HOW STRONG WAS THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE OUTCOME OF NAGOLD'S GARDEN EXHIBITION

International Master of Landscape Architecture Hochschule für Wirtschaft und Umwelt, Nürtingen-Geislingen February 14, 2014

Andreia Oshiro Gama B. Arch, contact: [email protected]

Mario Matamoros

B. Arch, contact: [email protected]

CASE STUDY NAGOLD GREEN URBIANITY WITH FOCUS QUESTION: HOW STRONG WAS THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE OUTCOME OF NAGOLD’S GARDEN EXHIBITION?

2

TABLE OF CONTENT:

a. The Importance of Public Participation b. Authors' Perspective c. Nagold d. Landscape Context e. Cultural /Political Context f. History g. Spatial and Functional Analysis h. Planning and Designing Process i. The Participation Process

j. Results of Surveys k. Interested Parties l. Participation Evaluation m. Assessment n. Success and Limitations o. Conclusions p. Research Questions q. References r. Appendix

3

“People expect to determine what happens in their communities. Therefore, the effectiveness of the professional designers involved in these projects depends on their effectiveness in engaging the public in a serious planning effort…Professionals must devise proposals that capture the public imagination.” 1

Democracy should be tangible and accessible at all levels. When designers are commissioned to realize projects that will affect positively or negatively the life of people, they should consider their needs and opinions as an important part of the outcome of a Project. They -the people- are indeed the main reason and the force that gives reality and success to a project. Ergo, they should be granted with a strong participation role to shape the future the society needs.

Public participation in Europe and especially in Germany is very strong and considered to be transparent; unfortunately this is not the case for other parts of the world. As authors who come from third world countries, we find Nagold as an exceptional case of public participation that could be implemented in developing countries.

The main objective of this research is to demonstrate the participation level at every stage of the design/planning phase to recognize the input the citizens gave in this case to the Nagold’s garden exhibition of 2012.

The secondary objective is to analyze the communication channels and strategy between the different interested parties in the project to hypothesize alternatives in which the some design features might have being approved by the citizens. This could be very useful to landscape architects that face problems of communicating their ideas to resilient or difficult audiences. Another secondary objective is to identify the positive features that the garden exhibition had as a direct impact in the structure of the city and the connection of the different city parts which were segmented before the garden exhibition.

1 Faga, Barbara, Designing Public Consensus. EDAW-AECIM. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken, New Jersey.2006

A. THE IMPORTANCE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

4

As mentioned before, our perspective is the view from 3rd world citizens, which are not used to be included in the design process as citizens for mayor developments planned by reduced groups. We find Germany’s case, and specially Nagold a very good example of a strong public participation that helped shaped and realize the Project of Green Urbanity.

The investigation we propose is based on interviews realized to stakeholders, users, visitors, authorities and designers involved in the process. This is done to have a clearer view on the communication channels of the different parts during the process as well as the material and methods utilized to communicate and a more precise chronology of how the events took place. The interviews are also helpful to identify the mistakes in procedure and position of the planners, citizens and designers.

With the interview process done, we elaborated graphs that communicate the people’s perception and acceptance to the project. A storyline was also elaborated to explain the level of participation of the citizens throughout the whole process: proposal, design, and realization.

During this investigation we discover new problems rising from the consequences of the garden exhibition in the city that were not foreseen. For these problems we include different assessments that could be applied to solve the situation.

B. AUTHORS’ PERSPECTIVE

5

Nagold is a city with 23,000 inhabitants in the edge of the Black Forest within 60 kilometers from Stuttgart.2 The city is located in a small valley called the Nagoldtal between surrounding mountains covered with deciduous forests. The small city has a well conserved 19th century downtown in the proximities of the Nagold River, an affluent of the Neckar river, which also happens to meet the Waldach River a few meters away from the downtown and serves as a division between the City Park and the Krautbühl Park. Some other important historical landmarks found are the ruins from the 11th century Hohennagold castle, located over the Schlossberg Mountain as well as the Celtic Hill grave located in the Nagoldufer. The historical city’s downtown was the axis of growth of the city during the post war period in which new mixed used functions where integrated around the historical downtown and received the name of “Extensions of the inner city.”3 These new settlements typology was characterized by that period of architecture and would eventually extend into the peripheries of the city, which were now destined to be social houses. This extension from the city downtown into the peripheries located on the hillsides of the surrounding area of Nagold created a fragmentation of the city itself. Even though the extension of the city was small in comparison to other urban areas, the fragmentation was quite remarkable. The extensions of the inner city also produced a lack of quality in the living conditions for the citizens of Nagold, which didn’t have a well-defined use of space or a correct distribution between constructed surfaces and open spaces.

2 Nagold Overview, seen at: http://www.nagold.de/de/Home, visited on 05.10.13 3 Nagold’s Documentation of Realization Competition, November 2007

C. NAGOLD

6

Due to its special location in the Nagoldtal (Nagold Valley), the city has different historical and natural features that have shaped the urban growth directions of the city and strengthen the identity of the place. These features will be explained briefly.

Nagold is located in the borders of the world known Schwarz Wald or Black Forest, a dense evergreen forest that is 150 kilometers long and 50 kilometers wide. The forest is also the scenery of most of Grimm brothers’ fairytales and a touristic destination for many Europeans due to the numerous small towns and chalets around the Black Forest and the conditions for hiking and skiing. The Black forest is also important for lumber and historically was one of the first places where the Cuckoos Clocks were manufactured. 4

The Nagoldtal develops along the Nagold River, a tributary from the Enz River5, which is also tributary of the Neckar River. The Waldach, a primary tributary of the Nagold River, divides Nagold’s parks, the city park and the Krautbühl Park.

Hohennagold, the existing ruin of a castle built in 1145 over the Schlossberg (Castle mountain) that belonged to the count of Tübingen. In the midst of the thirteen century the castle was given to the Count of Hohenberg, and could be considered as another important feature. In 1363 it was sold to the Count of Württemberg but eventually destroyed in 1645 after the Thirty-Year-War.6

Another relevant landmark of Nagold is its Viaduct, a concrete bridge which construction began in 1938, but was partially destroyed during World War II. The reconstruction took place between 1953 and 1954 costing 2 million marks and the implementation of Steel cables, which was not possible back in 1938 since all the steel was used for manufacturing weapons.7 Nowadays, it is a very important landmark that divides Nagold’s historic center from the inner city extensions and the periphery.

4 The Black Forest, seen at: http://www.roughguides.com/destinations/europe/germany/the-black-forest/, visited on February 5, 2014. 5 Enz, River explanation, seen at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enz, visited on February 5, 2014. 6 Burg Hohennagold, seen at: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burg_Hohennagold, visited on February 5, 2014. 7 Attractions, Viadukt, seen at: http://www.nagold.de/1566?view=publish&item=tripDestination&id=21, visited on February 5, 2014.

D. LANDSCAPE CONTEXT

7

Image 1: Nagold Overview, author: Mario Matamoros. Taken on October 26,2013.

Image 2: Nagold River, author: Mario Matamoros, taken on October 26, 2013 Image 3: Nagold's Viaduct, author: Mario Matamoros,

taken on October 26, 2013.

8

Since 1980, the Horticultural shows have become a tradition in Germany in which cities find a special opportunity to improve the life quality of their citizens through the creation of parks, vegetation corridors, infrastructure and new development plans that increase the investment and interest in the cities8. Nagold was facing some problems like decrease in population and social fragmentation and for these reasons, the authorities with the support of the citizens asked the state of Baden Württemberg to hold a Garden Exhibition. The main aim of this Garden Exhibition was to reconnect the segmented parts of Nagold as giving back the value of the city heart to the historic downtown.

As mentioned before, the Horticultural Show was a golden opportunity for Nagold to attract investors to develop new housing settlements, open new stores, restaurants and hotels as well as renovate the existing. The marketing strategy for the Horticultural Show was so successful that half of the money needed from private investment was funded by outside investors.9

The political and social contexts in Germany have certain stability for which the realization and accomplishment of such events wouldn’t be threaten by a sudden crisis. Nevertheless the awareness of ecological aspects has risen in the population and demonstrations against ambitious projects and laws that could in theory affect the sustainability and the ecological welfare are more often. Stuttgart 21, the latest big concern in Baden-Württemberg population and ecological activists has turn on the lights of many activists against invasive constructions in nature protection areas. The demonstrations of course bring with them negative side effects such as violence and vandalism, things which people in Nagold didn’t want in their communities.

8 Tasks of BW-Grün, seen at: http://www.bwgruen.de/ueber-uns/historie/, visited on February 5, 2014. 9 Andreia Oshiro and Mario Matamoros, Recorded Interview to Klaus Wielinski, November 11,2013.

E. CULTURAL/SOCIAL POLITICAL CONTEXT

9

The social fragmentation of the city plus other social phenomena like the decrease in population of Nagold due to the immigration to larger urban areas encouraged the authorities in 2002 to promote themselves for the a Horticultural Show (Landesgartenschau) hostage. This idea had a great acceptance among the citizens, which founded a committee pro-horticultural show with more than 2500 thousand signatures. In 2003, the state of Baden-Württemberg decided that Nagold would host the 2014 Horticultural Show. The main aim of the Horticultural Show, like other Horticultural exhibitions, was to bring investment to the city so that the city planners could execute a city development’s concept in which the landscape was intended to integrate into the urban context through the extensions of the inner city. These extensions would serve as connection bridges for the citizens to get to the downtown. This way the life quality would raise in these inappropriately used spaces and the city would become attractive for people to stay. Other objectives of these Horticultural show were to integrate the historic downtown into the green spaces of the city, as well as the existing parks and a renovation of the riverbank along Nagold to improve the conditions of the natural habitat. The overall Concept of this urban renaissance was called “Green Urbanity”. This concept also convinced the state government of Baden Württemberg to give Nagold the opportunity to host this event in 2014. In 2006, the city planning department of Nagold called for an open realization competition of ideas to develop this Horticultural show. From the 87 offices participating, Stefan Fromm’s proposal was chosen to be the project that could concrete the Garden Exhibition in 2014; this was decided on the 29th of June of 2007. A change of plans for the 2012 Horticultural Show host, gave Nagold the possibility to host the horticultural show 2 years in advance. This fact really encouraged Nagold’s city planners to create an advertising campaign to obtain investors that could pay the realization of this project. The state of Baden-Württemberg paid 50% (€10.000.000) of the project, and the rest was obtained from external private investors (€ 2.500.000) as well as the citizens. This was the first Garden exhibition with such a high outside sponsoring. Nevertheless, in 2009 as the winning proposal was shown to the citizens, hundreds of letters arrived to the city-planning department complaining about one particular element; the stairs that connected the Hohennagold-

F. HISTORY

10

1998

1999

2001

2000

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

VECTORWORKS EDUCATIONAL VERSION


castle and the city. The main reason was because the buildings of this staircase would interfere with the nature protection areas of Schlossberg. The citizens who were against this idea organized themselves and asked for legal consultation to present a request of elections to determine if this staircase was going to be built or not. They also asked for another presentation of the project in which Stefan Fromm had to explain the project to the community again. The voting decision took place in December of that same year with a 70% of people saying “No” to this idea. The analysis of the public participation of this project will be given further on. After this decision the project continued as scheduled and in March 2012, the Garden exhibition was opened to the public with great success. The profits from this garden exhibition were distributed for infrastructure purposes to the communities that conform the city of Nagold in different percentages due to the different population distributions.

Figure 1: Timeline of Nagold's Garden Exhibit ion/ Author: Mario Matamoros

Image 4: Overview of Nagold Horticultural Show, Author: Andreia Oshiro, taken on 2012.

11

The Northern Part Because of its geography and urban structure, the Green Urbanity can be divided into two parts; the City Park and the Krautbühl Park at the north and the Riedbrunnen Park at the south. In the northern area between the downtown and the Nagold River we can find the Longwy Square, which formerly was full of trees. These trees were cut to open the view to the river; to the Kleb City Park and the Hohennagold. The square was also expanded to become a more open space, integrating to the new promenade, and connecting the city Park on the northern part to the rest of the green urbanity. Seating steps were created to provide direct access to the water and a sitting place to rest and contemplate the view. Another feature, which also attracts people along the year, is the Café & Restaurant on the edge of the square.

G. SPATIAL AND FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

Image 4: Program Scheme of the Green Urbanity. Author: Andreia Oshiro

Image 3: Sketch from the Seating Steps in the Longwvy Square. Author: Andreia Oshiro

12

On the other side of Nagold River we find the Krautbühl Park, bounded by the water and the existing buildings. As a new open space in the city center, it is composed by different elements: gardens with diverse themes, the open air church as a place for meditation, the Celtic Grave Hill and a pathway grid linking the park to its surrounding area.

At the edge of the city park a new housing area was designed with a privileged view of the whole green area, the historic downtown, the Castle and the mountains around Nagold. Consequently, this privilege was taken away from the existing buildings next to the park, which are now blocked by the new residential area.

Figure 2: Zoning program of The City Park and the Krautbühl Park. Author: Andreia Oshiro

Image 5: The 4 store residential buildings have presumably the best view of Nagold. But their realization has brought discontent to the citizens in Nagold. More will be explained in the assessment chapter. Picture taken by Andreia Oshiro on May 2012.

13

The Playgrounds One of the Green Urbanity’s aims was to improve and increase the leisure area for the citizens to encourage new families to move to/ or stay in Nagold The City Park hosts a prominent playground area, wide-open lawn, sport facilities, mini-golf space and event area. The implemented playground is bigger than the initial plan and represents one of the achievements of Nagold residents and their children, who expressed their wishes and ideas during a workshop promoted by the municipality. In the Riedbrunnen Park, the elliptical shape in the center of the park, involves a great lawn space on the left side and the playground on the right. The sport facilities are used mostly by teenagers, but people in general go jogging and cycling, lay on the grass in Summer time and have a close contact with Waldach’s water. The playground, which is intensively used by a kindergarten and it is the closest place for children living in the near periphery.

Image 7: The equipment in the playground is basically built of natural material, like stones, sand, wood and natural fiber. The wide-open lawn is a great open space for free activities. The tree lines behind follow s the Nagold River. Taken by Andreia Oshiro on May 2012.

Image 8: Overview of Riedbrunnen Park during Horticultural Show. Author: Andreia Oshiro

14

The Southern Border The Waldach connects the two parts of the green urbanity, and the green revitalized corridor that includes paths and close contact between the pedestrians and the nature. We can appreciate a green corridor along the Waldach River towards the south, which is frequently used by joggers and other users to get to the downtown or the other parks.

The viaduct is such a massive and strong element of the urban landscape that it divides Nagold in two: the inner city and the peripheries on the south border of Riedbrunnen Park. This, despite of the identity that the viaduct gives, has helped to fragment Nagold’s urban and social structure.

Image 9: The skyline from this perspective is defined by the viaduct, behind which the periphery seems to be isolated from the city. Sketch made on November 2013. Author: Andreia Oshiro

Figure 3: Riedbrunnen's functional program. Author: Andreia Oshiro

15

Planning Concept: Green Urbanity In 2003 the city of Nagold together with other 27 cities asked to the state of Baden Württemberg to host the horticultural show sometime between 2009 and 2014. The government of the state of Baden-Württemberg selected Nagold, especially for the interest of applying their Grün Urbanität (Green Urbanity or Urbanism) concept. The areas available for such exhibition were located in the center, where the confluence of Nagold and Waldach Rivers was the historical point of urban development, and expanded along the two rivers. There were three other areas spared from the settlements: the Kleb City Park at the foot of Schloßberg; the Krautbühl Park along the Nagold, in which the significant archeological Celtic Grave Hill and the third place as a small park limited by the Viaduct, constructed in the 1950s over the Waldach River. The basis of the realization competition of 2007 asked the landscape architects to develop connection and integration solutions of these spaces with the surrounding neighborhoods and the urban structure to bring back the landscape and the nature to the city, as the concept of green urbanity suggested. Stefan Fromm and his team understood this task and presented their proposal, considering that “Green Urbanity” is the integration of green and free spaces in the urban fabric, merging built-up and not built-up structures to an urban overall structure, the City. 10

10 Landesgartenschau Nagold 2012, seen at:

H. PLANNING AND DESIGNING PROCESS

Image 10: Green Urbanity Concept, author: Nagold Building and Civil Engineering Department

16

As a result of this interpretation, a specific Design approach was carried out characterized by the implementation of architectural and natural elements to strength the identity of the place, which can be perceived in different open spaces in the city. The Longwy Square with its stage to the water, the Waldach Promenade and the Oval Square at the Viaduct are some examples of this interpretation.

Design The design involved the renovation and creation of new green spaces and parks along the rivers, which form today most of the permanent green infrastructure and facilities of the city. The main green areas proposed were:

§ Kleb City Park

§ New created Krautbühl Park

§ New designed Riedbrunnen Park

One of the requirements of the competition was to connect the Hohennagold on Schlossberg to the new urban areas and the historic downtown. Stefan Fromm´s proposal of the staircase was a solution to this problem by linking Hohennagold to the ancient Celtic grave hill in Krautbühl Park through a straight axis. The idea was, however, rejected by the majority in the referendum in December 2010.

Another objective of the city development concept was the creation of a green corridor along the two rivers: the Nagold and Waldach, which were designed by Stefan Fromm11 and Lehen Drei Architekten Stadtplanung offices.12

The exhibition gardens along the vegetated Waldach corridor were planned to convert into residential areas on both north and south directions, composing the backbone of the entire urban green infrastructure, connecting the urban space, the Old Town and Downtown districts.

A network of paths, bridges and the promenade along the river integrates the existing parks and the whole city through a fluid green system.

http://www.fromm-landschaftsarchitekten.de/projekte/gartenschauen/nagold2012.php, visited on October 5, 2013. 11 Stefan Fromm Frei Garten- und Landschaftsarchitekt, seen at: http://www.fromm-landschaftsarchitekten.de/, visited on October 5, 2013. 12 Lehen drei Architekten Stadtplanung, seen at: http://www.lehendrei.de/staedte/index.html, visited on January 8, 2014.

Figure 4. Conceptual explanation of the project area Author: Fromm, Stefan 2013.

Image 11: Riedbrunnen Park during the Horticultural Show. Author: Andreia Oshiro, taken on 01.05.2012.

17

Figure 5: Ground plan of City Developing Concept. Courtesy: Stefan Fromm

Image 13: View of the Nagold Stairs from the pedestrian Bridge. Author: Mario Matamoros, taken on October 26, 2013.

Image 12: Waldach River Revitalization. Author: Andreia Oshiro, taken on October 26, 2013

18

Public participation in Germany

Incidents involving social discontent have occurred due to controversial projects in Germany, some examples are the Stuttgart 21 railway line Karlsruhe-Basel, the expansions of Frankfurt am Main and Munich airports, and the Fehmarn Island towards Denmark borders crossing tunnel. This may suggest that many citizens are demanding more participation in the planning and approval process of major projects. The current regulation enables the participation of citizens in all levels. This applies for example to the Federal Transport Infrastructure Planning, the subsequent Regional Planning Process and the Final Plan Approval Process. Legally, participation assures the rights of those affected by the plan, the information of Stakeholders and the public, the creation of transparency and the expanding the basis for decisions of the process leading by authorities.13

Citizens however, have the impression that their involvement in such procedures happens too late or just superficially, they feel inadequate and poorly informed. According to a survey made in 2012 by TNS-EMNID-Institutes for the Bertelsmann-Stiftung, 9 out of 10 citizens expect more information and 8 out of 10 would like to have more opportunities to participate on planned projects.14

In this context, the Federal Government has created a regulation to guide an early public participation process and standardize the Planning Approval Process (PIVereinhG). It commits the competent authorities to work with the public before starting the Planning Approval Process.

In a well-organized and conducted participation process, people can be integrated into the planning and decision phases. They have the possibility to inspect the documents, understand the planning/ decision process and influence, bring their ideas and concerns to the formal participation and thereby help to optimize the planning. Through such procedure, participants are able to understand better the relationships and backgrounds on which the method is based. The legitimacy of the planning and decision process is increased if objections of citizens in decision-making are considered or not, according to relevant justification.

13 Böhm, Monika (2011): Citizen Participation Stuttgart 21: Need Changes and Perspectives. in: Nature and Rights (NuR) 2011, S. 614-619, visited on February 2, 2014. 14 TNS Emnid (2012): Citizen Participation and Planning Infrastructure. Management Report August 2012. On Behalf of the Bertelsmann Stiftung. Seen at: http://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/cps/rde/xbcr/SID-0D002387-C18361A6/bst/xcms_bst_dms_36859__2.pdf. visited on: 02.02.2014.

I. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

19

Court disputes can be avoided by early identification of conflict and adjustments related to the plan. It also reduces changes along designing and implementation processes.

Participation in Nagold

The following description of the procedure in Nagold was based on information provided by the Municipal representatives Mr. Klaus Wielinski (Building Department) and Mrs. Ute Schönmetzler (City Administration).

According to Municipal Code, citizens can apply for a Referendum in specific cases on municipal level, for which the local Council is responsible. A public petition might be considered only in cases where the process was not carried out on basis of citizen’s initiative within the last three years. Citizens' petition must be submitted in writing, directed against the council’s decision, within 6 weeks after the announcement of the decision. It must contain reasonable arguments to justify their opposition as well as a proposal for the costs of the expected measures. The document must be signed by at least 10% of citizens in communities with:

§ Not more than 50 000 inhabitants by 2500 citizens, § More than 50 000 inhabitants, but not more than 100 000 inhabitants by 5000 citizens, § More than 100 000 inhabitants, but not more than 200 000 inhabitants of 10 000 citizens, § More than 200 000 inhabitants of 20 000 citizens.15

The public petition against the construction of the stairs in Nagold was submitted in January 2010. In

March 2010, the Council refused to conduct the Referendum because more than six months have passed after the official decision. Opponents have started a process against the city Nagold. In October 2010, the Administrative Court has given the opponents the right in an emergency procedure, and the Council conducted a Referendum on 02.11.2010. A meeting was held on 17.11.2010 to provide information for those citizens able to vote, in which the opponents could also express their opinion and all aspects of the Theme were clarified. The project was explained using slide show and plans. Every participant received a formal written document, which certificate that they could participate on the voting process. The invitation for such event was notified in the newspaper of Nagold and its districts, as well as in the Internet. More than 300 people have visited the event.16

In the course of further planning progress of the Horticultural Show, other information meetings were organized in combination with regularly tours through construction site. Nevertheless, after the Exhibition, the city has promoted meetings to inform about upcoming changes.

During the investigation we identify the different roles and their participation level in the process. To

identify these roles we utilized the Guideline for Public Participation elaborated by German Ministry of Transport. This document identifies who are the actors and how they can perform and influence decision-making processes in Germany. In transport infrastructure planning context, there are the “interested parties” and “stakeholders” on one side, and the “involved parties” on the other one.

15 Baden-Württemberg, Municipal Code § 21 Citizen Decisive, Citizen Covet Seen at: http://dejure.org/gesetze/GemO/21.html, visited on February 10,2014. 16 Information provided by Nagold Administration Department, Ms. Ute Schönmetzler, on 13.12.13.

20

For a clearer understanding they could be classified as:

§ Stakeholder: is the person whose interests are expected to affect the Project. § Public concerned: is each person or (environmental) organizations that can be touched by planning

decision. § Users: citizens and collective actors such as clubs, associations, interest groups and municipalities in

different degrees. § Planners: actors such as project developers, administrations or authorities, who are in the position to

formulate investment products and thus responsible for the granting of participation.

Criteria to evaluate the Participation

In order to evaluate the participation procedure we interviewed members from 3 different groups - city planners/municipality, public/users and the landscape architect author of the project. We also analyzed the information according to following criteria:

§ Range and representativeness: how do the participants set their concerns together? Did the monitoring

group members cover the diversity of interests and persons affected?

§ Quality of the results and the process: Was the information provided through different media considered as transparent, comprehensive, and balanced? Are the participating citizens satisfied with the individual events (content, procedure, moderation)?

§ Transparency: How clear were the goals, rules, and consequences of the participation process for different groups? How satisfied were citizens and organizers with the Participation process?

§ Efficiency: Are the financial and human resources allocated in proportion to the results? § Effects: What impact has the participation caused on the participants related to their attitude and

future Behavior (e.g. trust in management and policy, future willingness to participate)? What repercussions do the participation processes have on policy and management?

Investigation Procedure Mr. Klaus Wielinski, representative of the City Building Department, was the first person interviewed providing us relevant information about the original urban plan, the competition process and the winning project, the public initiative against the solution and the final results. He also supplied us with maps, catalogs and guided tour around the project Area. We received further information from the City Administration through Mrs. Ute Schönmetzler concerning the specific aspects of the Public Decision Process of this case. Mr. Dieter Laquai, mediator of ANU (Nature and Environmental Protection Association in Nagold), coordinated the public initiative. He shared to us his point of view as an environmentalist in an email-interview. Residents of Nagold, local business owners and visitors were also consulted and interviewed on the streets. Stefan Fromm, author of the project, also cooperated with valuable information and his point of view of the process in Nagold.

21

88% 66%

60%

57%

63%

63% 91% 60%



The interview results that will be shown were done to different people in the ages between 25 and 70, since they are considered to be the most active part of the population economically and politically speaking. Still in the participation process deciding the controversy of the stairs, most of the participants were in their early 50’s showing a lack of interest and participation of younger generations.

1. Surveying the people is usually a difficult task since they don’t like to get interviewed by any mean if they don’t believe they’re benefiting from it. As a matter of fact, just 57% of the people we tried to interview in the downtown, parks and convenience stores answered to our questions.

60% of the people interviewed didn’t like or agree with the idea of the stairs, showing at some extent that the people’s decision of not building them was respected and that their voice was that determining when asked to participate.

J. RESULTS FROM THE SURVEYS

Figure 6: People's Reactions in Percentages. Authors: Mario Matamoros

22

88% 66%

60%

57%

63%

63% 91% 60%



88% 66%

60%

57%

63%

63% 91% 60%



In the assessment chapters, we will discuss about some social discontents or lateral effects of the projects. One of these lateral effects is the discontent of the people towards the rise of visitors and new neighbors since the Horticultural Show. This graph shows that from the people interviewed, just 63% were locals, while 37% indeed were visitors that used frequently the parks.

Other interesting fact is the skepticism of the public towards the system’s transparency. Most of the interviewed believe that the consultancy or participation methods that the government makes for them are just for calming them down and to deceive them with the impression that their opinion really counts even though the decisions are already made.

A positive outcome of the project is the great acceptance and usage of the public infrastructure that was renovated for the Horticultural Show. More than 60% of the people (locals and visitors) use the park frequently.

Figure 7: People's Reaction in Percentages, Authors: Mario Matamoros

23

88% 66%

60%

57%

63%

63% 91% 60%



88% 66%

60%

57%

63%

63% 91% 60%



Even if the government grants an efficient and transparent public participation process, most people don’t enjoy their right of being heard. Just 12% of the survey participated in the referendum to decide over the stairs construction.

A positive figure obtained from the survey is the relatively high awareness of the people of the projects affecting or involving the community. Almost two thirds of the interviewed were conscious about the controversy regarding the stairs construction in a nature-protected area.

;

A project’s success is determined by the acceptance and integration of the people. The Horticultural Show in Nagold had a remarkable social effect in the citizens; more than 90% are happy with the outcome of the project.

Figure 8: People's Reaction in Percentages, authors: Mario Matamoros

24

K. INTERESTED PARTIES



The City Planners

Besides the figures, understanding the different communication channels between the interested parties, it was important to understand how the participation process developed and how every part interpreted and experienced this process. Our first interview was done to Mr Klaus Wielinski, from the Civil Engineering and Infrastructure department of Nagold. He explained us the legal, political and economical context of the project as well as the general chronology of the events. As a representative of the city planners and having deal with the other two interested parties he said to us that the most important for them was that the citizens were satisfied that their will was respect. Nevertheless he also declares that he found the idea of the stairs positives and that he could at least compromise to build one third of them as a social experiment, in case it was not too much economic and natural threat, but also a good way to see if the whole stairs designed would have functioned.17

Mr Wielinski also showed us the documentation material of the competition and the benefits it brought to Nagold citizens. Other important fact was that he mentioned the different media material used to communicate the process to the citizens, which gave transparency to the process.

17 Andreia Oshiro and Mario Matamoros, Recorded Interview to Mr. Wielinski, , November 11, 2013.

Figure 7: City Planners Position during the Realization Process, Author: Mario Matamoros

25



Mr. Fromm

Stefan Fromm answered our interview via email and he gave us his personal perspective of the events occurred in Nagold. For him, the process of publication and participation were very intense and the variety of material presented to the citizens encouraged them to participate more actively and feel more ownership over the project.

He didn’t present other alternatives to the stairs in terms of materials, lengths of form but explain the stair ideas several times with different kind of materials: power point presentations, plans, sketches etc. Sadly for him, the opponents to the stairs found more disadvantages than advantages to the proposal alleging economic unsustainability, lack of functionality and high costs of maintenance for an element that cannot be used the whole year.

Despite his disappointment towards the incompletion of the stairs, Fromm recognizes the importance of citizen participation and activism in the projects as enforcing factor to maintain the identity of the place.

Nevertheless, for Fromm, decisions should not be made with the participation of the public. The responsibility for decisions should remain with the elected supervisory bodies in coordination with planners.18

18 Andreia Oshiro, Written Interview to Stefan Fromm, January 2014.

Figure 9: Stefan Fromm's Conclusions, author: Mario Matamoros

26

The “No Group”

The third party involved was the society; or the users; this party was polarized into two fronts, those who wanted the stairs and those who didn’t. The front that didn’t had arguments that were based on strong impacts on Nature Preservation Area, intervention of the existing EU Fauna-Flora-Habitat, and the Forest Reserve. They also alleged adversely and negative effects on the landscape. The front was lead by the ANU (Nature and Environmental Protection Association in Nagold), represented by Mr. Dieter Laquai. ANU works in association with other environmental and local associations as the: German Association for Environment and Nature Conservation, the Nature Conservation Alliance and local groups Altensteig and Vollmaringen, and the SDW Protection of German Forests Association and the SWV (Black Forest Association) among others. 19

Mr. Laquai coordinated the long process involving the Public initiative against the official decision of the municipal Council upon the construction of the stairs on Schloßberg. The petition process took around 11 months until the final public decision, which was conducted by the municipality. The voting section opened to all citizens resulted in a majority of 70% of the participants in favor for the non-construction of the stair. According to Mr. Laquai, the invitation to citizens to participate in this Public decision process was published on local press and official bulletins. Three public meetings were organized by the municipality in order to provide information concerning the polemic construction. Depending on the location where those info-events took place, the audience ranged from 250 until 500 participants. Slide shows, pictures, architectural plans and expert reports were used to present the project. In addition to this, a guiding tour through the corresponding area inside the nature-protected site in Hohennagold took place and was attended by about 50 people. During the events, most of ideas and concerns from the participants were discussed, which sometimes lead to a time pressure. Mr. Laquai explains that Stefan Fromm presented no alternative proposal to the stairs. 20 Instead, the Environmental Associations brought to discussion 5 alternative ideas regarding a walking path to the top of the Hill. Finally after long debate, a new path was defined as a compensatory alternative. Initiators were satisfied with such result and the general conduction of the Public Participation Process.

19 ANU, General Description, seen at: http://www.anu-nagold.de/index.htm, visited on 18.12.2013 20 Andreia Oshiro, Written Interview realized to Dieter Laquai,18.12.2013

27

L. EVALUATION OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The article from Sherry R. Arnstein in 1969 about citizen’s

engagement and involvement in planning process in USA describes the level of public participation, represented by a ladder with 8 different categories21. Based on this text, we reflected about the American context and established a comparison with the situation identified in Germany, especially the case in Nagold, and eventually with our home countries. The first and second levels, Manipulation and Therapy reflect a “nonparticipation” status. Their real objective is not to enable people to participate in planning, but to enable power holders to „educate „or „cure „the participants. There is a clear resistance to power distribution, which can be seen very often in developing countries like Brazil and Honduras, where the practice does not necessarily follow the theory. Besides, communities in such situations have difficulties in organizing themselves in order to create a consistent and representative citizen’s group, due to several circumstances like lack of knowledge, commitment, perspective and trust.

Information and Consultation are levels of "tokenism" that allow citizens to hear and to have a voice. When participation is restricted to these levels, frequently there is only a one-way follow of information, no interaction, hence no assurance of changing the current situation. Some interviewed residents of Nagold expressed their concerns about been informed in a late stage of planning when not much could be done or influenced by citizens. In this case we can add the level of interest and engagement of people as an important factor that determines their soft or intensive participation on planning and decision processes.

21 A Ladder of Citizen Participation - Sherry R Arnstein, seen at: http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry-arnstein/ladder-of-citizen-participation.html, visited on February 17, 2014.

Figure 10: Level of Participation in Germany based on Guideline for Public Participation, Author: Andreia Oshiro

28

Placation is a higher level of tokenism which basic rules allow citizens to advise, but retain for the power holders the continued right to decide. These are the conditions defended by the Landscape Architect Stefan Fromm, who understands that public should be consulted, but alleges that the final decision is responsibility of planners and related authorities. This is also what we’ve observed so far in Nagold and in most of cases in Germany. People are invited to express their ideas and opinions about projects of public interest in official meetings. Those ideas are evaluated by planners and involved authorities, and taken in consideration according to relevance and possibility to be applied. Although citizens don’t retain the right to make decisions, in general they seem to be in accordance to results and support those changes, except in critical situations, when radical and strong impacts are expected to affect certain stakeholders. In Partnership we recognize good conditions for a democratic interaction, which enables citizens to negotiate and share planning and decision-making responsibilities, establishing trade-offs with authorities and power holders. In US and also in Germany however, citizens have to claim for their right to share power or influence in such processes, since it is not given by the city. In Nagold, the opponents organized themselves and asked for a referendum against the decision of the city council to build a staircase inside an environmental protection area. With this instrument, citizens could decide on the construction or not of a design element and discuss alternatives for this change, which is not exactly the procedure of partnership described by Arnstein, but was the legal and democratic way to manifest their disagreement towards an official decision and to change the outcome of the process in favor of their interests. Delegated Power and Citizen Control. In these levels of involvement, citizens obtain the majority of decision-making seats, or full managerial power. Nevertheless, since all programs require approval to be funded, the city councils retain final veto power, even if citizens are majority. In Germany all petitions and public initiatives must be approved by the city council as well, they decide about the relevance and eligibility of each situation. Under citizen control, what people expect is that the degree of power or control be in charge of policy, and under conditions that allow the public to influence and change. This model of community association with direct linkage with the source of funds is the mostly encouraged in US. Some examples have shown good results, producing goods and/or services while the tendency is to increase the number of such initiatives as people are demanding more power to decide about what happen in their communities. Unfortunately, communities in developing countries are far from experiencing decision power over their

Figure 11: Arnstein's Ladder of Citizen Participation, graph elaborated by Andreia Oshiro

29

community’s future, since economic power still drives the main governmental actions. In Germany there is an intention to integrate people into planning process, especially after conflicts generated by controversial projects like Stuttgart 2122. This is apparently what the Guideline for Public Participation, elaborated by the German Ministry of Transport, represents23. Because Nagold citizens were communicated and consulted in different phases of the planning process, they still could use the available instruments to interfere on a planning decision, which was against their interest. The opportunity to change the final outcome of a plan or program is the right that people have and should use to be included and considered in all political and economic processes that involve them.

22 Railway and Urban Development Project Stuttgart 21, seen at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuttgart_21, visited on February 17, 2014. 23 Guideline for a good Public Participation, seen at: http://www.dialog-waren.de/files/documents/handbuch-buergerbeteiligung.pdf, visited on February 2, 2014.

30

L. ASSESSMENT

The Garden Exhibition in Nagold was part of a master plan or city development’s concept intended to improve the open space qualities of the city and connect the distinct fragmented spots of the city by a green corridor that connects two parks, the downtown, some leisure activities and schools. We can define the project as target oriented towards a more integrated city life without cars. Another target of the project was to bring back people to Nagold by making it attractive. Improving the connections by green structures and improving the existing parks was the right thing to do. The City development’s concept was also concerned on creating new residential developments which would occupy some garden exhibitions allocated along the Krautbühl Park and the Riverbank of the Waldach heading south. The ecological targets of the project were basically to improve the riverbank conditions of the Waldach River and to preserve the Hohennagold Mountain since it is a nature protected area. The Waldach River was in very poor conditions, some parts near the downtown were even covered by concrete surfaces that not just block the view of the river to the people, but deteriorate the ecosystems that lived in the Riverbank. Most of this Riverbank didn’t have vegetation and the water quality was not the best either. The main target of the planners here was to bring nature back to the river letting it develop like in wilderness even if the perimeter of the riverbank was embedded into evident geometrical borders. We can infer that the improvement of the river conditions was a process of revitalization in which the vegetation along the river grows without a strict or defined order. The social target of this Horticultural Show was to bring people back to the river and to use the riverbank as the green backbone of the whole city development’s concept.24 People are now capable of walking along the riverbank from one park to another.

24 Andreia Oshiro and Mario Matamoros, Recorded Interview to Mr. Wielinski, November 11, 2013.

31

The other ecological concern of the project was the idea of building stairs in the Hohennagold that could connect the City Park to the Castle ruins on the top of the hill. The main problem: these stairs would cross a Nature-Protection Area. Other inconveniences found by the locals was the steepness of the stairs, 670 stairs are not easy to digest for someone climbing up a hill. These stairs would also cost 600.000 euros more to the project and some speculated that the Municipality wouldn’t be responsible to pay for the maintenance of such stairs. Other arguments claimed that the stairs couldn’t be used for more than 2 months a year, particularly in summer.

The New Residential Development The Horticultural Show was intended to be a renaissance for Nagold; one of the main objectives was to have new high quality residential areas. Many locals became uncomfortable about the fact of having too many visitors and foreigners after the garden exhibition as well as new residential complex taking over the proximities of the parks. Locals show some resilience to this fact since the constructions don’t respect the visual borders of the historic downtown, blocking the views and resulting in a loss of Nagold’s character. The new residential next to Krautbühl Park more than being visually invasive to the locals that have a nostalgic view of Nagold, are also controversial in a social perspective: Even if the high quality parks are public, the rich live closer to them.

Solutions To avoid further conflicts, the civil engineering and Building department should realize some compensation measures for the citizens to decrease their discontent about the new inhabitants and visitors of Nagold. These measures could be: -More infrastructure or budget for community projects -The continuation of the green urbanity concept after the viaduct, where the peripheries are not quite integrated to the rest of the city yet. -Regulations to stabilize the price of construction and renting so that new infrastructure wouldn’t definitely signify higher taxes and prices of renting. -Regulation on construction heights to avoid visual pollution and a loss of identity. -Promotion of activities or events to integrate the visitors to the locals.

32

Posit ive Design Features:

Part of the success of the Green Urbanity concept in Nagold were some crucial design elements that Stefan Fromm incorporated and therefore raised the image of the city and the contact of people towards nature throughout the three different parks and the paths along the river. Some of the characteristics mentioned in the Design Guideline for Urban Public Space are visible today in Nagold’s park system.

The great diversity of activities oriented to different group targets is one of the qualities of this green concept. Fromm gave the possibility to group the different activities and meeting points for different age targets so that the conflicts of ownership were diminished and the functionality increased. The older people walk along the river where they can find places to sit and contemplate. They can also walk through the Krautbühl Park were the different gardens are allocated and the paths access some convenience stores and cafes in the city. The kids prefer the playing area in the City Park where another important design decision was added; playing with the natural features. Because of the proximity of the river and water coming down from the Hohennagold Mountain, a water stream crosses the park and enhances the playing area where the kids make figure with sand and play with other water related elements. The teenagers prefer the Riedbrunnen Park; an area that has plenty open spaces to enjoy the sun and the sport activities. We also have to mention that the Riedbrunnen Park has playing areas for little kids since the park is close to a kindergarten and a new housing development.

Another positive feature of the park is its lack of vandalism, partially because the citizens now feel proud of the green infrastructure the city enjoys and take care of its conditions but also because the design tried to diminish the surfaces and elements that could be damaged by vandalism. The design also excludes the elements that could result irritating and frustrating to the users by the lack of fencing and proximity to private they might want to reach.25

The contact with nature can be considered a great success of the project since the river Waldach’s revitalization was formulated as the backbone of the project. This revitalization and primordially its path

25 Clair Cooper Marcus and Carolyn Francis, Claire Miller Watsky, Elliot Insley, and Carolyn Francis, Design Guidelines for Urban Public Space, 2nd edition, 1990.

M. SUCCESSES AND LIMITATIONS

33

parallel to it, allow people an incredible close contact to the river ecosystem. Some other special elements that enable this experience are the stairs to the river, which strongly come to the river border and let people sit and see the ducks passing by. We also have to mention the wooden dock between the city park and the Krautbühl Park, which also allows the visitor to approximate to the river almost walking over the water.

The social cohesion and integration is achieved by the different tribunes positioned in the three parks, these tribunes don’t force face to face communication but enable groups to sit in corners and spots to talk between them but not with other groups. This might differ from the United States or Latin America, where the societies are more communicative and extroverted. The individual benches on the other hand are located in front of viewing points where nature is the main character of the visual frame, this is very positive to the citizens since it raises their appreciation for the revitalization process the river had to go by.

34

We don't want a Stuttgart 21 mess here!

Many trees will be cut down!

€ 600.000 for stairs?

Stairs for 3 months of use a year? No man climbs more than 600 stairs!

The stairs are invassive; let nature be nature!

Stairs aren't sustainbale!

The city council will not give or pay maintenance!

Concrete stairs?

NO STAIRS, FORGET IT!

We don't want a Stuttgart 21 mess here!

Many trees will be cut down!

€ 600.000 for stairs?

Stairs for 3 months of use a year? No man climbs more than 600 stairs!

The stairs are invassive; let nature be nature!

Stairs aren't sustainbale!

The city council will not give or pay maintenance!

Concrete stairs?

NO STAIRS, WHY???



Our research in Nagold revealed strong citizen participation even if their involvement was restricted,

but effective enough to change the outcome of the local Council‘s decision. It is important to mention that the participation process was not just limited to the controversy of the stairs’ realization but to the whole planning process and publication of the green urbanity concept. It was because of the thousands of letters of support from the citizens to the realization of the Garden Exhibition in Nagold that the State of Baden Württemberg decided to grant Nagold with this opportunity.

The basis of the realization competition, which resulted in Fromm’s proposal as the winner, was in part based on the hundreds of ideas proposed by the citizens. Ironically, our investigation couldn’t determine if the requirement of bringing the castle closer to the city was an idea from the planners or from the citizens. The rejection of the stairs idea may suggest that the planners formulated the requirement but public opinion lacking of technical and artistic education is very variable and amnestic. Saying this, despite of its improbability, the citizens themselves might have suggested this idea and then rejected it.

Our investigation also reveals a transparent process in which regardless of the still improvable conditions of public participation in Germany, the project was explained in different methods, published and available to be object of study from the citizens during the legal terms the planners were asked to make it public. The controversy of the realization of the stairs was done outside the legal period of refuting design elements and had to go the court of Baden Württemberg to end as an appointment of a referendum. This infers that the citizens

N. CONCLUSIONS

Figure 12: No Stairs, Why? Graphic explaining how the citizens perceived the stairs realization, author: Mario Matamoros

35



took too much time to organize and react towards measures against their interests.

Regarding the stairs realization and their viability, the research shows that the idea of the stairs was not presented in such a way that the citizens might have found more benefits than problems in their realization. The basic concerns were the economical and ecological aspects of their realization. The citizens perceived the methodology and communication of the stairs idea as an extra problem, in a time sensible to other ecological controversies in Germany and Europe. Such a small city didn’t want to attract attention because of ecological unawareness.

Stefan’s Fromm’s persistence to incorporate the stairs to the Garden Exhibition could be seen as a factor that played against him. He didn’t’ present design alternatives that might have convinced the citizens rather than cause them to fear the construction of this element in a nature protection area. He also had o face the problem that the amount of arguments against the construction of the stairs was more than the amount of arguments in favor. Most of the arguments, besides of being oriented in costs and ecology, also manifest technical and functional weaknesses of the realization of the stairs. Stefan Fromm could have also presented material alternatives to diminish the cost and the environmental impact as well as being more flexible with the length and dimensions of the proposed stairs.

Figure 11: Fromm’s Mistakes. Author: Mario Matamoros

36



Figure 12: Design and Public Process. Authors: Andreia Oshiro and Mario Matamoros

37

After a broad overview of the process in which Nagold citizens strongly participated in the planning and construction phases of the Horticultural Show and the beginning of the Green Urbanity, it’s inevitable to come to some procedure questions that might have change the outcome of the Project in favor of the planners and the landscape architects. Some question rising are:

-Could the citizens react differently if the landscape architect would have presented more materials and alternatives?

-What position and reactions should the landscape architect have after seeing denial and resilience to his/her ideas?

-How could a design and presentation alternative change the perception of the people?

-How should the participation process be applied to realization and ideas competitions to guarantee quality, innovation and satisfaction of all the interested parties?

-Is the actual participation process efficient and profitable enough for all of the interest parties?

-Why is there a lack of activism in certain population groups when talking about participation processes?

O. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

38

-Faga, Barbara, 2006. Designing Public Consensus. EDAW-AECIM. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken, New Jersey. -‐ Nagold Overview, seen at: http://www.nagold.de/de/Home, visited on October 05, 13 -Nagold’s Documentation of Realization Competition, November 2007 -The Black Forest, seen at: http://www.roughguides.com/destinations/europe/germany/the-black-forest/, visited on February 5, 2014. -‐Enz, River explanation, seen at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enz, visited on February 5, 2014. -‐ Burg Hohennagold, seen at: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burg_Hohennagold, visited on February 5, 2014. -‐Attractions, Viadukt, seen at: http://www.nagold.de/1566?view=publish&item=tripDestination&id=21, visited on February 5, 2014. -‐Tasks of BW-Grün, seen at: http://www.bwgruen.de/ueber-uns/historie/, visited on February 5, 2014. -Landesgartenschau Nagold 2012, seen at: http://www.fromm-landschaftsarchitekten.de/projekte/gartenschauen/nagold2012.php, visited on October 5, 2013. -Stefan Fromm Frei Garten- und Landschaftsarchitekt, seen at: http://www.fromm-landschaftsarchitekten.de/, Visited on October 5, 2013. -‐Lehen drei Architekten Stadtplanung, seen at: http://www.lehendrei.de/staedte/index.html, visited on January 8, 2014. -‐Böhm, Monika (2011): Citizen Participation Stuttgart 21: Need Changes and Perspectives. in: Nature and Rights (NuR) 2011, S. 614-619, visited on February 2, 2014. -TNS Emnid (2012): Citizen Participation and Planning Infrastructure. Management Report August 2012. On Behalf of the Bertelsmann Stiftung. Seen at: http://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/cps/rde/xbcr/SID-0D002387-C18361A6/bst/xcms_bst_dms_36859__2.pdf. Visited on: February 02, 2014. -Baden-Württemberg, Municipal Code § 21 Citizen Decisive, Citizen Covet Seen at: http://dejure.org/gesetze/GemO/21.html, visited on February 10,2014. -ANU, General Description, seen at: http://www.anu-nagold.de/index.htm, visited on December 18, 2013

P. REFERENCES

39

- Clair Cooper Marcus and Carolyn Francis, Claire Miller Watsky, Elliot Insley, and Carolyn Francis, Design Guidelines for Urban Public Space, 2nd edition, 1990. -A Ladder of Citizen Participation - Sherry R Arnstein, seen at: http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry-arnstein/ladder-of-citizen-participation.html, visited on February 17, 2014. -1 Railway and Urban Development Project Stuttgart 21, seen at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuttgart_21, visited on February 17, 2014. 1 Guideline for a good Public Participation, seen at: http://www.dialog-waren.de/files/documents/handbuch-buergerbeteiligung.pdf, visited on February 2, 2014.

Interviews: - Andreia Oshiro, Written Interview realized to Dieter Laquai, December 18. 2013 -‐ Oshiro Andreia and Mario Matamoros, Recorded Interview to Klaus Wielinski, November 11,2013. -‐ Information provided by Nagold Administration Department, Ms. Ute Schönmetzler, on December 13,2013. - Andreia Oshiro, Written Interview to Stefan Fromm, by, January 2014. Image References -All chapter title images taken by Mario Matamoros on October 26, 2013.

Graph References: -All graphs presented in this case study were elaborated by Andreia Oshiro and Mario Matamoros.

40

Planners(((landscape(architect)((

1. What'is'your'point'of'view'to'the'realization'of'this'project?''

2. How'would'you'evaluate'the'complexity'of'the'project'and'the'expectations'about'it?''

3. Which'aspects'were'key'points'on'the'planning'process?'''

'4. How'do'you'evaluate'the'designing'process'and'the'changes'in'the'project?'

'5. What’s'your'opinion'about'the'level'of'participation'of'the'public'during'the'planning'process'

and'on'final'decisions?'How'it'affected'the'final'result?''

'6. What'kind'of'material'did'you'presented'to'the'public'to'explain'your'proposal?'

'7. The'idea'of'the'stairs'was'rejected.'Why?'People'were'afraid'of'this'idea?'

'

'8. How'was'it'explained'to'the'public?''

'9. Did'you'present'alternatives'to'the'original'idea?''

'

'10. Do'you'think'like'design'decisions'like'cutting'the'tree'on'the'circular'grave,'may'have'caused'

some'discontent'and'opposition'from'people?''

11. What'lesson'about'public'participation'and'negotiation'with'citizens'could'you'take'from'this'project?''

'

Q. APPENDIX

Image 14: Survey for Stefan Fromm

41

Municipality/organizers22

1. The&invitation&for&public&participation&process&was&published&on&newspaper.&Could&we&have&a&printed/digital&copy&of&the&invitation&to&the&public&to&decide&about&the&stairs?&&

&

2. How&were&the&events/meetings&organized&by&the&municipality&concerning&content&and&procedure?&How&many&people&participate&and&how&many&meetings&were&organized?&a.&

&

3. How&did&the&participants&set&their&concerns&together?&Were&all&different&interest&and&ideas&approached?&

&

4. What&kind&of&material&was&used&to&explain&project&and&who&presented&them?&&

&&&

5. Which&are&the&effects&of&public&participation&on&politic&and&administration&in&Nagold?&Is&the&municipality&interested&on&implementing&the&same&process&in&future&projects?&

&&

Image 15: Survey for the Building Department of Nagold

42

Users%1. How&was&the&participation&on&the&project&communicated&to&citizens?&When&did&it&happen?&

a.&&&

2. Was&the&information&clear&and&easy&to&understand?&

&

3. How&were&the&events/meetings&organized&by&the&municipality&concerning&content&and&procedure?&How&many&people&participate&and&how&many&meetings&were&organized?&&

&

4. How&did&the&participants&set&their&concerns&together?&Were&all&different&interest&and&ideas&approached?&

&

5. What&kind&of&material&was&presented&to&explain&project?&&

&6. The&idea&of&the&stairs&was&rejected.&Why?&&

&&

7. Did&the&planners&present&alternatives&to&the&original&idea?&&&&

8. How&did&your&decision&change&the&final&result?&&&

9. Are&you&satisfied&with&the&process?&Would&you&change&something?&&&

10. Are&you&willing&to&participate&in&future&projects?&&

&

Image 16: Survey for Users

HOW STRONG WAS THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE OUTCOME OF NAGOLD'S GARDEN EXHIBITION

Documents

Transcript of HOW STRONG WAS THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE OUTCOME OF NAGOLD'S GARDEN EXHIBITION