Open space (landscape planning)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Open space is a term used in area and building planning (landscape planning, landscape architecture , urban development , urban planning , architecture ). It describes all areas not built on by buildings and includes gardens , streets , squares , parks and cemeteries as well as bodies of water , forests and fields . In this general sense, the term is still often used in land management and nature conservation .

Development, definition and role

In the 1970s, with the professional reorientation of land maintenance and landscape planning, which was promoted primarily at the corresponding departments of the universities in Hanover (social science open space planning ) and Kassel ( use-oriented open space planning), green planning was renamed open space planning . The term "open space" thus acquired a central meaning in the self-image of landscape planning. Since then, open space has been regarded as a usable place that people can appropriate themselves. A free space is a place that is open for a variety of actions and leaves room for other options for action than those currently practiced in general. The opposite term to open space is the spacing area (green area), which appears in different variants (for example spacing green) and on which uses are excluded or heavily regulated.

Public (commune) and private responsibilities in open road space

A distinction is usually made between public and private open spaces, a subdivision that is supplemented by the category of communal open spaces (cf. common land , cooperative , commune (Middle Ages) ). The public open space is freely accessible to everyone and usually includes streets, squares, parks, cemeteries and forests. These free spaces are mostly under public administration. The communal open space is also accessible to everyone, in this respect also public, but is shaped and supervised by specific user groups and residents. It does not fall solely or primarily under administrative responsibility. A typical example is the village or urban street as open space, which is basically usable for everyone, but whose usability is determined by the residents and the people who are usually on the move there. Social control is an essential element of communal freedom. The private free space falls into the possession of certain groups (for example families, house and land owners) who use it and can determine it. Private open spaces such as gardens or courtyards are basically parceled out and usually enclosed.

Ideal- typical zoning of a street space

Open spaces are often functionally related to buildings and include their entrances, courtyards, gardens and parking spaces. These assignments and functional references are represented in open space typologies, for example the forms of house and yard; Assignments of house, front yard and street; Zoning of sidewalks, curbs, parking lanes and driveways. The open space functions have a structural and a social side. For example, the material used to build a road and its zoning create a network of social relationships that users create through conversations and actions. In this respect, free spaces depend on the availability, usability and interpretability. According to their functional connection, dysfunctional free spaces are differentiated from functional free spaces, whereby the functional connection ranges from variously usable to functionally fixed facilities (functionalization). Highly functionalized facilities are no longer referred to as open space because they cannot be freely used or interpreted.

The respective use that is made of open spaces is - in addition to the structural organization and neighbors of the open space - dependent on what the users can imagine being made at a location. It then appears usable to them. This usability of a free space is subject to the interpretation of the users, who change and shape it during use. The free space is given a patina of use, which is visible and as a trace of use ( indication ) reflects part of the (currently and historically) realized and socially accepted actions in one place. Open spaces are interpreted by the users in everyday life. A free space is basically readable without prescribing the reading. This meaning of free spaces is related to the metaphorical meaning of the concept of free space. In a figurative sense, the term “freedom to act and think” is used. Here, freedom means the possibility of being able and allowed to do something.

See also

literature

  • Helmut Böse: The appropriation of urban open spaces. Work reports from the Department of Urban and Landscape Planning at the University of Kassel, Issue 22, Kassel 1981.
  • Helmut Böse & Bernd Schürmeyer 19 (84) 89: The open spaces of the street or the street as landscape? Notes on traffic calming. (The Garden Department 1984). Notebook of the Kasseler Schule 10, pp. 136–161. Kassel.
  • Gerhard Hard: tracks and trackers. Osnabrück 1995.
  • Harald Heinz: Design in urban development. Bauverlag, Wiesbaden and Berlin 1983, ISBN 3-7625-2090-9 .
  • Georg Heinemann & Karla Pommerening: Structure and use of dysfunctional free spaces. Notebook of the Kasseler Schule 12, Kassel 1989.
  • Inge Meta Hülbusch: Inner house and outer house - enclosed and social space. Publication series of the OE ASL Gesamtthochschule Kassel 01 003; Kassel 1978.
  • Karl-Heinrich Hülbusch: Green planning is not open space planning. The big difference. In: From common hooves. (Settlement, house, open space planning), Notebook of the Kasseler Schule 64, pp. 163–194, Kassel 2003.
  • Roswitha Kirsch-Stracke: Village open space culture in the 19th and early 20th centuries, shown in the southern Sauerland . Dissertation, KOBRA Kassel 2016. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:hebis:34-2016112351543
  • Stefan Körner: Theory and methodology of landscape planning. Berlin 2001.
  • Werner Nohl: Open space architecture and emancipation. Theoretical considerations and empirical studies on the needs of the open space users as the basis of an emancipatory oriented open space culture. Peter D. Lang, Frankfurt / Main, Bern, Cirencester 1980.
  • Werner Nohl: Urban open space and reproduction of the workforce: introduction to employee-oriented open space planning. Munich 1984.
  • Jane Jacobs 1963: The Death and Misery of Great American Cities. Braunschweig 1976, ISBN 3764363568 .
  • Karsten Runge: Development of landscape planning in its constitutional phase 1935-1973. Berlin 1990.
  • Klaus Selle (ed.): Free spaces for communities in the city. Dortmund sales for building and planning literature, Hanover 1993.
  • Maria Spitthöver: Open space quality instead of green space. Volume 1: History of open spaces in rental apartment construction. Series of publications by the Department of Urban Planning, Landscape Planning of the University of Kassel, Volume 25, Kassel 2002.
  • Christoph Theiling: Bremen series. Notebook of the Kassler Schule 44, Kassel 1997.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ for example Gerd Gröning, Werner Nohl, Maria Spitthöver.
  2. ↑ See: Karsten Runge (1990) and Stefan Körner (2001).
  3. ↑ See: Karl-Heinrich Hülbusch (2003).
  4. ^ Böse & Schürmeyer (1989).
  5. ↑ lat. 'Commun'; in the sense of 'common', 'shared', accessible to all or many; not 'communal' in the sense of the administration.
  6. ↑ Jacobs 1963
  7. ^ Böse & Schürmeyer (1989).
  8. ↑ See: Inge Meta Hülbusch (1978).
  9. ↑ See: Christoph Theiling (1997).
  10. ↑ See: Jane Jacobs (1963).
  11. ↑ See: Helmut Böse (1981).
  12. ↑ See: Heinemann & Pommerening (1989).
  13. ↑ See: Gerhard Hard (1995).