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

Public Park design in Budapest during the second half of the 19th Century

The idea of enlarging Népliget Park first appeared in 1897. At this point, the creation of a proper pleasure ground for the poorest classes was the main goal, besides relieving pressure on Városliget Park.353 The plans of the second phase of the park were published by Ilsemann in 1900. According to press sources, most of the work had been done by 1904, but Ilsemann himself dated the final works to the year 1910.354 The new park, enlarged by 105 acres, was one of the biggest and most beautiful European public parks of the period, according to the contemporary sources.355 Besides the Head Gardener, Ilsemann, another gardener, Ágost Blazsek, was also praised for his work on the project.356 The final layout of the nursery was finished at the same time as the second phase of the park. Most of the plants in the nursery came from the previous nursery of the Municipal Parks Department in Lőportár Street; the more unusual plants came from Ludwig Späths nursery in Berlin.357 Ilsemann introduced his plans in an article, and from the point of view of design theory, this paper shows important changes. As he wrote: “the main principle driving me in designing public parks and promenades is the following: to adapt them to the regulation plans of the city, to the architecture of the surrounding buildings, and that these plantings have some special quality. They need to show the thinking, the feelings and the poetry of our nation.'TM Because of this, he recommended the use of species of the Hungarian flora. The functional arrangement of the site changed as well. He paid special attention to the creation of various playgrounds for children; he designed some with lawns, and some with gravel. Not far from Hungária Road he recommended the creation of a coffee house, which had an elevated outdoor area giving good views of the park. The plan of the second phase exceeded the first, both in terms of functionality and in its planting strategy. It is interesting to observe, though, that in terms of formal layout, he returned to the older style of curly informal organisation of the paths, instead of the previous phases more grandiose plan. As for the new functions, such as the coffee house or the play area, Ilsemann used the same type of geometrical forms such as the hippodrome, like Meyer in his Berlin parks. The main novelty of the second phase was most probably the use of native plants: Ilsemann exceeded the idea of dendrological show gardens which was common at the time.

It was the first public park in continental Europe which used the same planting strategy was Gustav Meyers plan for the second phase of the Friedrichshain in Berlin. The first part of the park was constructed in 1840, and it was Meyer s first project in Berlin. The second part was created in 1866, due to the building of a hospital, and was his last project.359 The main novelty of the park was its planting strategy and the theoretical thinking behind it. This was Meyer s first plan, when he did not put any emphasis on the use of exotic plants but, in complete contrast, his plan especially recommended the planting of indigenous plants from the Brandenburg margrave. He wanted to use plants which could be found in the area, were typical and native to the area, to help with botanical education in nearby schools, and knowledge of native flora. The biggest 19th century public park in Vienna, built in the outskirts of the city Türkenschanzpark shows Meyers influence.360 This example can be placed parallel to Népliget Park, both in terms of the reason behind its creation and its formation. The park was similarly created in the outskirts of Vienna, in an area populated by workers, on a former mining area. The layout is also similar, as well as the fact that they were both built in two phases.

The creation of Türkenschanzpark is strongly linked to the development of the Garden City movement in Vienna, initiated by Heinrich von Ferstel and Karl von Borkowski. The idea of a new peoples park came from Karl von Hasenauer.361 The committee to create the park, called the ‘Comité zur Anlage eines öffentlichen Parkes auf der Türkenschantze’, was founded in 1883, under the presidency of Ferstel. To underpin the need for a new

park, they collected medical notes, which showed that a new park, providing fresh air, was also important for the whole city of Vienna, because of the wind directions. The first phase was created according to the plans by Gustav Sennholz in 1888.362 The second phase, finished twenty years later in 1910, fitted very well with the first phase stylistically: informal paths defined the design. The plans were created by Heinrich Goldemund and Wenzel Hybler.363 The park was built at an infamous former mine site, which provided interesting levels and natural formations, reminding the designers of the mountains of the surrounding alpine landscape. During the design process of the second phase, the designers also used these opportunities, and they also placed a stop for the suburban train line at the entrance to the park. Both in terms of the features constructed, and of the planting plans, the Alps served as a model for the designers. The landscapes of the park recreated the moods popular hiking places (the Rax Alps, Semmering), aided by the plants used. The botanical concept recommended the use of more than 400 plants, and an educational trail to introduce them was also designed.364 At the highest point of the park, a lookout tower, the so-called ‘Paulinewarte’ was created, as the end point of the excursion. It was built with a stone plinth and a wooden structure. To create more functions and leisure opportunities, a restaurant in the Italian renaissance style was built as well. The area surrounding this was created in a formal style, with Chestnut and Maple trees, planted in a perpendicular system. A bandstand provided music in the park, which became a crucial element of the parks at the time. Next to the lake, a small hall was built to serve the needs of boating, and skating in winter.

Already at the beginning of the 20th century, Népliget Park was notorious for its poor safety and the lack of visitors, despite the continuous redevelopment.365 This was the most frequently-mentioned point in the newspapers as well, and this has remained the case until today. Its neglected appearance paints a very bad picture of the park, which was once one of the biggest in Europe, and this affects the articles about it as well. However, if one compares the second phase of Népliget Park with the second phase of Friedrichshain and Türkenschanzpark, it can be stated that it was built at approximately the same time, and the principles were parallel to them. In terms of functions, it had everything that we count as fundamental in public park design - such as various functions for various age groups - and in terms of its planting scheme it foreshadowed the doctrines of ecological planting of the modernist period of the first half of the 20th century. Therefore Népliget Park - despite its insecurity and being in an inaccessible place - was a very important stage in the history of Hungarian public park design.

117