted the acute lack of open spaces and green spaces in the district that even the newly planned parks like the park at Gleisdrei- eck would not significantly redress. In addition, an open corridor from Süd­ stern via Lilienthalstraße to the airfield was also presented. 3.5.4 Historical Monuments The former Tempelhof Airport is a historical building of immense social significance. The totality of the airport terminals and offices with all their outer buildings and the sealed hall apron are included as a historical mo­ nument (single entity) in Berlin’s official List of Historical Monuments. Be­ sides conservation of the original fabric, conservationists are also keen to maintain the visual impression of the sheer breadth of the airfield and the wide sweeping views this offers. Along the taxiways to the south and west the semicircular paved “warm-up spots” (starting heads) can be seen. The two runways for outgoing and incoming flights later formed the functional backbone of the airfield. Consideration of these two constructions is also an issue for conservationists. In the middle part of the airfield, between the taxiway and the northerly run­ way, is the site of the old Tempelhof Airport of which only very rudimentary Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 84 traces can still be seen. Built between 1923 and 1929, (see Section 3.3 “Historical Development” and Figure 17 to Figure 19) the airport consisted of a main building, five hangars, and various smaller buildings. They have been designated as a site of archaeological interest. The Berlin State Of­ fice for the Preservation of Historical Buildings (Landesdenkmalamt Ber­ lin) is currently preparing their classification as a ground monument. Any development of the site must factor in the eventuality of archaeological excavations. During World War II, the northern periphery of Tempelhof Airport was the site for the residential huts of Deutsche Lufthansa AG and the aircraft buil­ ders Weser Flugzeugbau Bremen GmbH (see page 54 on the Columbia- Haus concentration camp). The area between Golßener Straße and Lili­ enthalstraße south of Columbiadamm has accordingly been designated as a site of archaeological interest. Tempelhof Airport composes together with the Radar Tower, the Platz der Luftbrücke with the Airlift Memorial facing the complex of buildings, the Columbia cinema and the former Sports Hall on Columbiadamm a desi­ gnated historical conservation area (a single ensemble).. The area immediately surrounding the airport terrain also includes further key historical monument areas or historical gardens which should be men­ tioned. The airport main building was constructed on an axis to the Kreuz­ bergdenkmal – the national monument designed by Carl Friedrich Schinkel in commemoration of the “liberation battles” of 1813-1815 in Viktoriapark. To the north of Columbiadamm the Luisenstädtische cemetery laid out in 1830 and the barracks built from 1895-1897 and now in use by the police are likewise under historical preservation order. The Garrison cemetery in the north, the Neu-Tempelhof park ring landscaped in 1911-13 and 1924­ 31 in the west, the Kleinwohnungssiedlung (small apartment settlement) in the south to the east of Oberlandstraße built from 1929-31, the former Ufa film studios in Oberlandstraße and a factory building on the Ringbahnstra­ ße can also be cited as historical monuments.

Figure 34: Map of Historical Monuments, Source: Senate Department for Urban Develop - ment

Note: The former twin runways are within the historical monument area, the ground monument is a site of archaeological interest Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 85

The Law for the Protection of Historical Buildings in Berlin (DSchG Bln, § 10) states that the immediate surroundings of a monument, in so far as they are of key importance for the appearance of the same, may not be changed through the erection of new buildings or changes to old building fabric, or by the reshaping of unbuilt-on public or private open land or in any other way constituting a substantial violation of the special character and appearance of the monument.

3.6 Landscape Planning Principles 3.6.1 The Landscape Programme The Landscape Programme of 1994 used maps, texts, and background explanations to provide a basic outline of the requirements and measures needed for the realisation of the goals and principles of nature conservati­ on and landscape development for the State of Berlin. The role of the Landscape Programme within Berlin’s planning system is to give specific form to those general goals of nature conservation and landscape deve­ lopment formulated in Article 1 of the Federal Nature Conservation Act (Bundesnaturschutzgesetz) and to set the measures needed for their rea­ lisation. The Landscape Programme including Nature Conservation (La- Pro) is being revised together with the Land Use Plan for the area covered by Tempelhof Airport. The resolution introducing amendment to the Land Use Plan / Landscape Programme was announced on 21 April 2008. Early public participation in the process was granted from 1 September to 6 Oc­ tober 2008, and public consultation was held from 15 June 2009 to 16 July 2009. Following closure of public consultation, the amended version toge­ ther with a report on public participation and a review weighing up the re­ sults was presented to the Berlin Senate and Berlin Parliament. The folder with the amended version is included in the appendix 4.09b. The following presents the contents of the four co-ordinated Programme Draft of the Amended Version of the Programme Plan for the Protection of Plans of the Berlin Landscape Programme including Nature Conservation Biotopes and Species (Status: Public (Status: Public Consultation of 15 June to 16 July 2009, see appendix Consultation, June 2009) 4.09a).

The Programme Plan for the Protection of Biotopes and Species iden­ tifies the cemeteries on Columbiadamm and the central open spaces of the airfield as “reservoirs of species / connecting biotopes” for the prioritised development of types of fields and meadows. The cemeteries on Berg­ mannstraße and Hermannstraße together with the Hasenheide Park are identified as “reservoirs of species / connecting biotopes” for the prioritised development of types of green land biotopes. The cemeteries on Berg­ mannstraße are also considered as important biotopes in their own right. The central area of the airfield terrain marked by a green line is designated Draft of the Amended Version of the Programme Plan for Ecosystems and as an area worthy of landscape protection. Along the railway tracks prio­ Environmental Protection (Status: Public ritised development for the connecting function for other kinds of species Consultation, June 2009) between Neukölln and Tempelhof has been given (orange line). The eastern area (central airfield open space, cemeteries on Columbia­ damm and Hermannstraße, Hasenheide Park) lies in the Priority Climate Protection Zone of the Programme Plan for Ecosystems and Environ­ mental Protection (Programmplan Naturhaushalt / Umweltschutz). Its specified development goals are: • To conserve climate-relevant open spaces. • To secure and improve the airflow.

• To avoid and offset sealed ground surfaces Draft of the Amended Version of the Pro­ gramme Plan for Recreation and Usage of Open Spaces (Status: Public Consultation, June 2009) Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 86

The airfield also lies within the Priority Pure Air Conservation Zone which encircles the inner city and which has the following development goals: • To reduce emissions. • To conserve open spaces / to increase the ratio of flora. • To protect sensitive uses against pollution. In the Programme Plan for Recreation and Usage of Open Spaces part of the airfield is grouped together with the Hasenheide Park and the neighbouring open spaces to the east and designated as a Green Area / Park Amenity“. In terms of the residential areas of building land as given in the Land Use Plan, it also put forward a need for their connectivity with far-reaching overarching green zones and the opening up of private and semi-public open spaces. The neighbouring residential areas to the north and east are identified among those in most urgent need of having improved distribution of open spaces. Comprehensive immediate measures need to be taken here for the opening up of public, semi-public and private spaces. These include increasing the range of their usages and improving their recreational qua­ lity as well as opening up existing free spaces and block concepts..

Figure 35: Distribution of Public Green Spaces near Residential Areas, Source: Berlin Envi - ronmental Atlas 06.05 June 2009

In the area of investigation around the former airport with the neighbouring areas of the districts of Tempelhof, Kreuzberg and Neukölln, an inventory of some 113 hectares of green spaces for the residential areas and sett­ lements was identified .. Green spaces close by housing settlements are Viktoriapark to the north-west and Hasenheide Park to the north of the former airport. A total need for some 295 hectares of green spaces in the immediate proximity of the residential and settlement areas was identified. Thus there is a lack of some 182 hectares of green in the area surrounding the former Tempelhof Airport. The residential neighbourhood around the Bergmannstraße has no green spaces, while the residential neighbour­ hoods around the Schillerpromenade adjoining to the east are only scantily supplied with them. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 87

Figure 36: Distribution of Public Green Spaces in Proximity to Residential Areas and Housing Settlements, Source: Senstadt IE1, Feb. 2008

The Programme Plan for Landscape Scenery presents the airfield as an urban transitional area with a mixed variety of uses. The Plan’s goals and measures include insertion of the airfield with ring of parks, garden allot­ ments and cemeteries as an element of the urban structure, and extension of the ring with new park amenities. As the focal point for its measures for the major open space of the airfield, the Plan identifies conservation and development of the key elements of the landscape scenery and the removal of damage to the landscape. The Platz der Luftbrücke is designated as a city square with outstanding impor­ tance for the urban structure. The Südstern’s function as a city square Draft of the Amended Version of the Programme Plan for Landscape Scenery should be revitalised. (Status: Public Consultation, June 2009) The Plan presents the adjoining cemeteries to the north and east along with the Hasenheide Park in the context of superordinated structural ele­ ments as typical landscapes or housing settlement green areas in terms of their open spaces, green areas and the variety of flora they display. Grassland, meadows and green fallow land in the major open spaces were identified as structural elements with an impact on the man-made and na­ tural landscape. Situated as it is within the inner city, Tempelhof Airport offers a unique vi­ sual experience of vistas of sweeping breadth and depth. At present such View from the South (Ring Line Railway) vistas are particularly apparent from the southerly direction (S-Bahn circle over the Airfield towards the City Centre line / motorway), from the neighbouring Oderstraße and to some extent from Columbiadamm. From Tempelhof airfield itself, viewers have breath-taking panoramic views in all directions. Prominent buildings rise from the immediate Berlin skyline while other prominent features are clearly discernible in the distance. The­ se include: • The church at Südstern and St John’s Basilica in the Lilienthalstraße • The Radar Tower and various other flight-safety facilities • The Water Tower on Fidicinistraße • The Sehitlik-Mosque with its dome and 34m high minaret on Columbiadamm • The Ullsteinhaus on Tempelhof Damm / corner of Ullsteinstraße in Tempelhof Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 88

• The Gasometer on Torgauer Straße in Schöneberg • The Television Tower on Alexanderplatz The General Urban Mitigation Plan (Gesamtstädtische Ausgleichskon­ zeption) supplements the Landscape Programme / Protection of Species Programme and includes Tempelhof Airport in the inner city mitigation area bounded by the Berlin S-Bahn circle line. Measures for inner city mitigation areas have implementation priority. 3.6.2 Garden Allotment Colonies The following chart shows garden allotment colonies bordering on the air­ field:

Area in No. of No Name Owner Tenant Status nach KEP* ha allotments

1 Am Flughafen BIMA/Bund none 2,1 99 uncertain

2 Columbia BIMA/Bund none 0,5 19 uncertain

Am Tempelhofer Bahn-Land­ 3 VIVICO 1,3 33 uncertain Berg wirtschaft Am Neuköllner Bundeseisenbahn­ Bahn-Land­ 4 0,7 23 uncertain Berg vermögen wirtschaft Bezirksver­ Protected till 2020 / 5 Odertal landeseigen/privat band Süden 0,8 26 uncertain (Neukölln)

*KEP = Development Plan for Garden Allotments (Kleingartenentwicklungsplan)

Figure 37: Development Plan for Garden Allotments (Kleingartenentwicklungsplan)

The “Am Flughafen“ (No. 1) garden allotment colony has 99 allotments on government-owned land. According to the Berlin Plan for Garden Allot­ ment Development (Status: January 2010) it is classified as a colony with uncertain status. The colony was established in 1946 at the same time the rainwater holding reservoir was built in the excavated soil. The “Columbia” (No. 2) garden allotment colony has 19 allotments and is also classified by the Berlin Plan as of uncertain status – i.e. with no secured long-term future. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 89

To the south between the airfield and the railway tracks the garden al­ lotment colonies of railway company employees (Eisenbahnlandwirtschaft Nos. 3 and 4) are located with a total of 56 allotments. The “Am Tempelhof Berg” colony can be accessed from Tempelhof Damm while the “Am Neu­ köllner Berg” colony can be reached from Oderstraße. The status of these two colonies is not protected and both could be served with immediate notice of termination. To the west the 14 allotments of the “Oderta” garden allotment colony (No. 5) on private land are deemed by the Berlin Plan as “highly secure”; the 12 allotments to the east on state-owned land are under a protection order until 2020 (Berlin Garden Allotment Development Plan, Status: Ja­ nuary 2010). To secure the future of the garden allotments as a permanent garden allotment colony, the preliminary resolution for B-Plan XIV-225 was adopted on 24 February 1987. Since the early public consultation from 20 November 1989 to 20 December 1989, the procedure has been put on ice. 3.6.3 Cemeteries and Graveyards The Berlin Cemeteries and Graveyards Act (Berliner Friedhofsgesetz) states that a Cemeteries Development Plan (Friedhofsentwicklungsplan - FEP) is to be drawn up that should identify existing distribution of cemete­ ry space and intended placement of new cemeteries close by residenti­ al districts as well as the requisite development measures. Planning that crosses borough boundaries and takes account of both state-owned and denominational cemeteries should enable co-ordinated, need-oriented re­ duction of the burial ground needed without substantially impinging on the unique character of the Berlin cemetery landscape in its substantive ele­ ments. The following figures show the development perspectives for the designa­ ted Berlin cemeteries.

Figure 38: Cemeteries Development Plan, Source: Senate Department for Urban Develop - ment

Of particular import for the airfield are the cemeteries in its immediate vi­ cinity: the Garrison cemetery on Columbiadamm (No. 5029) and to the east the St. Thomas Friedhof (5157), Neuer St. Jacobi-Friedhof (5155) and Jerusalems- und Neue Kirche Friedhof (5163). Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 90

A change of use is planned for the western part of the St. Thomas Fried­ hof (5157) which touches on the airfield. It should become a natural park area as a contingency measure in connection with the building of federal motorway BAB 100. Contrary to the intentions expressed in the Cemetery Development Plan, the Garnisonsfriedhof on Columbiadamm (No. 5029) should not be turned into a cemetery parkscape, but rather continue to be used in its main func­ tion as a place for burials.

The recessed area marked in white on Columbiadamm marks the area of the Muslim cemete­ ry attached to the Sehitlik Mosque. Figure 39: Garnisonsfriedhof Columbiadamm / Concept 2008, Source: Senate Department for Urban Development, Cemetery Development Plan

3.6.4 Topography, Soil, Pollution Legacy The area is located on the northern edge of the Teltow moraine plateau which dips down into the glacial valley of the river Spree and lies some 7-10 metres higher than the northern neighbouring cityscape. On the Co­ lumbiadamm and Tempelhof Damm the ground level dips by around 1.5 to 2.0 metres. There is another noticeable fall in the ground level on the eastern edge of the airfield along Oderstraße resulting from the sunken position of the former playing fields on the site (see appendix 4.08k).

Urstromtal

Teltow-Hochfläche

Figure 40: Geological Map Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 91

Given the range of uses to which it has been subjected, the ground soil of Tempelhof Field contains a disproportionately high level of anthropogenic (man-made) substances. There is a preponderance of surfaces develo­ ped from calciferous backfills and coverings (cambisols) or from sandy non-calciferous backfills (regosols). In the vicinity of the former airport the ground with sealed or semi-sealed surfaces (leptosols) are the areas most heavily impregnated with man-made deposits. The ground between the two runways is relatively “close to nature”, displaying fewer deposits (para­ cambisol).

Figure 41: Extract from Environmental Atlas 01.01 “Soil Associations”

The extremely high to moderately high level of aggregation is typical for the ground soil of Tempelhof Airport. Nearly all ground units are mixed with building rubble.

Figure 42: Extract from Environmental Atlas 01.13 “Planning Notes for Soil Protection“

In terms of soil protection, the Planning Notes for Soil Protection of the Ber­ lin Environmental Atlas 01.13 classify the inner meadow surfaces as “Soils Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 92

Deserving Special Protection” (Priority 2). The area to the south-west has “Soils Deserving Exceptional Protection“ (Priority 1) Pollution Legacy The Berlin Soil Pollution Register (Bodenbelastungskataster Berlin) clas­ sifies the entire surface of Tempelhof Airport as being liable to residual pollution. There is a particularly strong suspicion of deposits of man-made material in the areas around the manoeuvring field and the two runways. Furthermore, to level the ground large amounts of material were deposited on the south-east periphery. This led there to an approx 20m high sloping side between the airport and the neighbouring area. A further legacy landfill is the filling of the Franzosenpfuhl (French Pond - Schlangenpfuhl) on the easterly edge. Other sites of residual pollution include the heating station with its under­ ground storage tanks and the airport petrol station on Columbiadamm, the aeroplane parking areas in front of the main building with the neighbouring area to the east, the fuel storage tank on Tempelhof Damm, the sites of the former artillery range, an automobile workshop, a scrap yard, an incinerati­ on plant in the south-east and the site of the old airport itself. Thus far no surveys have been conducted on the degree of danger repre­ sented by the pollution legacy. An exploratory survey of residual pollution is currently being conducted for land owned by the State of Berlin (excluding land formerly owned by the federal government). The results of the survey should be published some time in 2010. Nor have any results of the comprehensive survey of residue from the war yet been published. However, no relevant risk potential is expected in this respect.

Figure 43: Pollution Legacy, Source: Topos Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 93

In the vicinity of the old airport, pollution of the groundwater with benzol has been identified. Detailed surveys are now underway with a view to limiting damage to the groundwater (measurement tubes in the north-ea­ stern section of the old airport site). Further detailed studies are now in preparation and their results should be published by the end of 2010. The groundwater measuring tubes are expected to remain in place on the site for the next few years, and according to information from the Tempelhof­ Schöneberg Environmental Office need to be protected against vandalism and improper forms of use. As it is not known how the site of the old airport was cleared at the time (see also Figure 16), it is expected that further fragments or foundations of buildings are still lodged in the earth. It can also be assumed with some confidence that the storage tanks were not removed at that time but simply covered over with rubble. In terms of greening measures, intensive ground improvement measures are called for due to the high level of deposits and in some areas highly composite nature of the soil. 3.6.5 Groundwater The groundwater level lies between 10-20 metres beneath the surface; in some smaller areas to the north and east, it even reaches a depth of bet­ ween 20-40 metres. The Environmental Atlas rates its vulnerability to pol­ lution as “medium”, i.e. the groundwater is relatively well protected against contamination from pollutants. The bedrock seepage factor is very low. 3.6.6 Climate The Environmental Atlas classifies the open spaces of Tempelhof Airport as a Cold Air Producing Area with a high potential. With their central lo­ cation in the inner city area, their wide area coverage and lack of building and flora structures, they have a mitigation effect on the housing areas which are more climatically stressed and highly built-up. However, the air exchange with periphery areas – the penetration of cooler masses of air into built-up areas – depends on how closely the buildings on the periphery are built together. The non-sealed surfaces of the airport form a single consistent entity with the neighbouring green spaces in the north (cemeteries, Sommerbad open-air swimming pool and Hasenheide Park) and in the east (cemete­ ries, and the Werner Seelenbinder Sportpark) which is designated by the Landscape Programme as a Climate Protection Priority Area. This aggre­ gation has a particularly marked effect on the city climate and an equally marked sensitivity to any intensification in its forms of usage.

Figure 44: An Island of Cold Air – Night-Time Surface Temperatures, Source: Berlin Envi - ronmental Atlas (Map 04.06.1 Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 94

The airport terrain functions as an island of cold air – as does Hasen¬heide Park – vis-à-vis the overheated districts of Tempelhof, Kreuzberg and Neu­ kölln. During the day temperatures warm up considerably to fall drastically during the night as they do in the surrounding countryside which results in the intensive exchange of air mentioned above. The high day-time ampli­ tude is reduced in the direction of the densely built-up areas. The following map 04.11.2 from the Environmental Atlas “Planning Notes for the City Climate” clearly shows the important role played by Tempelhof Field in terms of regulating the urban climate for the neighbouring urban settlements in its association with the parks close by to the north (Ha­ senheide), the cemeteries and other open spaces (Columbiabad open-air swimming pool, garden allotments). The main impact area covered by the cold air producing areas on Tempelhof Field covers in particular the neigh­ bouring housing settlements around Bergmannstraße to the north – which are already positively affected by the cemeteries close by in the east. It is therefore important here to avoid any barriers which might impede the air flow and any further close construction.

Figure 45: Planning Notes on City Climate, Source: Berlin Environmental Atlas (Map 04.11.2)

Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 95

To the west of the airfield, the “Aviators’ Settlement” with its open estate structure and highly greened streets is seen as a climatically favourable settlement area that supports the flow of cold air. On the other hand, the neighbouring area around the Schillerpromenade to the east rates as one of the settlement areas with a low to middling biocli­ matic load. Here it is recommendable to improve the ventilation lanes, in­ crease the ratio of greened surfaces and maintain all existing open spaces. In connection with the amendment procedure to the Land Use Plan (see Sec. 3.5.1), a climatic ecological expertise was commissioned to investi­ gate in three different scenarios what impact construction on the periphery of airfield would have in terms of the climatic role played by the cold air producing area on the neighbouring housing settlements (see appendix 4.08b). One of the results of the study showed that, compared to the actual pre­ sent status, planned peripheral construction on Tempelhof Field would lead to a lowering of the climatic-ecological mitigation effect. In the scena­ rios studied, however, such effects were merely confined to a small local area. Compared to the presently valid Land Use Plan, the intensity of the lowered mitigation effects in the scenarios “Modified Version of Land Use Plan” and concept for “The Future of Tempelhof Field” is significantly lower – which is mainly due to the fact that these scenarios deploy less extensive areas of built-up land. At the same time special emphasis is placed on the leading function played by the Hasenheide Park area. A further climatological expertise was carried out especially for the airport, a summary of whose results will now be presented (see also Appendix 4.08a). The aim of the expertise on “The City Climate for the Landscape Planning Competition for the Tempelhof Park Landscape” was to deliver a set of cli­ matic ecological master data that would enable evaluation of the protected commodities of climate and air within the planning process. The main focal point of the expertise was on how the cold air system would be influenced by modification of the structure of open spaces – in particular by woods and shrubbery spaces. The aim was intended to improve the climatic eco­ logical conditions in the open spaces themselves and to maintain delivery of cold/cool air ventilation lanes in the neighbouring housing settlements. To identify such interdependencies, a meteorological base of a low-ex­ change summer high-pressure weather situation was taken of the type frequently associated with above-average heat loads in settlement areas and detriments to air hygiene. The expertise presents the results of climate modelling using the modified version of the Land Use Plan as the start-out scenario and four further sce­ narios. The basic scenario was given by the modified version of the Land Use Plan which, in terms of its building structure, is broadly similar to that of the concept for “The Future of Tempelhof Field”. In terms of the ratio of shrubbery surface on the central Tempelhof Field, the planning scenarios were subdivided into minimum and maximum va­ riants which were further differentiated by the placing of different ratios of shrubbery areas in the cold air lanes. For the assessment of the climatic impact of planning, the variants were evaluated both in terms of their re­ gional impact on neighbouring settlement areas and in terms of their local impact on the airfield area itself. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 96

Figure 46: Investigation Procedure and Scenarios of the Expertise on City Climate, Source: GeoNet 2009

The scenarios were assessed on the criteria “Near Ground Temperature Field“; “Autochthonous Wind Field” and “Cold Air Mass Flow”. Regional Impact On the whole, regional assessment for the neighbouring settlement districts showed mixed results which may be ascribed to the complex nature of the air flows in the vicinity of Tempelhof Field. The minimal scenario with 30% of wooded space, however, consistently proved to be the variant with the lowest impact intensity. Considering the marginal range of the lowered effects in the respective scenarios, the climatic ecological impact on the three neighbouring settlement areas may be considered as negligible. Local Impact Statements on the local impact of the three planning scenarios are based on the one hand on the construction area envisaged by the start-out sce­ nario, and on the other on the non-developed open area of Tempelhof Field. Evaluation clearly reveals that planning has an impact that varies from built-up area to built-up area. All scenarios show reductions and in­ creases in the cold air mass flow, whereby for the Columbia settlement and the Tempelhof built-up areas a reduction of up to minus 24.4 percentage points was recorded. The variance range of the mass flow within the other built-up areas was of the order of minus 8.1 to plus 9.7 percentage points. On the other hand, surface-near air temperatures show a consistently lo­ wer range of variance of between minus 0.5 to plus 2.0 percentage points which are slightly higher in the maximum scenarios than the minimum ones. If the bio-climatic conditions are applied to the planned construction areas, as might be expected the minimal variants of the scenarios investigated tend to show the smallest amount of impact. The parameters of the cold air mass flow show that the climatic ecological impact of the 60% maximum scenario has the strongest impact on the open non-developed part of Tempelhof Field. The percentage of groups of trees which is higher than in other scenarios, in association with 60% wooded coverage of the cold air lanes results in a reduction of the cold air mass flow over Tempelhof Field of up to minus 22.8 percentage points compared to the base scenario. From this point variance in the mass flow gradually reduces to minus 16.1 percentage points in the 30% minimal scenario. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 97

However, flow speeds are less markedly affected than mass flows. The 60% minimal scenario shows the greatest reduction with minus 4.1 per­ centage points. Increase in air temperature is around 2 percentage points in the minimal scenario and 4 percentage points in the maximum. Compared to the base scenario, the adopted endowment of Tempelhof Field with wooded surfaces and shrubbery in the cold air lanes leads to a reduction of the climatic ecological mitigation effect in the immediate local vicinity. In the scenarios investigated such effects only impact on a small local area. Furthermore, it can be noted that the intensity of impairment of the climate parameters is lower in the minimal scenarios. The investigations clearly show that conductor paths included in the base scenario play a vital role in the local cold air system and connect up Tem­ pelhof Field with the neighbouring built-up areas and green spaces. 3.6.7 Protection of Biotopes and Species The open spaces of the airfield play an important role in the protection of biotopes and species. With its vast size and the open, warm dry environ­ ment it offers, Tempelhof Field is immense importance for Berlin in terms of the conservation of the flora and fauna which have made it their habitat. Besides endangered meadow and dry grassland plants, the area also har­ bours a rich diversity of fauna with its (breeding) open countryside birds and range of light and warmth loving invertebrates. Thus the area has the function of a refuge for such kinds of symbiotic communities. Certain bio­ topes and the species which live there come under the direct protection of Federal and Berlin nature protection laws. Certain types of species designated as needing exceptional or special pro­ tection (§ 10 II No. 10, 11 Federal Nature Protection Act - BNatSchG) have been identified on the Tempelhof Field. Special protection is also afforded to all identified native species of birds by the European Directive on the conservation of wild birds (Directive 79/409/ECC). The Federal Protected Species Ordinance (BArtSchV) and the EU Regulation (No. 338/97) also provide special protection for corn buntings and tawny pipits as well as various kinds of non-native species of birds (common buzzards, kestrels, ortolans, goshawks, northern long-eared owls and short-eared owls). All classified native species of bumblebee and bee also enjoy special protec­ tion. Consideration must be paid to all species under exceptional or special pro­ tection when planning the open spaces or evolving concepts for their future use. The planned park amenity on Tempelhof Field could have a detrimen­ tal effect on the protected species (pressure of use, planting, modelling). For instance, a potential for conflict could well exist in terms of the local population of skylarks which enjoy special protection under the EU Birds Directive (Council Directive 79/409/ECC on the conservation of wild birds, 2 April 1979) whose habitat on the arena of the former airport is home to about 25% of the total Berlin population. The provisions of the Landscape Programme’s Programme Plan for Pro­ tection of Biotopes and Species aim to conserve and develop the existence and habitats of valuable species of meadow and field flora and fauna for meadows (see Sec. 3.6.1). Linkage with the aggregation of biotopes along the railway tracks enables green spaces to be networked with adjoining open spaces and ensures an exchange of species with other populations. The existing structure of biotopes also aids in securing biological diversity. By designating the central open spaces as landscape-protection areas, valuable wild grassland biotopes and tall oatgrass meadows could be pre­ served and disruption avoided to the species of animals and plants which have made it their habitat. The presentations of the Programme Plan for Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 98 the Protection of Biotopes and Species and the development goals and measures they formulate thus have a positive effect both on the protected flora and fauna and on the biodiversity.

Dark green = protected tall oatgrass meadow biotopes Light green = protected sandy dry grassland biotopes Figure 47: Protected Biotopes, Source: Seebauer et al. 200

In terms of Berlin conditions, the area provides an excellent breeding ground for bird species whose natural habitat is the open countryside. Par­ ticularly noteworthy in this respect is the population of skylarks that with 95 breeding pairs (as of 2005) boasts a thriving community whilst numbers continue to decline across the whole of European agricultural land (see the blue dots in the figure below). Particular consideration should be given to the needs of the skylark population, as this species enjoys special protec­ tion under European law. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 99

Particularly valuable habitats are marked in dark blue Figure 48: Avifauna, Source: Seebauer et al. 2005

Another highly endangered species is the tawny pipit which may be found in the western area close by Tempelhof Damm (see also Figure 48, the red lozenge). The most important area for endangered species - especially for corn buntings, whinchats and wheatears – is the southern section of the first airport building (see Figure 46, the dark blue area in the north of the airfield). The inventory of flora in the area of the old airport, including the trees and shrubs, should be conserved so that it can continue to function as a habitat for these species. With respect to the skylark, the following habitat requirements have been formulated: • Open space with no trees (except a few low-lying shrubs), no intrusi­ ons by people and dogs, extensively used green land. • Distance of at least 60 – 120m to rows of trees and similar vertical structures. • Distance of at least 120m to buildings. • Estimated distance of at least 25m to chain link fence with people / dogs behind it. The skylark is deemed a target species. Conservation of its population could also secure the habitats of tawny pipits, yellow wagtails, whinchats, corn buntings and wheatears. The invaluable biotopes require professional, long-term care if their com­ munities of species are to be maintained and developed. For instance, an enhancement of the quality of the habitat for birds can be achieved if all the grass areas are not mown at the same time. A variety of small areas and creation of open spaces would enhance their structural diversity. See the Appendix 4.08g-j for more information on the role played by the airfield in terms of protection of biotopes and species. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 100

Concepts for the Protection of Biotopes and Species Schematic presentation of the Tempelhof Field by Seebauer et al. (2005) defines a core zone covering some 200 hectares for the protection of bio­ topes and species with particularly outstanding biotope structures and ha­ bitats embedded in the focal area.

Figure 49: Core Zone for the Protection of Biotopes and Species, Source: Seebauer et al. 2005

In contrast to this, the decorative lawns on the airfield edges with their scant number of species and the sealed access areas could be opened up to more intensive types of use. 3.6.8 Sealed Surfaces and Buildings Consistent with its former use as an airport, the major part of sealed sur­ faces consist of in-situ concrete, asphalt, concrete slabs and concrete pa­ ving. Individual areas will be described in the following (mainly quoted from the Feasibility Study by TOPOS / Ökologie & Planung, 2007, see Appendix 4.06a).

Figure 50: Surfaces, Source: TOPOS / Ökologie & Planung, 2007 Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 101

The Circular Path The former patrol way encircles the whole outer edge of the airfield by the perimeter fence. The circular path served for airfield inspection and securi­ ty. It mainly consists of asphalt. Its surface is mainly in good condition with the exception of a couple of small sections (crossing over rail tracks in the south-west, area with former fixtures / barriers near the picnic area in the north). There is only one section of in-situ concrete (on the south side in the area of the former incineration plant) whose surface is highly weather­ beaten and is marked by larger damaged areas. The Apron in front of the Airport Building The area adjoining the airport building to the east consists of a large sur­ face of in-situ concrete. The area is composed of individual 5 x 5 metre fields, all in a relatively good condition. The two Runways The runways are made of asphalt. The areas at the beginning and end of the runways (waiting / queuing area) are of in-situ concrete. The runway to the south is approx. 2.2km long and approx 55m wide; the runway to the north is 2.1km long and approx 43m wide. The surface of the southern runway is in a better condition as it was refur­ bished in 1996. At the start of the runways the sides have lights embedded in the surface. To either side of them are navigation lights. The Taxiways Planes reached the runways over taxiways, broad roadways of in-situ con­ crete with one section of concrete slabs. Taxiways form a circular roadway around the airfield and connect with the two runways on the eastern and western sides. On the north and south sides the surface of in-situ concrete is generally in good condition. The surface of an older section of the taxiway to the east is badly decomposed and in a very poor condition. Taxi Aprons On the south side of the airfield on the taxiway are the former taxi aprons (former warm-up spots) with a surface of small concrete slabs measuring 40 x 40cm. The concrete slabs are badly decomposed or dislocated and some parts of the surface are so heavily covered with weeds, they can hardly be recognised as sealed surfaces. Other Paths and Roadways A road runs between the two runways and connects to the flight security facilities. It consists of concrete paving in good condition. The site of the former airport building and artillery range are accessed by an asphalt road in good condition. The access way to the east of the for­ mer airport building consists of a covering layer of weather-beaten asphalt which is in very poor condition in its eastern and north-eastern sections. Only relics of the road from the former airport building to the north con­ necting to Lilienthalstraße can still be seen (section between the artillery range and the taxiway). The northern section connecting to the picnic area is badly weather-beaten and can now hardly be used. The only north-south connection is a 4m wide path that runs from the air­ port buildings to the two runways and the near-by flight security building. Its northern section is of asphalt while the section between the two run­ ways is of concrete paving. All its surfaces are in good condition. The last section of the way connecting to the southerly taxiway is a compact grass track with no base layer. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 102

Figure 51: Condition of the Surfaces, Source: TOPOS / Ökologie & Planung, 2007

Sports Surfaces On the northern edge of the airfield crossing over to Columbiadamm is a large grass playing field for baseball. Its grass is in relatively good condi­ tion. The majority of the other extant sport fields have surfaces of rubber granulate. The basketball court on the western edge of the picnic area could be used again but the tennis court adjoining to the west would first need complete renovation. The tennis court adjoining to the north crossing over to Columbiadamm is so badly weather-damaged that it needs to be removed. On 4 October 2009 TIB (Turngemeinde in Berlin 1884), Berlin’s oldest sports association, located on Columbiadamm, assumed control of all the above-mentioned open air sports facilities on the terrain of the former Ber­ lin-Tempelhof Airport. Buildings and Structures The figure below shows the buildings and other structures situated on the airfield. These include various structural works which remained in use fol­ lowing closure of airport operations like the buildings of the German Me­ teorological Office, the Radar Tower of the Federal Armed Forces (Bun­ deswehr) and the buildings of German Aviation Security (DFS) and Berlin Radio. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 103

Figure 52: Atlas of Buildings, Source: TOPOS / Ökologie & Planung, 2007

For the Key see the Atlas of Buildings in the Appendix 4.06f A detailed description of the inventory of buildings (Status: August 2008) is given in the Atlas of Buildings (Gebäudeatlas) in the Appendix 4.06f. 3.6.9 Technical Infrastructure The former airport terrain possesses its own infrastructure network – in terms of water, heat and power – and is also connected to the urban tech­ nical infrastructure network. Heating for the buildings on the airfield terrain is now supplied by a district heating station. Investment was made in a new boiler plant but the heating pipes are in need of maintenance. The district heating station serves ex­ clusively for the production of heat and is fired by gas. Four boilers have an overall output of 28 megawatts (MW) of thermal energy in the form of steam. The airport power supply is connected to the Vattenfall grid. A lead cable of 110 kV coming from the north of Columbiadamm is fed into the airport network. Medium-pressure gas pipes run over Friesenstraße to Columbiadamm (for the energy supply for the district heating station). A further medium-pres­ sure pipe runs through Hasenheide to the Sommerbad open air swimming pool in Neukölln. Rainwater is channelled through a circular system of pipes into a rainwater storage reservoir to the north of Columbiadamm that has an interim sto­ rage capacity for around 10,000m³ of rainwater. Relocation of the rainwater storage reservoir onto Tempelhof Field would also retain development opportunities along Lilienthalstraße. The frame­ work conditions for relocation were investigated by a water management study (see Appendix 4.08e). A suitable site for the new infiltration basin, also in terms of the layout of pipe system, has been identified in the nort­ hern area of the park immediately on the ring between the airport apron and the future Columbia district. It is estimated to cover some 10,400m² of ground. For integration in the park landscape, any kind of shape and various differently sloping forms of embankment are feasible. Furthermo­ re, the reservoir could be subdivided into a variety of different levels with Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 104 graduated frequency of use. The least used basin could be used as a sun­ bathing area or a play area or for similar such uses. Considering the fact that the rainwater from the future relatively clean roof and apron area of the former airport is of a finer quality than the street waste water coming from Columbiadamm and the other public streets, one alternative would be to divide the reservoir into two separate basins: Basin 1: Infiltration basin for collection of street waste water Basin 2: A combination of storage and infiltration basin for the coll­ ection of rainwater from the airport roof and apron areas as an open compact basin section or a large-scale cham­ ber construction work. At the present juncture, nothing specific can be said about the volume of water the basins might contain. The findings of the water management study, which also contain insights into how rainwater should be handled, are given in the Appendix 4.08e. 3.6.10 Energy One of the leading themes for the development of the former airfield is ef­ ficient use of resources – severance of urban development from negative environmental impact and reduction in size of the ecological footprint. The objective is an energy-neutral balance or even a positive energy balance for the future urban settlements and the existing housing stock. It is ex­ pected that the major part of requisite infrastructure will be located in the built-up areas themselves. In the context of the competition for the landscaping of the park, however, the question arises as to whether the free space can make its own contri­ bution – and what kind of contribution this might be – or whether the energy infrastructure from the neighbouring districts must be invoked to approach this end. At the same time the question arises as to what the 280 hectares of the Tempelhof park landscape (possibly in conjunction with neighbouring green spaces) could contribute to the production of energy. In considering this question, account should be taken of potential conflicts of usage for recreational purposes and for the protection of species. An expert report identified what forms of innovative energy production are feasible on Tempelhof Field. The following now presents an outline of its findings. First Considerations of Energy-related Development on Tempelhof Field Commissioned by the Senate Department for Urban Development and carried out by ARUP GmbH in 2009, the Expertise on Energy (Energie­ gutachten, see Appendix 4.08c) investigates the feasibility of an integrated energy strategy for the Masterplan for Tempelhof Field to ensure a CO2– neutral and positive energy power supply for Tempelhof Field. The Exper­ tise also showed what role the major central area with its planned use as park and recreational area could make to this end. The particular challenge lies in creating a design concept that integrates energy modules (power generation and storage units) and their specific requirements with the needs and requirements of other forms of usage (such as economically viable cultivation of biomass or recreational uses). Starting from the exigency that the primary purpose of the planned park is recreational means that any technical energy-related functions will have to be subordinate to other forms of use. This factor must be considered when integrating the park into an overall energy strategy. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 105

Successful implementation of an integrated energy strategy also depends on other factors extraneous to Tempelhof Field itself. For instance, it is conceivable that bio waste from the surrounding area together with grass cuttings from the green park on Tempelhof Field could be turned into bio­ gas that would be immediately used to fire a combined heat and power plant. An integrated energy concept could consist of the following elements: • A combined heat and power plant (Blockheizkraftwerk BHKW) with top of the range boilers (conversion of heating station) • A local heating network • A local cooling network • A heat storage system • A cold storage system with closed-circuit cooling • Photovoltaic panels on (all) roof surfaces With a gross floor area of just under 300,000m² and its unprecedentedly huge dimensions, the historically listed airport building and its future usage and expected power consumption will play a major role in the develop­ ment of an integrated energy strategy. It is currently supplied with heat from a central heating station located to the north of the airfield. Integrating the present existing infrastructure in a Conversion and Remodelling Plan seems an obvious move. For instance, the heating station could be remo­ delled into a biogas-fired combined heating and power station (BHKW). In an initial stage the combined heat and power station might only produce energy for the extant airport building. Further modular expansion would be incrementally tailored to the development of the airfield. For the develop­ ment of the local heating and cooling network only one main track in line with development of the airfield would need to be built. Stub lines could then be set when specific building measures are envisaged. Under the airfield ground at a depth of about 50m there is an aquiferous layer which would be suitable as a temperature storage system for cooling buildings. At a depth of approx. 300m there is a further “aquifer“ which could be used as a heat storage system for interim storage of surplus en­ ergy not needed at the time generated by the combined heat and power station. Solar modules could be fitted to all existing and new roof surfaces. The main airport building alone offers around 65,000 m² of roof space for such purposes. In addition, it is also conceivable to put photovoltaic modules in the park as shade-producing elements if they were connected in an eco­ nomically viable manner to the grid or the end user. Based on the master data for the energy modules, investigation has been made of possible spatial integration of forms of energy use with the other forms of use, under the premises that the park creates an open public space for recreation and social activities and that support should be given to the networking of existing biotopes. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 106

3.7 Planning History and Preliminary Planning 3.7.1 Informal Planning and Conferences of Experts Even before the final decision was taken to build a new airport outside the Berlin city boundaries, proposals have already been developed for the follow-up use of Tempelhof Airport some of which dated back to the early 1990s. In 1994 the Senate Department for Urban Development and Environmen­ tal Protection commissioned the Düsseldorf firm of architects Hentrich Petschnigg & Partner HPP, and the Berlin landscape planners Seebauer, Wefers und Partner to draw up the first general expertise. Their expert re­ port defined the key framework conditions for subsequent future use of the airport and also put forward urban development proposals for it. Apart from showing the uncontested importance of the site both in terms of the role it played in the development of Berlin and as a milestone in the history of architecture, the report also underlined the positive effects the huge terrain of open space had on the urban climate, and in parti­ cular on the surrounding districts of Kreuzberg, Neukölln and Tempelhof. Furthermore, in this context the expertise also emphasised the potential recreational function of the site from which the densely built-up surroun­ ding districts with their scarcity of open spaces would undoubtedly benefit. The urban development concept proposed for the site was based on an elliptical compact belt of construction around its edges, organised around a central open space while also forming an extension to the shape of the main airport building.

Figure 53: Revision of the Urban Development Draft Proposal of 1994, Source: Hentrich- Petschnigg & Partner / Seebauer, Wefers und Partner

In the following year 1995 the Senate Department for Urban Development organised an international concept planning workshop with the main aim of reviewing the basic tenets of urban planning set out in the expertise from the previous year. The panel of experts reached the conclusion that the elliptical extension of the monumental figure of the main airport building, and thus the symbol of power and authority it represented, needed to be “broken up”, and should not be allowed to dominate neither formally nor atmospherically the urban and landscape spaces under development. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 107

Figure 54: Concepts from the 1995 Workshop, Source: Inge Voigt; Alsop&Strömer; Dieter Hofmann-Axthelm (from left to right.

The “Future Workshop Tempelhof 2020” gave further concrete form to the planning objectives of 1998. Its results also served as a basis of the Masterplan submitted in 1999 by the Swiss landscape architects Dieter Kienast and Günter Vogt in association with the Berlin architect Bernd Albers. The starting-point for the Masterplan was what was termed the “Wiesenmeer” (Meadow Sea), a central park bounded by a variety of town planning formations. A “ring boulevard” followed the shape of the former airfield and served not only to give access to the various built-up areas but also to relate them to one another. This master plan was initially the basis for the presentations of the Land Use Plan. The key draft components framing the Wiesenmeer are: • The historical listed complex of airport buildings with some 300,000m² gross floor space whose range of options for future use include leisure-time, technology development and knowledge transfer; • The “Flying Theme Park” with stand-alone buildings for office use on Tempelhof Damm, commercial entertainment and adventure pavilions in the various halls and a residential area; • The area running by the city motorway that should be mainly devoted to commercial uses; • The Sports Park adjoining the ring boulevard in the south-east consisting of indoor sports facilities and open air courts and playing fields, and integrating existing sports facilities into its concept; • The urban residential area neighbouring the Schillerpromenade in Neukölln to the west; and • The residential district planned between the new park and the Hasenheide which could, as one option, also be considered for sport and leisure-time uses. The elements giving structure to the park are the two runways and the clu­ ster of trees forming “an island in the Wiesenmeer” (old airport) along with the “Fliegerberg” and “Himmelsgarten”. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 108

Town Planning Concept with recreation Park in the West Draft Variant

Figure 55: Urban Development Plan by Kienast Vogt Partner / Prof. Bernd Albers, Source: Kienast Vogt Partner Prof. Bernd Albers

Figure 56: Urban Development Plan 2005, Revised Version; Source: Kienast Vogt Partner / Prof. Bernd Albers (amendments by the Senate Department for Urban Development 2005)

The Expert Conference (“Site Conference”) was held on 22 November 2004. In view of the approaching closure of Tempelhof Airport in just a few years, it was intended to elucidate in a timely manner the priority themes and structure of further planning for Tempelhof Airport as well as the inte­ rim and follow-up usages management of the airport. Its results showed that all previous proposals for subsequent use of the airport were based on a belt of construction along its perimeter areas. They also showed that the inventory of buildings on the site would need exten­ sive and costly conversion before they could be considered as suitable for subsequent civilian uses; and that the free space should be developed and qualified independently of whatever planning measures were adopted for construction on the perimeters. The proposal by Kienast/Vogt and Albers (1999) was revised and amended in 2005 by the Senate Department for Urban Development. In the period 2006 – 2008, the forthcoming closure of air traffic operations led to further site reviews and expert conferences whose main brief was to continue to search for and refine ideas about the forms of use Tempelhof Airfield should be put to. The Feasibility Study of December 2007, on the other hand, was mainly intended to evaluate its identified potential in terms of suitability for leisure- Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 109 time, recreational use of the airfield, against the backdrop of the opening of the airfield in spring 2010. Its findings concluded that Tempelhof Field – and in particular its northern, western and eastern sections – would need very few changes before it could be open up for the first recreational uses (see Expertise in Appendix 4.06a). The Feasibility Study analysed a variety of thematic issues related to the investigation area including accessibility, site preparation (transport and technical infrastructure), structure of open space (including existing recre­ ational facilities), opportunities for use of existing building structures and other types of infrastructure, the landscape scenery, and protection of bio­ topes and species. Furthermore, the Study also took account of all impair- ments and conflicts that impinge on use for recreational purposes such as noise emissions, residual pollution, elements of aviation safety as well as potential points of danger. This stock-taking of its actual status forms the basis on which the subsequent development process is built. In spring 2008 the Senate Department for Urban Development published its information brochure “The Future of Tempelhof Field” which presented an outline of the actual state of planning to a broad public.

Figure 57: “The Future of Tempelhof Field” – Planning Status as of Spring 2008, Source: Senate Department for Urban Development, March 2008

According to the brochure, five modules are planned for Tempelhof Field. One is the landscape of Tempelhof Park, then there are two modules for mixed use districts to the west and south of the airfield (services and housing on Tempelhof Damm, commercial usage to the south) and a fur­ ther two modules for more residential districts in the north and east. These last two include the Columbia district, an area in which innovative forms of housing should be realised including models for real estate de­ velopment groups and joint building ventures which should enable more different and mixed age demographic groups to own their own apartments in the inner city. The proposals are based on a district projection of over 1,500 residential units in which around 3,000 people could live. In 2007 and 2008 the Senate Department for Urban Development further increased its substantive and organisational activities preparing the way for the subsequent use of Tempelhof Airport. In this context, the Senate Department for Urban Development initiated a planning process known as “Tempelhof Freiheit“ (Tempelhof Freedom) in which development goals and paths are discussed and determined with broad public participation. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 110

Overview of the Events and Activities Organized Time / Date Event / Activity “Free Meetings” 18.05.2007 Free Meeting 1, “The View from the Outside” Kick-off event 06.10.2007 Free Meeting 2, “The View from the Inside” The public was granted access to the airfield and the airport buildings 21.11.2007 Free Meeting 3, A Town Hall Gathering Discussion of the findings of the Internet dialogue “Forums” Forum 1, “Leisure & Recreation” 11./12.02.2008 (see Appendix 4.04b) Discussion of the potential for possible uses for leisure and local recreational activities. Consider­ ation of the significance of the airfield in terms of ecology and urban climate Forum 2, ”The Airport Buildings” 18.04.2008 Presentation of historical development, situation as historical protected buildings, and opportuni­ ties for the main building. Discussion of the market situation and potential for real estate development Conferences 29./30.11.2007 Expert Conference 1 “Interim Usage” 29./30.05.2008 Expert Conference 2 “Opening Up” 13.02.2008 1st Meeting of the Expert Advisory Committee 24.04.2008 2nd Meeting of the Expert Advisory Committee 23.06.2008 3rd Meeting of the Expert Advisory Committee 28.10.2008 4th Meeting of the Expert Advisory Committee Other Activities Since May 2007 Exhibition Process-flanking exhibition with on-going supple­ ments November 2007 Online Dialogue on the Internet Participation of interested laypersons / Identifica­ tion of ideas (see Appendix 4.04c) December 2007 Feasibility Study on Recreational Use Identification of potential for leisure and recre­ ational uses (see Appendix 4.06a) June / July 2009 Public Survey for identification of requirements of use and proposals for the future park landscape (see 3.8 und Appendix 4.07b) October 2009 Public Participation with questionnaire, guided tours and “on the spot” info-exhibition (see 3.8 und Appendix 4.07a) July 2009 to IGA Application Process (see 3.7.3 und Appendix November 2009 4.05a+b)

Source: Compilation by the Senate Department for Urban Development Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 111

Apart from the organisation of “Free Meetings”, “Forums“ and Conferences / Workshops, since December 2007 attention has also been paid to deve­ loping the general principles for competitions and the holding of an Interna­ tional Building Exhibition (Internationale Bauausstellung IBA) on Tempel­ hof Field. In addition, topological studies on the character of the Park Ring were done which involved the commissioning of various expert reports. The Expert Advisory Committee consists of a panel of leading experts from administration, industry and science who provide support to the overall “Tempelhofer Freiheit” process. 3.7.2 The Competition for the Columbia District On 29 September 2008, the Senate Department for Urban Development launched a call for entries for the open two-stage competition of ideas on „Procedural Urban Development of Tempelhof Field – Columbia District”. The first open urban development – landscape planning competition of ideas “Procedural Urban Development of Tempelhof Field – Columbia District“ is embedded in a modular system that enables the stage-by-stage organisation of competitions for all districts and themes relating to the fu­ ture of Tempelhof Field. Its aim was to gather ideas for urban development and landscape plan- ning of the northern section of the former airfield along Columbiadamm. Architects, urban planners and landscape architects were particularly in­ vited to first consider how the areas of the former Tempelhof Airport could be intermeshed with the neighbouring southern area of the inner city on Kreuzberg and Neukölln side. Apart from formulating a final long-term end state, competitors were also asked to propose strategies how this end re­ sult could be achieved in a series of development stages. After a selection of 12 proposals was made in December 2008 from the 80 entries submitted, on 12 May 2009 a decision was made in the second stage of the competition. The jury decided for three submissions of equal merit: • Graft Architekten / Büro Kiefer Landschaftsarchitektur (Berlin) • Urban Essences Architektur / Lützow 7 Landschaftsarchitektur (Berlin) • chora architecture (London) / gross.max Landscape Architects (Edinburgh)

Figure 58: Columbia District Competition Awards: Graft/Kiefer, Urban Essences/Lützow 7, Chora/GROSS. MAX., Source: SenStadt 2009

The results of the competition of ideas form the basis for further evolution of various aspects of the competition brief. The work of the three award winners offers a spectrum within which answers to issues of procedural development, sustainability, urban development and open domains may be found. Of particular import for the evolution of the planning process is the linkage with the Kreuzberg and Neukölln settlement areas. This refers specifically to the neighbourhoods around Südstern and Bergmannstraße in Kreuz­ berg and the Schiller district in Neukölln. Maintaining the free exchange of Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 112 cold air with the adjoining areas is likewise of great importance. The com­ petition awards should also contribute to the realization of the first (interim) use of the airfield peripheral area. 3.7.3 Revised Version of the Masterplan 2009 / 2010 The Masterplan is currently being revised and amended. The content es­ sential for the competition procedure is given in Figures 25 and 29 (see 3.4.2). 3.7.4 International Building Exhibition (IBA) / International Garden Exhibition (IGA) Development opportunities and options for the staging of an International Building Exhibition are currently being assessed with respect to Tempelhof Field and its neighbouring areas (in particular Neukölln). Tempelhof Field itself and the adjoining Schiller neighbourhood in Neukölln should be en­ dowed with high-profile projects that turn them into the Berlin reference pointing the way to internationally significant forward-looking city develop­ ment. Further investigation areas are currently under discussion. The In­ ternational Building Exhibition could be organised by the State of Berlin by its own decision to do so. Following the positive decision of the Deutsche Bundesgartenschau-Ge­ sellschaft (German Horticultural Show Society) in November 2009, the International Garden Exhibition will be held in 2017 on the presentation grounds of the IBA Berlin. A Feasibility Study was completed (see Appen­ dix 4.05a+b) that formed the basis of Berlin’s tender to hold the IGA 2017. Analysis of the area revealed that the northern area of Tempelhof Field is best suited for the staging of a horticultural festival. The northern section has accordingly been designated as the core site for the IGA Berlin 2017. Even so, the whole of the Tempelhof Field park landscape shall be consi­ dered and developed as the setting and an integral part of the IGA Berlin 2017. A zoning plan used scenarios to present how the various stake hol­ ders would interact with one another and which surface areas they would require during the IGA Berlin 2017. The various types of uses network with and interpenetrate one another; of crucial importance here is the creation of a wide range of disparate neighbourhoods and the generation of syner­ gies between the cast of actors.

Figure 59: IGA-Konzept zur Machbarkeitsstudie 2009, Quelle: sinai Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 113

The Feasibility Study also examined subsections of land in terms of their permanent and temporary functions, underpinning its investigations with a catalogue of possible measures and their costs. When staging the horticultural show, it is vital that visitors be given a show field that is both atmospherically compact and rich in variations. Thus a major role will be given to the development and staging of the topographi­ cal sequence – entry / airport building – apron with temporary exhibitions and flower show in the hangar - link between Columbia District and Recre­ ation Area – Alter Hafen in the meadow landscape. In terms of the thematic issues it touches on, the IGA Garden Show is embedded in the superordinate thematic areas addressed by the IBA Buil­ ding Exhibition; these are “the resource-efficient city”; “the enterprising and proactive city”; and “the cooperative, integrative city” These thematic areas should be taken up by the IGA and presented to the broad array of IGA visitors in a vital and fascinating manner. At the same time the IGA should address and showcase the theme of “Internationality” in all its cultural, glo­ bal and - not least of all - floral implications. What is hoped for is that prepa­ ration and organisation of the IGA will also generate long-term impulses of benefit to Tempelhof Field, the surrounding areas and the whole of Berlin. All these matters and the whole staging of the horticultural show should be embedded in the narrative of a vibrant storyline. Visitors should be given the opportunity of a direct unfiltered experience of topics and knowledge through live viewing of projects, hands-on engagement and the chance to try out and experiment for themselves. 3.7.5 The Tempelhof Ideas Workshop The core objective of the Ideenwerkstatt (Ideas Workshop) is to develop a strategic plan of action for interim and subsequent use of Tempelhof Field. It was initiated in 2007 by the Senate Department for Urban Development building on a cooperative expertise procedure. The Senate Department for Urban Development is responsible for setting the agenda and supervision of the Workshop which consists of various planning offices in the fields of architecture, urban development and landscape architecture. In addition to this, communication experts are engaged in promoting the participation and empowerment of the citizens of Berlin in a public dialogue. The Ideas Workshop networks all areas of the planning and communication process around Tempelhof Feld. Inputs and results from the various sub processes are exchanged and harmonised with one another. „Team Ideenwerkstatt Tempelhof“ Conceived as an ideas generator to fuel the transformation process, the “Team Ideenwerkstatt Tempelhof” has also laid the substantive ground­ work for transformation. Patterned on the proposal for the Masterplan sub­ mitted by Albers / Kienast Vogt und Partner, the current development op­ portunities of the airfield were subject to a synchronous analysis in terms of the key thematic fields of organisation, pioneer and interim usage, and park development and investigation, and then integrated into a strategic plan of action. The result was an integrated concept of urban development that gave a clear outline to the Tempelhof development process in its key processes and project phases. Open Public Dialogue The work process of the Ideenwerkstatt was supervised by the “Tempelhof Field” project group managed by Department II of the Senate Department for Urban Development. Numerous series of events were organised in as­ sociation with the Ideenwerkstatt, including public information meetings, “Free Meetings”, tours of inspection of the airfield, exhibitions, lectures and Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 114 town hall meetings as well as forums addressing a specialist audience. For a deeper exploration of the thematic fields of “Pioneer and Interim Usage” and “Opening and Investigation”, two conferences of experts were orga­ nised. Integrated Urban Development through Pioneer and Interim Usage Given the moderate nature of the demand for residential and commercial premises on the Berlin real estate market, and the sheer size of the airfield awaiting development, the Ideenwerkstatt Tempelhof evolved a concept for integrated urban development that recognised the role pioneer and in­ terim forms of usage could play as generators and initiators of urban de­ velopment activities and used the leverage of such tools for development of the site. Activation of the site through pioneer usages and cultural initiatives is linked with long-term urban development – landscape architecture development plans. Integrated urban development in Tempelhof stands for intelligent growth which does not see urban development as structured accumulation of masses of buildings through waves of building measures but rather as an incremental densification of activities, programmes and networks that gradually manifest themselves in terms of buildings. Site development through pioneer and interim usage also involved desi­ gnation of four pioneer fields covering between 12 to 19 hectares as well as numerous individual locations. “Site Passports” were developed for the­ se pioneer fields designed to specify general conditions for development.

Figure 60: Pioneer Fields, Source: mbup, Studio UC, raumlaborberlin

For the Columbia district for instance, popular or social pioneer uses were considered in the fields of culture and sport (such as softball, beachball, cafés, clubs, theatre, youth projects, workshops, mobile shops, circus and art projects). The Dynamic Masterplan The dynamic Masterplan is an open and flexible planning tool that deploys pioneer uses, open space incentives and cultural initiatives to couple acti­ vation strategies with established urban planning and landscape planning Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 115 development plans.

Figure 61: The “Dynamic Masterplan” Planning Tool, Source: mbup, Studio UC, raumlabor- berlin

As it is structured in a series of time horizons (2009, 2010, 2017 und 2030), it can describe the successive development of an area. Marketing and em­ powerment criteria, competition results, housing stock analysis and secto­ ral specialist planning are all fed into the dynamic Masterplan which should be revised and updated on a regular basis.

3.8 Expectations of User Groups Public Participation: Online Dialogue Tempelhof Airport 2007 The process of public participation began back in 2007 with initiation of In­ ternet-based dialogue (see Appendix 4.07c). Over 68,000 citizens availed themselves of the information posted on the Internet of which some 2,500 sent their ideas, views and suggestions to the Senate Department for Ur­ ban Development. Even in this early phase, interest in the future of Tem­ pelhof Field was much greater than it had been for other processes of public consultation. The categories of use given below are based on eva­ luation of the key ideas submitted by participants in the first phase of the Online-Dialogue in summer 2007. The most frequent response to the Online Public Poll conducted in sum­ mer 2007 cited the future use of the airfield as a green space, playing field or open space, or as a public park, urban park, recreational park, nature park, landscape park, nature conservation area, recreational area or as agricultural land. The model of Central Park was frequently quoted and in this connection the important role played by the microclimate of Tempelhof Field was also emphasised. New types of housing, family-friendly estates or a new car-free city district – there is a huge range of possibilities for the wide open space in the middle of the city. Community or allotment gardens could also be created for local residents. The existing buildings would be an excellent address for innovative com­ panies or public agencies, hotels and cafes and restaurants. Some of the proposals from the Online Public Poll link such moves with an experi­ mental field for alternative sources of energy on the open domain. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 116

From football on the green meadow or special playing fields, golf courses, tennis courts, inline-skating tracks, or biking on the runways through to ice­ skating in a hangar ice rink or ice track – the list of possibilities revealed by the Online Dialogue for recreational and sports activities on Tempelhof Field is seemingly endless. As Tempelhof Airport stands as a symbol of aviation and the turbulent history of Berlin, proposals were also submitted for the establishment of aviation museums with special trips in vintage aircraft, museums dealing with the history of Berlin or an extensive memorial site commemorating the Airlift. Further proposals included use of the buildings but also the airfield by ar­ tists and sculptors, theatre companies, fashion designers and mu­ sicians as space for presenting their productions and art. There could also be space for social projects for young people and senior citizens, for a citizens’ centre (Bürgerzentrum), for East-West Understanding or for a central democratic assembly point. To use the area for festivals and large-scale public events would invol­ ve creation of grassed surfaces (like concert lawns), condensed areas or large-scale structures (such as amphitheatres or drive-in cinemas). The people who submitted such proposals in the first online phase of the Public Dialogue were thinking of sporting events, concerts, Christopher Street Day (Gay Pride) or fairgrounds. A combination of a fixed area and a leisure park along the lines of Tivoli Park in Copenhagen also seems conceivable. The history of the site makes it an appropriate place for aeronautic re­ search while the fields of energy generation and environmental enterprise are also of high topical interest for the people submitting ideas in the first Online Public Poll. Proposals were received for a campus university, a cen­ tral institute of adult education (Volkshochschule), an education centre hub (Bildungsluftkreuz) for children and young people or for the amalgamation on the site of all the main public libraries in Berlin. The decision in favour of the major Berlin Brandenburg International air­ port means that the inner city Tempelhof Airport must be closed. This measure is not without its critics. The first phase of the Dialogue contai­ ned proposals for its continued existence as an airport for business flights or scheduled flights or as a private airport. Alternative types of air flight like zeppelins, balloons and gliders also came into consideration. In terms of the specific suggestions made during the Online Dialogue, the following two ideas represent the broadest consensus of opinion. The pro­ posal to maintain the existing baseball and softball fields received on ba­ lance the highest consensus. In the explanations given for this proposal, people often pointed out that this would be a fitting thing to do if only in commemoration of the GIs formerly stationed on the airfield pursuing their national sport in the shadow of the “Candy Bombers”. Reuse of the fields could begin immediately and people driving by in their cars on Columbia­ damm would get their first inkling that one area at least would soon be filled with life. In second place came an “adventure playground for young people“: This idea could be realised in a sub area of the cultural and sports domain of Tempelhof Field and appears to fit in with the comprehensive overall struc­ ture of the other proposals. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 117

Representative Survey “Tempelhof Airport 2009” Building on the public opinion poll of 2007, a representative survey of public opinion was conducted in 2009 (see Appendix 4.07b). In order to ensure the broadest possible demographic outreach, a written form of survey was selected. 6,000 questionnaires were sent out to households in a catchment area of approx. 1.5km around Tempelhof Field and a further 1,000 questi­ onnaires were distributed across Berlin. To reach people with migrant backgrounds who, judging by past expe­ rience, seldom take part in such surveys, the survey campaign additionally included work with 17 moderated groups (focus groups of 138 participants of whom approx. 60% came from migrant backgrounds). Participants were contacted via associations, religious communities or with the help of Neighbourhood Management (Quartiersmanagement). Ancillary measures supporting local public participation included tours of the airfield by bus or on foot, an info-exhibition, questionnaires, roundtable discussions with plans that could be coloured, provision of child care and a non-representative survey by telephone (TED-Umfrage). Social Structure of the Respondent Households The catchment area of the planning field is characterised by an above- average proportion of non-German residents, particularly in Kreuzberg and Neukölln. The proportion of non-German respondents in the catchment area (16.4% versus 14.0% for the whole of Berlin) is also similarly high when compared to respondents from across Berlin (1.5%). Just under 25% of respondent households in the catchment area were families with children under 18. In comparison to the size of this catego­ ry among Berlin-wide respondents (14.5% versus 17.0% for the whole of Berlin), this figure is also way above average. Similarly the age structure of respondents in the catchment area with an average age of 42 years is clearly younger than that of the Berlin-wide respondent group with its average age of 60. In general the educational level of respondents is very high. 44.7% of respondents in the catchment area and 47.8% of the Berlin­ wide respondent group have a university or college (Fachhochschule) de­ gree (18.3% for the whole of Berlin). Likewise the attachment of respondents in the catchment area to their neighbourhoods is also comparatively high. The average length of domic­ ile in the three sub areas only shows slight variation and is between 12 to 17 years. The respondent focus groups were generally composed of migrants (main­ ly of Arab and Turkish origins) along with families, residents, “Social City” neighbourhood advisory committees, amateur sportspersons (of mixed age and ethnicity) and senior citizens Respondent Usage Patterns in Terms of Parks and Green Spaces Over half of respondents in the catchment area stated in the questionnaire that they used the parks or green spaces located in their immediate vici­ nity (reachable in under ten minutes) daily or several times a week. Dif­ ferentiated according to the type of park or green space, the Berlin-wide respondent group showed a clear preference for parks in their local vicinity. The respondents in the catchment area give four main reasons for visiting parks or green spaces: “to take a walk” (69.5%), “to relax, catch the sun, read, lie on a lawn” (50.9%), “to observe/enjoy nature” (48.9%) and “to meet up with friends” (40.9%). The “Motivation Profile” of the Berlin-wide respondents is even clearer and dominated in the main by “taking a walk” (73.6%) and “observing/enjoying nature” (49.6%). Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 118

Given the densely built-up nature of the residential districts in its immedi­ ate vicinity, Tempelhof Field is of outstanding importance in terms of local recreational opportunities. A total of 84% of all respondents in the catch­ ment area view the future Park Landscape as important for their leisure and recreation. Special importance is given to the easy reach ability of the future park. Proposals for Connecting Footpaths Of the 13 focus groups, 9 of them would like to see the following connec­ ting footpaths: • A direct connection (cycle path) from Neukölln to the Tempelhof S- and U-Bahn station • An east-west connection to the Paradestraße U-Bahn station (involving retention of the runways) • Schillerpromenade – Tempelhof S- and U-Bahn station • Schillerpromenade – Airport main building • Lilienthalstraße – Tempelhof S- and U-Bahn station • Tempelhof S- and U-Bahn station – Columbiabad • Bergmannstraße district – Schillerpromenade • Bergmannstraße district – Tempelhof S- and U-Bahn station • Bergmannstraße district – Werner-Seelenbinder-Sportpark • Basically there should be only one path around an untouched core area and no path leading through it. The circular taxiway should be used by walkers, skaters and cyclists; use of the two runways as pathways is taboo. • Instead of building along the airfield periphery, a belt of green and a cycle path should be laid. Another possibility is to use the southern runway as an east-west transit route or to lay two diagonals from the middle of the southern runway to the north-west and the north-east. • No fixed grid of paths should be imposed; paths should rather develop gradually from existing dirt tracks. Within the Field a north-south connection would be meaningful as would be a connection from the north-west to the south-east (Viktoriapark – Werner-Seelenbinder- Sportpark). The taxiway should be refurbished as a circular road for walkers, skaters and cyclists and appointed as an avenue. • A cycle path encircling the whole area should be laid. A pathway/ cycle path to one of the two runways can function as an east-west connection. Furthermore, a north-west to south-east diagonal connection (cycle path and pathway) is meaningful. Access to the Field should be given from all sides. Expectations and Proposals for Furbishment and Design of the Fu­ ture Park Landscape – Preferred Type of Park The need for tranquillity and recreation stands at the forefront of expec­ tations for the Park Landscape. This is followed by other needs rated as “important”: “aesthetic design” (42.9%), “being able to move about and play sport” (39.4%) and “a place with a lot of life” (27.3%). Respondents reveal a highly differentiated spectrum of specific expecta­ tions and wishes in terms of the furbishment and design of the future Park Landscape on Tempelhof Field corresponding to the wide diversity of in­ dividually different life situations, interests and needs. The expectations and wishes of the Berlin-wide group of respondents to the furbishment and design of the Park Landscape are largely identical to those expressed by the respondents in the catchment area. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 119

They focus on individual elements which nearly all of the respondents would like to see and extend in outreach to features which only a minority calls for. The main spectrum of expectations extends from elements of “classical” park design and special design elements (such as water fea­ tures and barbecue areas), innovative ecological elements and games and sports areas (such as open-to-all sports facilities) through to restaurants, cafés etc. and “commercial events”. One constant expectation is that signs of usage as an airport are retained and kept visible. A break-down of respondents reveals different preferences and differences between them. For instance, German families, and to some extent German families without children, set as their priorities: “spaces they can design and use themselves (such as playgrounds, gardens or art projects))“, “lawns for sunbathing and games”, “a moving landscape with hills and slopes” and “playing areas for different age groups”. On the other hand respondents in families and older respondents or respondents in household of non- German origin not involved in gainful employment give as their priorities for things they would like to see as “meeting points, communication areas also for picnicking” and “barbecue areas”. Furthermore, a disproportionally high number of them – including young people under 25 – wish to see “a naturally designed lake for bathing with sunbathing lawns or “an extension to the Columbiabad open-air swimming pool” as well as “rental services for sports equipment for recreational sport”. In terms of their rating of four types of park they were asked to judge, the “park with clusters of trees” comes out significantly better than the three other types of park (“a wide, open park”; an “actors’ park” and a “sports park”). Both the results of the written questionnaire and the findings of the focus group discussions are manifold, and different in some cases to the point of contradiction. To meet the requirements of all residents in terms of the “Universal Park” they would like to see, the principle of offering something for everybody must be retained in order not to effect de facto exclusion of any subgroup from its use. This means that preconditions and proposals that take account of contra­ dictory needs such as “peace and quiet – full of life“ or “near to nature – similar to a horticultural show” should be integrated in the design planning along with a broad range of activities. In short, it may be said that the air­ field serves as a screen on which the needs of modern society for manifold types of recreational activity can be projected. Public Participation: Tempelhof Airport 2009 / 2010 As part of the first stage of opening up the airport terrain, on 3-4 Octo­ ber and 10-11 October 2009, open days were organized attended by over 3,500 members of the public. There were tours of the airfield by bus and on foot, an informative exhibition, questionnaires, round table discussions with plans that could be coloured, child care facilities and a non-represen­ tative electronic survey (TED-Umfrage). 1,319 completed questionnaires were handed in of which around 1,200 could be evaluated. 833 members of the public took part in the electronic survey. The first tendencies were immediately revealed by the on-the-spot electro­ nic survey: There was a general consensus that what the park should offer first and foremost was a place of quiet and relaxation. The vast majority of respondents also agreed that consideration should be given and allo­ wances made for protection of nature objectives and conservation of the historical elements of the airfield. On the other hand, respondents had divided opinions about other topical points such as large-scale events. Thus, despite the huge crowds festivals Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 120 like the Pyro-Musical attract, only one in every three respondents saw the need for further festivals and concerts on the airfield. Along with nature conservation and the recreational profile, the history of the site was a further issue for enquiry: 80% of all respondents agreed with the statement that the history of the place was so important to them that they would like to be reminded of it in the park. The high importance respondents attached both to nature conservation and to the history of the site clearly shows that the debate on the future use of the airfield is dealing with much more than just the design of a con­ ventional park landscape. In particular, the wishes of the residents of the surrounding city districts are oriented towards more pronounced sustaina­ bility in the planning. In the Appendix 4.07a to the Competition Brief (Auslobung) an in-depth documentation of the results of the workshops on public participation in the “Park Landscape Tempelhof” held on the first two October weekends of 2009 is to be found. A “Dialogue Weekend” shall be held in early summer 2010 on the site in which members of the public can discuss the design proposals of the Competition of with landscape architects, the competition jury and repre­ sentatives of the Senate Department. Semi-Public Spaces In January 2010 a study on “Private-Public Spaces in the Park Landscape“ was published as part of the Development Strategy for Tempelhof Field (see Appendix 4.06b). The term “Private-Public Spaces” refers to recre­ ational uses mainly organised on a commercial or not-for profit basis by private enterprise or registered charitable bodies. They are designed to promote a range of regional facilities which the state itself could not offer due to the high operating and maintenance costs they involve. They are private-public because they are located on publicly owned land but opera­ ted and maintained by private groups and organisations, and the general public is only allowed access under certain particular conditions. The following draws on the study cited above: The study explores the issue of the social context in which the design of a 21st century park landscape is set. One of the open questions in this respect, for instance, is the shape and direction the trend to increasing participation of diversified urban communities (Stadtgesellschaften) in the public domain will take in the future. When an urban community involves itself in the evolution of the urban fabric and the product of free space, this will exert an influence on the planning processes and the constellations of use. Current examples from Berlin show the keen interest there is in parti­ cipation in the shaping of the open spaces in the public domain. In terms of their educational levels, incomes and lifestyles, there are huge disparities between the present populations living around the future Park Landscape on Tempelhof Field in Neukölln, Tempelhof, Schöneberg and Kreuzberg. The planned construction of new districts with services, and commercial and residential uses will draw in new social groups to the im­ mediate neighbourhood of the Park Landscape on Tempelhof Field. Ma­ nifold as it already is, the interest in green spaces is becoming even more differentiated and at the same time much more individual. A wide range of interests means a wide range of expectations both on the part of individu­ als and whole casts of actors. The trend to increased participation of urban communities with their vario­ us cast of actors in shaping the uses of open public spaces has given birth to a new understanding of active citizenship. Civic commitment nurtures a Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 121 demand for opportunities where citizens themselves can act and assume autonomous responsibility. Such participation-promoting initiatives need to be given opportunities of space in which they may unfold their Do-It-Your­ self projects. A public park could well provide a platform enabling proactive forms of cultural engagement. A mere year after closure of air traffic operations, the Park Landscape of Tempelhof Field has been introduced to the urban community as a concert venue and a stage. Concerts and events like the Berlin Festival, the Pyro- Musical, Free Style-Shows, Bread & Butter and a whole host of sporting events generate temporary new private-public spaces which enrich the at­ tractiveness of the Field and enhance the range of uses it can be put to (see also Part 2 of the Competition Brief). Gender Mainstreaming The Senate Department for Urban Development attaches particular impor­ tance to considering all activities of the Administration from the standpoint of gender equality. “Gender” means “social gender” as shaped by the parti­ cular society and its culture. However, current research into the amount of attention paid to gender-specific issues in the field of design/architecture is still very patchy. To address this problem, several projects are being carried out as pilots with the aim of broadening the level of awareness and identifying best practice examples which can then be fed, in a process of mainstreaming, into Administration’s daily work. General requirements for gender equality in planning are equality of treat­ ment for men and women, equality of opportunity and an appropriate con­ sideration of the different life conditions and constraints under which men and women live. It is vital to ensure that spaces are created for both men and women, that the value of reproduction is acknowledged, that safety from violence and accidents is ensured, that reconciliation of employment and family life is supported, and that spatial presentations and design em­ body the transposed values and standards of both genders and all ethnic groups, age groups and classes. Implementation of these standards in urban architectural and open space planning calls for conception of plans which ensure that open domains are of equal value to both men and women or boys and girls, and which en­ hance the attractiveness of use through appropriate design for both sexes in equal measure. Particular account should be paid here to the different ways in which men and women appropriate space, and the specific requi­ rements of different user groups (local residents, the working population, senior citizens, children etc.) in terms of amenity value and the planning of places for social communication. In terms of urban planning and the structure of usage, the following indivi­ dual design principles and measures should be considered: Mixed Functions and Spatial Structure • Horizontal and vertical structuring of housing, service amenities, retail outlets, catering and community facilities with due account taken of the compatibility of / degree of disturbance caused by the various types of use; • Vitalising types of use for the ground floor and courtyard if given (utilities, safety); • No mono-functional structures, a social mixture must be ensured. Housing • A mixture of various sizes of apartments, types of apartment and marketing forms (leasing, owner-occupied, offers for housing associations); Tempelhof Parkland / Part 3 Situation and Planning Directive 122

• Integration of special types of housing (such as assisted living or cross-generational housing); • Adequate sunlight and natural light, especially in living areas and children’s rooms; • Community spaces and adequate provision for community assets (bicycles, prams) and communication. Open Spaces • Amenity spaces with diversity of high-quality uses; • Small children’s playgrounds within sight and calling distance of the apartments. Mobility and Connections to Urban Street Network • Ensuring good overall mobility with a network of direct, safe and attractive paths for pedestrians and cyclists; • Optimised connections to the superordinated street network (pedestrian facilities, throughways etc.); • Transparent, open and safe placement of car parks and the entries to any proposed underground car parks. Security • Preference given to open space construction, optimal orientation through clear and spacious placement of buildings; • Orientation of residential buildings to the street or internal main ways (entrances, main living areas, community facilities); • Avoidance of sight barriers (buildings, building and car park entrances, greenery, fencing); • Transparency of site connections; • Transparency of housing-related open spaces (private, semi-public, public); • Ensuring barrier-free access. Furthermore, account should be taken of the different gender-specific and ethnic impact spatial presentations may have (symbolism of gender equali­ ty, open uses that avoid hetero-normative prescription by planning design). In 2004 the coming into force of the European Law Adaptation Act for the Construction Sector (Europarechtsanpassungsgesetzes Bau - EAG Bau) meant the introduction of gender mainstreaming in the Town and Country Planning Code (Baugesetzbuch - BauGB) of the Federal Republic of Ger­ many. With the Code’s adoption of concerns of particular importance for the drawing up of master plans (§ 1 Sec. 6 No. 3 BauGB), the significance of gender mainstreaming was also reinforced on the legislative level. Tempelhof Parkland / Part 4 Appendix , Web Links, Sources and Literature 123

4 Appendix 4.01 Invitation to tender 4.01a Auslobung 4.01b Verfassererklärung 4.01c Invitation to tender 4.01d Author’s Declaration

4.02 Information plans 4.02a Lageplan 4.02b + 4.02c Luftbild 2007 + 2009 4.02d - 4.02g Schrägluftbilder 2007 4.02h Infrarotluftbild 2005

4.03 Working plans 4.03a Lageplan (CAD-Datei) 4.03b - 4.03e Umgebungsplan 1:5.000 (Farbe / SW) 4.03f Umgebungsplan 1:10.000 (Farbe)

4.04 Basic Documents: Open Spaces and Recreation 4.04a Entwicklungsstrategie Tempelhofer Feld, bgmr / ASTOC / KCAP, 02/2009 4.04b Reader „Fachforum Erholung und Freizeit“, Senate Department for Urban Development, 02/2008 4.04c Beschreibung der Parkanlagen in der Umgebung des Flugfeldes Tempelhof, ag.u / SenStadt 02/2010)

4.05 Basic Documents: IGA 4.05a IGA-Bewerbung, sinai, 03/2009 4.05b IGA-Machbarkeitsstudie, Kurzfassung, sinai, 11/2008

4.06 Further Aspects of Open Space Planning 4.06a Machbarkeitsstudie für eine öffentliche Erholungsnutzung des Tempelhofer Flughafens, TOPOS / Ökologie & Planung, 12/2007 4.06b Neue Teilöffentlichkeiten in der Parklandschaft, Entwicklungs­ strategie Tempelhofer Feld, bgmr, 01/2010 4.06c Sport in Berlin, Untersuchung zum Sportverhalten, Broschüre Gutachten informeller Sport, Senatsverwaltung für Inneres und Sport, Heft 1 2008 4.06d Informeller Sport - Recherche zu Freizeitaktivitäten und –trends in städtischen Freiräumen, Gruppe F, 12/2007 4.06e Machbarkeitsstudie zur Vorbereitung der Projektrealisierung von Naturerfahrungsräumen in Berlin, Technische Universität Berlin, 04/2009 4.06f Gebäudeatlas Tempelhofer Flugfeld, Ideenwerkstatt Tempelhof, mbup, raumlabor, Studio uc, 05/2008 Tempelhof Parkland / Part 4 Appendix , Web Links, Sources and Literature 124

4.07 Public Participation 4.07a Bürgerbeteiligung „Parklandschaft Tempelhof“, Workshop- Bereich“, ts | pk thies schröder planungskommunikation, 01/2010 4.07b Tempelhofer Feld, Nutzungsanforderungen und Vorstellungen der Bevölkerung zur künftigen Parklandschaft - Empirische Studie zur Vorbereitung des landschaftsplanerischen Wettbe­ werbs, argus, 10/2009 4.07c Ergebnisse Online-Dialog 2007, zebralog, 2007 4.08 Basic Documents: Scientific Studies 4.08a Fachbeitrag Stadtklima zum landschaftsplanerischen Wettbewerb „Parklandschaft Tempelhof“ in Berlin, GEO-NET Umweltconsul­ ting, 12/2010 4.08b Fachbeitrag Stadtklima im Rahmen der Änderung des Flächen­ nutzungsplans und des Landschafts-/Artenschutzprogramm, GEO-NET Umweltconsulting, 01/2009 4.08c Strategie zur energetischen Entwicklung desTempelhofer Feldes Flugfeld Tempelhof, ARUP, 01/2010 4.08d Energiepflanzen Tempelhof, Pflanzensteckbriefe für die energe- tische Verwertung, Informationssammlung, Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung, 02/2010 4.08e Wasserwirtschaftliche Beratung zur Nachnutzung des Tempel­ hofer Feldes, Müller-Kalchreuth / bioplan / ifs, 06/2009 / Anmerkungen zur Trennung und Nutzung von Regenwasser unterschiedlicher Qualität auf dem Tempelhofer Feld, Müller- Kalchreuth, 11/2009 4.08f Bodenkundliche Untersuchung des Flughafens Tempelhof, Hum­ boldt-Universität zu Berlin, Geographisches Institut,12/2009 4.08g - 4.08j Ergebnisse naturschutzfachlicher Gutachten der Jahre 2004/2005, Seebauer et al., 2005 (Gutachten, Karten, Broschüre) 4.08k Geländehöhen, Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung, Umwelt­ atlaskarte 01.08 (Ausgabe 2004)

Basic Documents: The Legislative Framework of Planning 4.09a Landschaftsprogramm / Artenschutzprogramm, Änderungsver­ fahren 2008, Öffentliche Auslegung, 06/07 2009 4.09b Flächennutzungsplan Änderungsverfahren 2008, Öffentliche Aus­ legung, 06/07 2009, mit Legende 4.09c Legende zur Bereichsentwicklungsplanung Tempelhof Parkland / Part 4 Appendix , Web Links, Sources and Literature 125

5 Sources, other Literature and web-links • Bezirksamt Tempelhof (ed.): Landing on Tempelhof. 75th Anniversary of a Key Airport, 50th Anniversary of the Berlin Airlift, Exhibition Catalogue, Berlin 1998 • Dittrich, Elke: Tempelhof Airport in Planning Drawings and Models 1935-1944, Berlin 2005 / 2006 • Demps, Laurenz ; Peaschke, Carl-Ludwig: Tempelhof Airport, The Story of a Legend, Berlin, Ullstein-Verlag, 1998. • Kubatzki, Rainer: A Camp for Slave Labourers and Prisoners of War. Sites and Topography in Berlin and Brandenburg 1939 to 1945. Berlin – Research Group of the Berlin Historical Commission, Vol.1; 2001, p.185, under 699, 700, 701 • State Archives of Berlin: From Berlin to Germania: The Destruction of Germany’s Capital by Albert Speer’s New Plans, Exhibition Catalogue, Berlin 1985 • Lothar Uebel: Having Fun / The History of the Amusement Areas around Kreuzberg and the Hasenheide. Kreuzberg Periodicals VIII, Berlin 1985. • Meuser, Philipp: From Airfield to Park, The History and Future of Tempelhof Airport, Berlin, 2000 • Schmitz, Frank: Tempelhof Airport, Berlin’s Gateway to the World, Berlin 1997 • Schütze, Karl-Robert: From Liberation Battles to the End of the Wehrmacht – The Garrison Cemetery, Neuköllner Contributions to Local History, Berlin 1986 • Senate Department for Urban Development and Environmental Protection of the State of Berlin: Expertise on the Suitability of Tempelhof Airport as an Historically Listed Site, Platz der Luftbrücke 4-6 in Berlin-Tempelhof, Hecker Manfred, Berlin, 1994 • Voss, Berlin Historical Photos, Welcome back to Tempelhof. Berlin 2004

• http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/planen/staedtebau-projekte/ tempelhof/index.shtml Senatsverwaltung Stadtentwicklung: Städtebauliche Projekte Tempelhofer Freiheit – umfangreiche Informationen zum Planungsprozess • http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/stadtgruen/iga_ berlin_2017/ Senatsverwaltung Stadtentwicklung: Internationale Gartenbauausstellung (IGA) 2017 – umfangreiche Informationen zum Planungsprozess • http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/umweltatlas/ Digitaler Umweltatlas Berlin. Karten mit Texten und Figureen für alle Umweltmedien und -bereiche Boden, Wasser, Luft, Klima, Flächennutzung, Verkehr, Lärm und Energie Tempelhof Parkland / Part 4 Appendix , Web Links, Sources and Literature 126

7 Table of Figures

Figure 1: Open Space Connectivity (our own presentation) Figure 2: Schematic reproduction of the overlapping uses and multiple coding of an integrated design approach to the park­ land (Diagram by bgmr) Figure 3: The Competition Area Figure 4: Surrounding Metropolitan Area (Status as of summer 2009), Source: bgmr summer 2009 Figure 5: Large-scale Setting and Distances, Source: D-Sat and our own presentation Figure 6: Aerial View Figure 7: Urban Structures, Source Senate Department for Urban Development Figure 8: Population Density in Surrounding Areas, Source: Senate Department for Urban Development Figure 9: Social Monitoring 2009, Source SenStadt 2010, Source: Senate Department for Urban Development Figure 10: Surrounding Neighbourhoods, Source: Senate Department for Urban Development and our own presentation Figure 11: The Surrounding Urban Neighbourhoods, Source: IGA Bid, SenStadt 2009 Figure 12: The Berlin System of Open Spaces / Superordinate Open Space Connections, Source: Senate Department for Urban Development Figure 13: Open Space Connectivity (our own presentation) Figure 14: Tempelhof Field in 1802, Source: Map of Berlin 1802 Figure 15: The Tempelhof Field in 1857, Source: Map of Berlin & Charlottenburg 1857 Figure 16: The Tempelhof Field in 1900, Source: Pharus Plan of Berlin 1902 Figure 17: Network of Scheduled Flights in 1935 Figure 18: 1928 Berlin City Plan showing Position of Airport Buildings and Playing Fields on the Edge of the Airfield, Source: Schmitz (1997) (changed) Figure 19: The Main Building around 1929 Figure 20: Berlin Airport (Tempelhof) in 1935 Figure 21: Berlin City Plans 1932 and 1936 Figure 22: Historical Features, Source: Yade Rasterdaten 2008 and our own presentation Figure 23: Ownership Structure, Source: our own presentation / Senate Department for Urban Development Figure 24: Local Public Transport Connections, Source: BVG 2008 Figure 25: New Road Infrastructure Connections according to the Masterplan Figure 26: Average Daily Traffic Flow (for 2005), Source: Senate Department for Urban Development Figure 27: Noise Exposure, Source: TOPOS, Ökologie & Planung Figure 28: The Extended Cycle Path Route Network, Status: April 2009, Source: Senate Department for Urban Development Figure 29: Footpath and Cycle Path Connections, Source: FPB / Büro up, Working Draft 01/2010. Figure 30: Draft of the Amended Land Use Plan (Status: Public Display, June 2009) Figure 31: Planning Policy for the South-East Region Source: SenStadt, (Status: 2009) Figure 32: Planning Policy for the South-East Region (Extract), Source: SenStadt, (Status: 2009) Figure 33: DDP for the Berlin Inner City, Status: March 2002, partly revised in 2005, Source: Borough of Tempelhof-Schöne berg in Berlin (eds.) and under inclusion (drawing on DDP for Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg, Status: 2005) Figure 34: Map of Historical Monuments, Source: Senate Department for Urban Development Figure 35: Distribution of Public Green Spaces near Residential Areas, Source: Berlin Environmental Atlas 06.05 June 2009 Figure 36: Distribution of Public Green Spaces in Proximity to Residential Areas and Housing Settlements, Source: Senstadt IE1, Feb. 2008 Figure 37: Development Plan for Garden Allotments (Kleingartenentwicklungsplan) Figure 38: Cemeteries Development Plan, Source: Senate Department for Urban Development Figure 39: Garnisonsfriedhof Columbiadamm / Concept 2008, Source: Senate Department for Urban Development, Cemetery Development Plan Figure 40: Geological Map Figure 41: Extract from Environmental Atlas 01.01 “Soil Associations” Figure 42: Extract from Environmental Atlas 01.13 “Planning Notes for Soil Protection“ Figure 43: Pollution Legacy, Source: Topos Figure 44: An Island of Cold Air – Night-Time Surface Temperatures, Source: Berlin Environmental Atlas (Map 04.06.1 Tempelhof Parkland / Part 4 Appendix , Web Links, Sources and Literature 127

Figure 45: Planning Notes on City Climate, Source: Berlin Environmental Atlas (Map 04.11.2) Figure 46: Investigation Procedure and Scenarios of the Expertise on City Climate, Source: GeoNet 2009 Figure 47: Protected Biotopes, Source: Seebauer et al. 200 Figure 48: Avifauna, Source: Seebauer et al. 2005 Figure 49: Core Zone for the Protection of Biotopes and Species, Source: Seebauer et al. 2005 Figure 50: Surfaces, Source: TOPOS / Ökologie & Planung, 2007 Figure 51: Condition of the Surfaces, Source: TOPOS / Ökologie & Planung, 2007 Figure 52: Atlas of Buildings, Source: TOPOS / Ökologie & Planung, 2007 Figure 53: Revision of the Urban Development Draft Proposal of 1994, Source: Hentrich-Petschnigg & Partner / Seebauer, Wefers und Partner Figure 54: Concepts from the 1995 Workshop, Source: Inge Voigt; Alsop&Strömer; Dieter Hofmann-Axthelm (from left to right. Figure 55: Urban Development Plan by Kienast Vogt Partner / Prof. Bernd Albers, Source: Kienast Vogt Partner Prof. Bernd Albers Figure 56: Urban Development Plan 2005, Revised Version; Source: Kienast Vogt Partner / Prof. Bernd Albers (amendments by the Senate Department for Urban Development 2005) Figure 57: “The Future of Tempelhof Field” – Planning Status as of Spring 2008, Source: Senate Department for Urban Development, March 2008 Figure 58: Columbia District Competition Awards: Graft/Kiefer, Urban Essences/Lützow 7, Chora/GROSS. MAX., Source: SenStadt 2009 Figure 60: Pioneer Fields, Source: mbup, Studio UC, raumlaborberlin Figure 61: The “Dynamic Masterplan” Planning Tool, Source: mbup, Studio UC, raumlaborberlin