Csepely-Knorr Luca: Barren Places to Public Spaces. A History of Publick Park Design in Budapest 1867-1914 (Budapest, 2016)

An appraisal of Public Park design in Budapest at the Thurn of the 20th Century

Parks as places for social life became crucial, therefore the creation of additional functions in them was another typical part of their evolution besides the previously-mentioned formal changes. While earlier private gardens served the requirements of the owner and his family, public parks, which were designed aesthetically like private gardens, had to provide leisure opportunities for the various layers of the society. The need for public parks “which are able to satisfy the demands for cultural, ceremonial and mass entertainment facilities at the same time" appeared.429 An article published in 1910 in the journal Kertészeti Lapok, gave an overview of the requirements of the users for public parks. The author of the article, Jenő Brunner, criticised Hungarian public green spaces based on German and English examples. He noted the lack of facilities for organised sports, and also the possibilities for flexible use of the spaces. He wrote: ".... we hope that the time will come when our parks will become real people's parks and not just pompous ornamental gardens”.430 The movement to provide space for organised sports had started in the United Kingdom, but their principles had become accepted all over Europe, and the public also treated the role of public parks for the improvement of the health of the residents as a matter of fact. Sociopolitical viewpoints appeared as well. However, the design and creation of specialist sporting areas developed into a real movement for sports parks only between the two World Wars. But from the 1910s the creation of public parks grew into a possibility, even with the demolition of built-up areas.431 The educational role of public parks gained more importance as well. As an example, one can mention the placing of informational notices with the names of plants in public parks, such as in Erzsébet Square, or the complex educational goals in János Hein’s Palm Garden.432

Along with these aesthetic and functional changes, it is worth analysing the changes in the planting schemes and in the landscapes which the parks wanted to recreate. Cordula Loidl-Reisch, in her publication about the development of public parks in Vienna, emphasised that, by comparing the plans for Türkenschanzpark (1888, 1910) in Vienna with Viktoriapark (1899) in Berlin, major modifications can be seen. The landscape-concept of Gellert Hill fits completely with these examples. All three parks introduce an ideal landscape: the ideal highlands in Viktoriapark and on Gellért Hill, and a place suitable for alpine excursions in Türkenschanzpark. These landscapes, however, can neither be compared to those referring to Arcadia’ in the period of the classical English landscape garden in the mid-18th century, nor to the ideal plain, riverbank or meadow landscapes of Pückler-Muskau earlier in the 19th century, but rather the rigid mountains of the Alps.433 Erika Schmidt related this change, and the appearance of the remodelling of mountain landscapes in public parks, to the landscape painting of the romantic period.434

In mid-19th century Hungarian art, as Katalin Keserű pointed out, castle ruins became "representatives of Hungarian National art”.435 It is hardly a coincidence that a "picturesque ruin" was planned for Gellért Hill, when this pictorial element had such significance in fine art.436 The role the Citadel played was particular as well: out of the stones of the hated building, which was also called Bastille, they wanted to create a statue of liberty or a pantheon for propagating national pride. In the end it remained as a symbolically de-fortified ruin on the top of the hill that - according to Keserű - shows that the emblematic meaning of castles and ruins lived on.437 In most of the designs for Gellért Hill, the embellishment of nature is linked to the monument propagating national pride. The actual monument and

its landscape say a lot about this idea; although on a much smaller scale, it still transmits the national idea. Ilsemann’s subtle planting concept strengthened this. The use of Hungarian mountain flora and the evocation of the mountain landscapes of the country, achieved the unity of the statue and its environment, and also the conceptual and aesthetic integration of the landscape and the monument.

The concepts of Türkenschanzpark, Viktoriapark, Gellért Hill and Népliget Park shared one more common feature: the emphasis on the use of indigenous plants. As - the German-born - Ilsemann said as a proud patriot: “the main principle driving me in designing public parks and promenades is the following: to adapt to the regulation plans of the city, to the architecture of the surrounding buildings, and that these plantings have some speciality. They need to show the thinking, the feelings and the poetry of our nation".438 The search for something characteristically national’ at the time also emerged in Hungarian fine art and architecture, such as the most important historical paintings or the architecture of art nouveau and the Secession.439 The scenery of the homeland, and to evoke particularly Hungarian landscapes, became a crucial aim in landscape design theory as well. One of the main principles of the Garden Reform Movement, starting from Germany at the beginning of the 20th century, was to replace the use of exotic plants with ones which fitted the given site, both in terms of ecology and phytogeography. As a clear sign of this, the use of native plants appeared in public park designs as well.

At the end of the 19th century and the turn of the 20th century, the development of the public parks in Budapest happened in various layers, therefore its evaluation - both from the point of view of design theory and aesthetics - needs to be as complex. The landscape design of the period analysed, together with their emblematic features, the carpet beds, were criticised and criticised and stereotyped negatively by earlier authors. Imre Ormos, one of the most decisive designers of the 20th century for example, thought, that "the practice of those gardeners who did not see anything else in the garden but to plant peculiar plants, desecrated garden design".440 This book wanted to prove that the public parks and public green spaces of Budapest designed in the dualist period had certain components which answered not just the concurrent socio-political needs, but also to the most prevalent European designtheoretical questions. Those design principles, still relevant in today’s professional practice, were defined at this time, and these works carried the impact of the latest movements in art and architecture, although these - such as the search for national character - were not always self-explanatory to their visitors. Nevertheless it proves that the design theory of the period kept abreast of the theories of architecture and fine art, and it was a misunderstanding that it remained committed to the style of an earlier period.441 Public park design, by the first decades of the 20th century, did find its own style, and was differentiated from private gardens. Design theory moved towards the main principle of the 20th century, emphasising the function instead of the form of the layout. The evolution of Budapest at the turn of the 20th century seems glorious, the achievements of its city development unsurpassable. However, we have to agree with a contemporary author who, while appreciating the work of the Head Gardener of Budapest, supplemented it with advice for the future: "Budapest can only obtain its metropolitan status through its public parks and other public green spaces”.442

145