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

Promenade at the foot of Gellért Hill / Kertészeti Lapok, 1907. p. 3S4. ADT

of the English landscape gardens to provide visitors with an experience of nature.4“’ Linked to the axis of the monument, Mächtig designed a cascadesystem, based on baroque examples. The designs were altered several times, and in the final version inl899,amore natural waterfall replaced the cascades, typical element of the English landscape style gardens. The analysis of this last plan reveals a peculiar concept: all elements of the park wanted to recreate the landscape of the highlands and mountains of the area. Although this idea had appeared earlier, it is important to highlight that in Mächtig’s plans the recreated landscape was not the Alps anymore, it was the highlands around Berlin, the immediate natural landscape of the area, also typical of the whole German Empire. From this point of view, Mächtig s example must have been Meyer s plan for the Friedrichshain, where he recreated the vegetation of the Brandenburg area. To design Viktoriapark, Mächtig specifically researched the natural flora and fauna, travelling to Firschberg to conduct on-site analysis of the ecology ofthe plants. He used these observations to create his extremely precise plans: the various forms of the appearance of the water also evoked the views of the highlands, the shores, the rocks and the use of plants on these demonstrated the designer s thorough research. To create the waterfalls and the shores of the streams, Mächtig used the natural stones of the area.

The planting plans by Mächtig and Usemann for Viktoriapark in Berlin and Gellért Hill in Budapest followed the similar principles. This shows, that Ilsemann - as in the second phase of Népliget Park - kept abreast of contemporary design theories. The national monument that became an organic whole with the surrounding landscape, appearing as a major landmark in the visual links of the city, had already appeared earlier in the German thinking.417 To frame the monuments into a landscape setting, to fill public parks and landscapes with the memory of national history, was

Ármin Pecz Jr, Promenade at the foot of Gellért Hill, site plan and view, 1904 / Építő Ipar, 1904. p. 377. / NSZL

a primary idea of German theory. However, these ensembles remained a popular form of monument in city development at the turn of the 20th century as well, especially in those cities wishing to express their national selfawareness and look back proudly to their past. The pantheon plans, wishing to dominate the cityscape of Budapest, suited this idea. Smaller, but no less important parallels to these are the examples of Kreuzberg and Gellért Hill.

Another public park was constructed in the period examined around Gellért Hill. It was the small promenade running along the foot of the hill, separated with a fence from the carriageway. The design was first published in 1904 in the journal Építő Ipar.418 The ‘artistic park’ was created on the site of a demolished row of houses, according to plans by the architect of the Engineering Department of the Board of Public Works, Imre Francsek.419 The landscape plans were created by Ármin Pecz Jr., the stonemasonry by the builders Peterek and Wagner.420 The promenade was part of a large-scale plan, which looked to create a green infrastructural element between the Rudas and Gellért Baths, integrating the two buildings into a park system. The promenade had two phases, a rock divided the two parts from each other. The design wanted to give a unified appearance to the foot of the hill with a wrought-iron fence atop a two-metre high stone wall, a cyclopean wall and ashlared stone balustrades. The construction was preceded by major engineering works; as the new park was two metres higher than the level of the road, the stone wall worked as a revetment wall, besides creating visual unity. The original plans showed five gates leading into the park. The first phase was started by stairs next to a new building which accommodated a tram stop, a toilet and a shed for gardening tools. The green spaces were divided by informal, serpentine paths. The

141