The article is from A&B issue 03|23
Concrete vs greenery. Is it worth fighting for every tree in the city?
1.
I am unable to answer the question posed in this way directly because of the military metaphor used, assuming a similarity between urban planning and war activity. It is difficult for me to take a position when the problem is outlined as a choice between engaging in combat and desertion. Both affirmative and negative attitudes ultimately confirm that the point of reference of our deliberations is always the battle for urban trees, and the discussion takes place exclusively on the battlefield and should be resolved there.
My doubts stem from the belief that urban planning does not have to fight for anything. Its task, which stems from the social division of labor, is to create the best spatial solution given boundary conditions and in accordance with the principles of its discipline. When it deals with a topic of real importance to a local community, such as programming the development of a city or its center, it can also participate in negotiating these conditions, defining what it means for a design idea to be appropriate, and setting criteria for its selection.
Urban greenery management system for the City of Zduńska Wola - authors of the study: CMLI Michał Zarzecki, Aleksandra Hantkiewicz-Lejman, Paweł Jaworski
illustrations: Aleksandra Hantkiewicz-Lejman
2.
We have a body, we can interact with public space, transform it as we see fit, according to plans that respond to individual or social needs or aspirations - this makes urbanism possible. We are a body, we are connected to the entire urban ecosystem, and every change within it has a feedback effect on us, sometimes very intensely - this makes urbanism important.
Trees are important components of the urban environment. Thus, their presence affects the quality of our life in the city, and sometimes determines the possibility of its use at all. This is the case, for example, when the air temperature threatens our existence, and it is under the treetops that we find shelter from the scorching heat. We can, of course, write about plants - and the entire biosphere in general - in a manner other than anthropocentric, but even adopting such a position makes us realize that trees are worth taking care of. By taking care of trees, we take care of ourselves.
Therefore, when creating a concept for a new development of public space, we should choose a solution that affects plants as little as possible, does not lead to their elimination or deterioration. When preparing a project for the reconstruction of a street, a square or a larger area, it is worth evaluating individual ideas from the point of view of dendrological requirements, and on this basis emerge the botanically most favorable idea.
Urban greenery management system for the City of Zduńska Wola - authors of the study: CMLI Michał Zarzecki, Aleksandra Hantkiewicz-Lejman, Paweł Jaworski
illustrations: Aleksandra Hantkiewicz-Lejman
3.
However, it may happen that we face a dilemma that cannot be solved by engineering. For example, we will be forced to decide whether to keep the plants or widen the sidewalk needed by pedestrians, since it will be impossible to do both for geometric reasons. Perhaps we will succeed in our remedial efforts and move the trees to a new location or do compensatory plantings in the area, which will keep the balance at the current level or even improve it? However, taking such measures will not change the fact that the plants will disappear from the area under our care.
Public space in an urbanized area is finite, and it will not increase in size just because we tribute to specific ideas. Moreover, its current development and functioning are a reflection of the order of social interests that keep it as it is. It is not a malleable resource that can be enlarged or deformed at will. For this reason, urban planning is not and can never be a purely technical activity, involving the imaginative production of design solutions in accordance with strictly defined rules.
In the course of urban planning, the urban community reveals its values and establishes their hierarchy, and thus decides what will become the basis for urban redevelopment. At the beginning of this process, all demands appear equally important, after all, each interest group is convinced that its position deserves special recognition. The claims are therefore different from each other in terms of content, but similar in form.
Urban Greenery Management System for the City of Zduńska Wola - authors of the study: CMLI Michał Zarzecki, Aleksandra Hantkiewicz-Lejman, Paweł Jaworski
illustrations: Aleksandra Hantkiewicz-Lejman
4.
The urban community is made up of many collectivities defending a unilateral vision of development. Some focus on economic issues, others on social, cultural, aesthetic or climate issues. Each group believes that its approach is comprehensive and good for the community as a whole, or at least better or more important than a competing perspective. Those belonging to them claim the primacy of their own point of view over others, either as a matter of course, or as a result of an assessment formulated on a distinguished ground. Thus, they emphasize the importance of whatever brings the greatest financial benefit, is most supportive of disadvantaged groups, best enriches the historic layout, is particularly apt for the taste of people involved in architectural criticism, or is least likely to worsen retention conditions.
There is nothing unusual about this. Dogmatic urban thinking is natural, since an important aspect of being a body is having emotions and reacting emotionally to the world around us. The arousal caused by violating one's own interests or seeing an opportunity to increase their protection is the content of politics - it does not come down to rational calculations.
The trouble arises when we automatically move from a positive assessment of a solution within a value system specific to a particular field or group to a positive assessment understood absolutely (politically). When we skip negotiating with those who define the concept of urban development in a different way than we do. When we try to silence those who disagree with us by pointing out that they are incompetent or clouded by a misrecognition of what is beneficial to them.
Urban Greenery Management System for the City of Zduńska Wola - authors of the study: CMLI Michał Zarzecki, Aleksandra Hantkiewicz-Lejman, Paweł Jaworski
illustrations: Aleksandra Hantkiewicz-Lejman
5.
The most radical materialization of the orthodox position on the issue of fighting for trees would be the introduction of an absolute order to protect them from felling. This move would create numerous practical complications. After all, any technical condition can be deviated from when the need to implement a deviation arises from a desire to achieve a greater good in circumstances that block the applicability of a general engineering standard. This would be no different in the case of greenery.
Establishing an injunction would also give rise to another, more serious problem. Such a provision would - paradoxically - take away people's authority over the space they inhabit and use on a daily basis, manifested in every single act of collective decision-making about the development and operation of urban areas. Nurturing plants would lose their symbolic and moral significance.
Urban greenery management system for the City of Zduńska Wola - authors of the study: CMLI Michał Zarzecki, Aleksandra Hantkiewicz-Lejman, Paweł Jaworski
illustrations: Aleksandra Hantkiewicz-Lejman
6.
The planning process cannot be completed by recognizing all the claims made as equally valid and worthy of recognition in a specific design situation. The multiplicity of ideas must be overcome by recognizing the extent to which they are compatible with the larger concept negotiated between different interest groups. The content of urban planning is only holistic plans, not local interventions. Plans that strengthen some interests and weaken others.
None of the demands can be fully satisfied as long as there is no privatization of the planning process by one privileged group. The result of planning is a certain balance, which some (wrongly) call compromise. The result of negotiation can, of course, be a proposal to preserve trees, and this will happen in many cases. Now, this aspect of shaping public space is - in my private opinion rightly - a priority for many (most?) people participating in urban planning debates. However, one should always consider logging as a viable alternative.
If we acknowledge the absolute primacy of the presence of trees in the city over the possibility of challenging it, we will take away from urban planning its momentous importance. After all, what is more important than trees is arguing about the legitimacy of their preservation and ensuring that no one takes a distinguished position in this dispute because of their social or economic position.
