Wikienfk5 - User contributions [en]

Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 2

2016-01-25T14:50:23Z

Totha: /* Concluding reflections */

---> back to group page [[Landscape_Democracy_2015_-_Working_Group_A|working group A]]

'''''Urban Green Space vs. Shopping Mall or Who Owns the Landscape, the Public or the Municipal Decision Makers?'''''

by Attila Tóth

{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Place name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| '' S.H.Vajanského Street''
|-
| '''Location''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Nové Zámky''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Slovakia''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Attila Tóth''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:S.H.Vajanského.Aerial.View.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| {{#widget:GoogleMaps
|width=300
|height=300
|lat=47.9797557
|lng=18.1550068
|zoom=8
|centermarker=yes
|maptypecontrol=yes
|overviewmapcontrol=yes
|largemapcontrol=yes
|scalecontrol=yes
}}
|}

== Rationale: Why have I chosen this case for the landscape and democracy seminar? ==
The Nové Zámky case study has been chosen in order to present a common situation in Slovak policy and decision making at the municipal level. The decision making in post-communist countries still follows rather top-down than bottom-up approaches or the combination of both. The case represents an empty space in a prefab neighbourhood near the town centre and has not yet been developed since the 1960s and 1970s. It is an extensive green space with a few trees (rather spontaneous vegetation) used by the locals to pass through or to walk the dog, not necessarily to stay. It could have been an important component of the urban green infrastructure in the neighbourhood, which could improve the air quality, help to manage stormwater, purify the air, eliminate the traffic noise and provide an attractive public open space. A local citizen who is a landscape architecture student has conducted even an intriguing master thesis on this issue, with a massive support and sympathy of the citizens on Facebook, in local newspapers and in the television. Unfortunately, the municipality has sold the land in the meantime in order to compensate losses in the budget and their untransparent decision making helped to push through a shopping mall with an extensive car park. Summarising, this case is meant to represent a negative approach in terms of landscape and democracy or community based planning.

== Representation of my observations ==
The case study area is a 'left-over' of intensive urban development, mainly prefab-housing, in the 1960s and 1970s and very well represents a common situation or general approach to such sites. As an undeveloped, undefined or 'empty' area, it has developed itself through the previous decades and has become a spontaneous spot of urban green infrastructure, with more than 70, mainly adult or adolescent spontaneous trees (predominantly Robinia pseudoacacia L. and Juglans regia L.). Nowadays, the area is used by the citizens to shorten their daily routes or to walk the dog. In terms of urban spatial relations, the site is a transit space between complex and individual housing, between large and small scale. It has become an important every-day landscape for locals, which has not been noticed by the local government and municipal decision making, thus in the master plan, it has remained an 'empty space' to be developed. A since then graduated landscape architecture student has developed a comprehensive landscape architectural study within his master thesis, while the local government was offering this 'empty' space for sale. The main aim was to cover the deficit in the town budget. This aim of the town hall was not properly communicated to the public; there were no public discussions, no architectural or urban design competition. It was a 'hidden' process for the general public. Once it became public, a massive public resistance has started - including the master thesis author's statements for the press and media, a small public meeting on site and a progressively growing Facebook group which is against building-up the site. All these actions were neglected and ignored by the local government and finally, the public land has been sold. Now, it is still empty, waiting for its future development.

<gallery caption="Design Synthesis Drawings" widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="5">
Image:Current_Situation.jpeg|Current Situation of the Site (2012-2015) by Tomáš Pavelka, adviser Attila Tóth
Image:Landscape_Architectural_Design.jpeg|Landscape Architectural Design by Tomáš Pavelka, adviser Attila Tóth
Image:Public_Park_or_Shopping_Mall.jpg|Public Park or Shopping Mall? Public Will vs. Municipality´s and Developer´s Interest
Image:Press_and_Social_Network.jpg|Engagement of the Wider Public via Press, Television and Social Networks
Image:S.H.Vajanského_corrected.jpg|Undefined Present - Uncertain Future?

</gallery>

== Reflection ==
=== What are the major challenges for changing the situation? ===
The main challenge for changing the situation is converting the contemporary, strongly top-down based planning and decision making paradigm. This requires a better involvement of the public in the planning process, organisation of moderated meetings and discussions when preparing the master plan and discussing development aims. It is necessary, to make the master plan more flexible and adaptable. In the current understanding, the master plan is 'saint', infallible and most importantly 'unchangeable'. Once a site is defined by the author of a master plan to become a built-up or developed area, consequent bottom-up protests can hardly change this. Further on, the decision making has to respect that each property owned by the municipality is a public property. Therefore, when making a decision on it, the public has to be asked, fully involved and recognised as an important and respected partner, rather than considered just an annoying and uncomfortable voice.

=== What could be a starting point for democratically-based change? ===
A good starting point for a democratically-based change would be learning the lesson from this negative case of public disappointment and make the upcoming decisions more transparent and involving. Public discussions and workshops are completely missing from the contemporary urban planning and decision making in Slovak municipalities. The municipality only passively informs (the legal minimum, e.g. the physical notice-board at the town hall) but does not really make efforts to actively inform and involve the public (e.g. using social media, networks and public events). Unfortunately, the change can hardly be foreseen for this specific site. Most probably, it can only serve as a negative lesson and hopefully as a starting point for changing the contemporary top-down planning and decision making paradigm.

== Stakeholder Mapping ==

''This stakeholder map is a visual representation of the stakeholder groups that are involved in this case. The following aspects are covered in the representation: Power (high, medium, low) / Support (positive, neutral, negative)/ Influence (high or low)/ Need (strong, medium, weak)+ the relationships between the stakeholder groups''

<gallery caption="Stakeholder Map" widths="600px" heights="300px" perrow="1">
File:Stakeholder_map_at.jpg|Stakeholder Map
</gallery>

== Change Scenario ==

''The change scenario is based on various methods and tools, which are applied creatively in the model, while needs of different stakeholder groups are reflected. The scenario illustrates how particular methods/tools/steps can be applied within an imagined time frame ''

<gallery caption="Change Scenario" widths="600px" heights="300px" perrow="1">
File:Change_scenario_at.jpg|Change Scenario
</gallery>

== Cross cutting theme ==
The main cross-cutting issue between the cases of the working group A consists in a low involvement of the public in the decision-making process, which is among others a result of low interest from the side of the municipality to involve different stakeholder groups in the process of making decisions. Another cross-cutting issue is a high development pressure, which pushes the municipality to make short-term decisions and fast profit instead of systematic development strategies, such as an integrated green infrastructure concept and a community based planning concept.

== Concluding reflections ==
The change model tries to respond to the problem reflected and represented by the case in a non-site-specific manner, looking at the problem as phenomenon, rather than just a site-specific local issue. It should be understood as a paradigm change scenario, not just as a change scenario for the studied case. The presented scenario aims at changing the current top-down approach into a community-based planning and co-design. The presented case study is a negative example or a raised warning finger pointing at the fact, what can happen to our undeveloped areas (or not-yet-developed areas as perceived by the municipality and developers) without having a strategy and long-term thinking. The real potential of the scenario is to serve as a model for other open spaces of the municipality or even for other municipalities with comparable problems, which means most of the Slovak municipalities. The main limitation is perhaps the lack of time, which designers face when working on a design concept. Therefore, a positive change can be mainly done at the municipal or local decision making level.

== References ==
PAVELKA, Tomáš. 2013. Návrh verejného parku na sídlisku v Nových Zámkoch. Diplomová práca. Nitra: Slovenská poľnohospodárska univerzita. 58 A3 s.

PAVELKA, Tomáš - TÓTH, Attila. 2013. Public Will versus Development Pressure in Urban Landscape Transformations: Case Study Nové Zámky. In: Stará, Kristýna (Eds.): Landscape Transformations of the Post-Communist Countries. Prague: Czech Technical University, 2013, pp.126-131. 200 p. ISBN 978-80-01-05431-4.

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/635827626427736/?fref=ts

Selected Online Press Releases:
http://novezamky.sme.sk/c/6913179/panika-menom-baumax-pozemok-vysutazil-developer-park-nebude.html
http://novezamky.sme.sk/c/7088281/zmluvu-podpisali-baumax-sa-moze-stavat.html
http://reality.etrend.sk/komercne-nehnutelnosti/v-novych-zamkoch-sa-chysta-mensie-obchodne-centrum.html

----
[[Category:Landscape Democracy Case Study]]

About categories: You can add more categories with this tag: "[[Category:Category Name]]", add your categories

Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 2

2016-01-25T14:10:18Z

Totha: /* Cross cutting theme */

---> back to group page [[Landscape_Democracy_2015_-_Working_Group_A|working group A]]

'''''Urban Green Space vs. Shopping Mall or Who Owns the Landscape, the Public or the Municipal Decision Makers?'''''

by Attila Tóth

{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Place name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| '' S.H.Vajanského Street''
|-
| '''Location''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Nové Zámky''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Slovakia''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Attila Tóth''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:S.H.Vajanského.Aerial.View.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| {{#widget:GoogleMaps
|width=300
|height=300
|lat=47.9797557
|lng=18.1550068
|zoom=8
|centermarker=yes
|maptypecontrol=yes
|overviewmapcontrol=yes
|largemapcontrol=yes
|scalecontrol=yes
}}
|}

== Rationale: Why have I chosen this case for the landscape and democracy seminar? ==
The Nové Zámky case study has been chosen in order to present a common situation in Slovak policy and decision making at the municipal level. The decision making in post-communist countries still follows rather top-down than bottom-up approaches or the combination of both. The case represents an empty space in a prefab neighbourhood near the town centre and has not yet been developed since the 1960s and 1970s. It is an extensive green space with a few trees (rather spontaneous vegetation) used by the locals to pass through or to walk the dog, not necessarily to stay. It could have been an important component of the urban green infrastructure in the neighbourhood, which could improve the air quality, help to manage stormwater, purify the air, eliminate the traffic noise and provide an attractive public open space. A local citizen who is a landscape architecture student has conducted even an intriguing master thesis on this issue, with a massive support and sympathy of the citizens on Facebook, in local newspapers and in the television. Unfortunately, the municipality has sold the land in the meantime in order to compensate losses in the budget and their untransparent decision making helped to push through a shopping mall with an extensive car park. Summarising, this case is meant to represent a negative approach in terms of landscape and democracy or community based planning.

== Representation of my observations ==
The case study area is a 'left-over' of intensive urban development, mainly prefab-housing, in the 1960s and 1970s and very well represents a common situation or general approach to such sites. As an undeveloped, undefined or 'empty' area, it has developed itself through the previous decades and has become a spontaneous spot of urban green infrastructure, with more than 70, mainly adult or adolescent spontaneous trees (predominantly Robinia pseudoacacia L. and Juglans regia L.). Nowadays, the area is used by the citizens to shorten their daily routes or to walk the dog. In terms of urban spatial relations, the site is a transit space between complex and individual housing, between large and small scale. It has become an important every-day landscape for locals, which has not been noticed by the local government and municipal decision making, thus in the master plan, it has remained an 'empty space' to be developed. A since then graduated landscape architecture student has developed a comprehensive landscape architectural study within his master thesis, while the local government was offering this 'empty' space for sale. The main aim was to cover the deficit in the town budget. This aim of the town hall was not properly communicated to the public; there were no public discussions, no architectural or urban design competition. It was a 'hidden' process for the general public. Once it became public, a massive public resistance has started - including the master thesis author's statements for the press and media, a small public meeting on site and a progressively growing Facebook group which is against building-up the site. All these actions were neglected and ignored by the local government and finally, the public land has been sold. Now, it is still empty, waiting for its future development.

<gallery caption="Design Synthesis Drawings" widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="5">
Image:Current_Situation.jpeg|Current Situation of the Site (2012-2015) by Tomáš Pavelka, adviser Attila Tóth
Image:Landscape_Architectural_Design.jpeg|Landscape Architectural Design by Tomáš Pavelka, adviser Attila Tóth
Image:Public_Park_or_Shopping_Mall.jpg|Public Park or Shopping Mall? Public Will vs. Municipality´s and Developer´s Interest
Image:Press_and_Social_Network.jpg|Engagement of the Wider Public via Press, Television and Social Networks
Image:S.H.Vajanského_corrected.jpg|Undefined Present - Uncertain Future?

</gallery>

== Reflection ==
=== What are the major challenges for changing the situation? ===
The main challenge for changing the situation is converting the contemporary, strongly top-down based planning and decision making paradigm. This requires a better involvement of the public in the planning process, organisation of moderated meetings and discussions when preparing the master plan and discussing development aims. It is necessary, to make the master plan more flexible and adaptable. In the current understanding, the master plan is 'saint', infallible and most importantly 'unchangeable'. Once a site is defined by the author of a master plan to become a built-up or developed area, consequent bottom-up protests can hardly change this. Further on, the decision making has to respect that each property owned by the municipality is a public property. Therefore, when making a decision on it, the public has to be asked, fully involved and recognised as an important and respected partner, rather than considered just an annoying and uncomfortable voice.

=== What could be a starting point for democratically-based change? ===
A good starting point for a democratically-based change would be learning the lesson from this negative case of public disappointment and make the upcoming decisions more transparent and involving. Public discussions and workshops are completely missing from the contemporary urban planning and decision making in Slovak municipalities. The municipality only passively informs (the legal minimum, e.g. the physical notice-board at the town hall) but does not really make efforts to actively inform and involve the public (e.g. using social media, networks and public events). Unfortunately, the change can hardly be foreseen for this specific site. Most probably, it can only serve as a negative lesson and hopefully as a starting point for changing the contemporary top-down planning and decision making paradigm.

== Stakeholder Mapping ==

''This stakeholder map is a visual representation of the stakeholder groups that are involved in this case. The following aspects are covered in the representation: Power (high, medium, low) / Support (positive, neutral, negative)/ Influence (high or low)/ Need (strong, medium, weak)+ the relationships between the stakeholder groups''

<gallery caption="Stakeholder Map" widths="600px" heights="300px" perrow="1">
File:Stakeholder_map_at.jpg|Stakeholder Map
</gallery>

== Change Scenario ==

''The change scenario is based on various methods and tools, which are applied creatively in the model, while needs of different stakeholder groups are reflected. The scenario illustrates how particular methods/tools/steps can be applied within an imagined time frame ''

<gallery caption="Change Scenario" widths="600px" heights="300px" perrow="1">
File:Change_scenario_at.jpg|Change Scenario
</gallery>

== Cross cutting theme ==
The main cross-cutting issue between the cases of the working group A consists in a low involvement of the public in the decision-making process, which is among others a result of low interest from the side of the municipality to involve different stakeholder groups in the process of making decisions. Another cross-cutting issue is a high development pressure, which pushes the municipality to make short-term decisions and fast profit instead of systematic development strategies, such as an integrated green infrastructure concept and a community based planning concept.

== Concluding reflections ==
Reflect on your case and your change model. Potentials? Limitations? (approx. 150 words)

== References ==
PAVELKA, Tomáš. 2013. Návrh verejného parku na sídlisku v Nových Zámkoch. Diplomová práca. Nitra: Slovenská poľnohospodárska univerzita. 58 A3 s.

PAVELKA, Tomáš - TÓTH, Attila. 2013. Public Will versus Development Pressure in Urban Landscape Transformations: Case Study Nové Zámky. In: Stará, Kristýna (Eds.): Landscape Transformations of the Post-Communist Countries. Prague: Czech Technical University, 2013, pp.126-131. 200 p. ISBN 978-80-01-05431-4.

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/635827626427736/?fref=ts

Selected Online Press Releases:
http://novezamky.sme.sk/c/6913179/panika-menom-baumax-pozemok-vysutazil-developer-park-nebude.html
http://novezamky.sme.sk/c/7088281/zmluvu-podpisali-baumax-sa-moze-stavat.html
http://reality.etrend.sk/komercne-nehnutelnosti/v-novych-zamkoch-sa-chysta-mensie-obchodne-centrum.html

----
[[Category:Landscape Democracy Case Study]]

About categories: You can add more categories with this tag: "[[Category:Category Name]]", add your categories

Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 2

2016-01-25T14:04:07Z

Totha: /* Change Scenario */

---> back to group page [[Landscape_Democracy_2015_-_Working_Group_A|working group A]]

'''''Urban Green Space vs. Shopping Mall or Who Owns the Landscape, the Public or the Municipal Decision Makers?'''''

by Attila Tóth

{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Place name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| '' S.H.Vajanského Street''
|-
| '''Location''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Nové Zámky''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Slovakia''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Attila Tóth''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:S.H.Vajanského.Aerial.View.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| {{#widget:GoogleMaps
|width=300
|height=300
|lat=47.9797557
|lng=18.1550068
|zoom=8
|centermarker=yes
|maptypecontrol=yes
|overviewmapcontrol=yes
|largemapcontrol=yes
|scalecontrol=yes
}}
|}

== Rationale: Why have I chosen this case for the landscape and democracy seminar? ==
The Nové Zámky case study has been chosen in order to present a common situation in Slovak policy and decision making at the municipal level. The decision making in post-communist countries still follows rather top-down than bottom-up approaches or the combination of both. The case represents an empty space in a prefab neighbourhood near the town centre and has not yet been developed since the 1960s and 1970s. It is an extensive green space with a few trees (rather spontaneous vegetation) used by the locals to pass through or to walk the dog, not necessarily to stay. It could have been an important component of the urban green infrastructure in the neighbourhood, which could improve the air quality, help to manage stormwater, purify the air, eliminate the traffic noise and provide an attractive public open space. A local citizen who is a landscape architecture student has conducted even an intriguing master thesis on this issue, with a massive support and sympathy of the citizens on Facebook, in local newspapers and in the television. Unfortunately, the municipality has sold the land in the meantime in order to compensate losses in the budget and their untransparent decision making helped to push through a shopping mall with an extensive car park. Summarising, this case is meant to represent a negative approach in terms of landscape and democracy or community based planning.

== Representation of my observations ==
The case study area is a 'left-over' of intensive urban development, mainly prefab-housing, in the 1960s and 1970s and very well represents a common situation or general approach to such sites. As an undeveloped, undefined or 'empty' area, it has developed itself through the previous decades and has become a spontaneous spot of urban green infrastructure, with more than 70, mainly adult or adolescent spontaneous trees (predominantly Robinia pseudoacacia L. and Juglans regia L.). Nowadays, the area is used by the citizens to shorten their daily routes or to walk the dog. In terms of urban spatial relations, the site is a transit space between complex and individual housing, between large and small scale. It has become an important every-day landscape for locals, which has not been noticed by the local government and municipal decision making, thus in the master plan, it has remained an 'empty space' to be developed. A since then graduated landscape architecture student has developed a comprehensive landscape architectural study within his master thesis, while the local government was offering this 'empty' space for sale. The main aim was to cover the deficit in the town budget. This aim of the town hall was not properly communicated to the public; there were no public discussions, no architectural or urban design competition. It was a 'hidden' process for the general public. Once it became public, a massive public resistance has started - including the master thesis author's statements for the press and media, a small public meeting on site and a progressively growing Facebook group which is against building-up the site. All these actions were neglected and ignored by the local government and finally, the public land has been sold. Now, it is still empty, waiting for its future development.

<gallery caption="Design Synthesis Drawings" widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="5">
Image:Current_Situation.jpeg|Current Situation of the Site (2012-2015) by Tomáš Pavelka, adviser Attila Tóth
Image:Landscape_Architectural_Design.jpeg|Landscape Architectural Design by Tomáš Pavelka, adviser Attila Tóth
Image:Public_Park_or_Shopping_Mall.jpg|Public Park or Shopping Mall? Public Will vs. Municipality´s and Developer´s Interest
Image:Press_and_Social_Network.jpg|Engagement of the Wider Public via Press, Television and Social Networks
Image:S.H.Vajanského_corrected.jpg|Undefined Present - Uncertain Future?

</gallery>

== Reflection ==
=== What are the major challenges for changing the situation? ===
The main challenge for changing the situation is converting the contemporary, strongly top-down based planning and decision making paradigm. This requires a better involvement of the public in the planning process, organisation of moderated meetings and discussions when preparing the master plan and discussing development aims. It is necessary, to make the master plan more flexible and adaptable. In the current understanding, the master plan is 'saint', infallible and most importantly 'unchangeable'. Once a site is defined by the author of a master plan to become a built-up or developed area, consequent bottom-up protests can hardly change this. Further on, the decision making has to respect that each property owned by the municipality is a public property. Therefore, when making a decision on it, the public has to be asked, fully involved and recognised as an important and respected partner, rather than considered just an annoying and uncomfortable voice.

=== What could be a starting point for democratically-based change? ===
A good starting point for a democratically-based change would be learning the lesson from this negative case of public disappointment and make the upcoming decisions more transparent and involving. Public discussions and workshops are completely missing from the contemporary urban planning and decision making in Slovak municipalities. The municipality only passively informs (the legal minimum, e.g. the physical notice-board at the town hall) but does not really make efforts to actively inform and involve the public (e.g. using social media, networks and public events). Unfortunately, the change can hardly be foreseen for this specific site. Most probably, it can only serve as a negative lesson and hopefully as a starting point for changing the contemporary top-down planning and decision making paradigm.

== Stakeholder Mapping ==

''This stakeholder map is a visual representation of the stakeholder groups that are involved in this case. The following aspects are covered in the representation: Power (high, medium, low) / Support (positive, neutral, negative)/ Influence (high or low)/ Need (strong, medium, weak)+ the relationships between the stakeholder groups''

<gallery caption="Stakeholder Map" widths="600px" heights="300px" perrow="1">
File:Stakeholder_map_at.jpg|Stakeholder Map
</gallery>

== Change Scenario ==

''The change scenario is based on various methods and tools, which are applied creatively in the model, while needs of different stakeholder groups are reflected. The scenario illustrates how particular methods/tools/steps can be applied within an imagined time frame ''

<gallery caption="Change Scenario" widths="600px" heights="300px" perrow="1">
File:Change_scenario_at.jpg|Change Scenario
</gallery>

== Cross cutting theme ==
Identify a cross-cutting theme/topic between the cases of your group and write a short reflection on it (approx. 150 words)

== Concluding reflections ==
Reflect on your case and your change model. Potentials? Limitations? (approx. 150 words)

== References ==
PAVELKA, Tomáš. 2013. Návrh verejného parku na sídlisku v Nových Zámkoch. Diplomová práca. Nitra: Slovenská poľnohospodárska univerzita. 58 A3 s.

PAVELKA, Tomáš - TÓTH, Attila. 2013. Public Will versus Development Pressure in Urban Landscape Transformations: Case Study Nové Zámky. In: Stará, Kristýna (Eds.): Landscape Transformations of the Post-Communist Countries. Prague: Czech Technical University, 2013, pp.126-131. 200 p. ISBN 978-80-01-05431-4.

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/635827626427736/?fref=ts

Selected Online Press Releases:
http://novezamky.sme.sk/c/6913179/panika-menom-baumax-pozemok-vysutazil-developer-park-nebude.html
http://novezamky.sme.sk/c/7088281/zmluvu-podpisali-baumax-sa-moze-stavat.html
http://reality.etrend.sk/komercne-nehnutelnosti/v-novych-zamkoch-sa-chysta-mensie-obchodne-centrum.html

----
[[Category:Landscape Democracy Case Study]]

About categories: You can add more categories with this tag: "[[Category:Category Name]]", add your categories

Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 2

2016-01-25T13:57:22Z

Totha: /* Stakeholder Mapping */

---> back to group page [[Landscape_Democracy_2015_-_Working_Group_A|working group A]]

'''''Urban Green Space vs. Shopping Mall or Who Owns the Landscape, the Public or the Municipal Decision Makers?'''''

by Attila Tóth

{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Place name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| '' S.H.Vajanského Street''
|-
| '''Location''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Nové Zámky''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Slovakia''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Attila Tóth''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:S.H.Vajanského.Aerial.View.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| {{#widget:GoogleMaps
|width=300
|height=300
|lat=47.9797557
|lng=18.1550068
|zoom=8
|centermarker=yes
|maptypecontrol=yes
|overviewmapcontrol=yes
|largemapcontrol=yes
|scalecontrol=yes
}}
|}

== Rationale: Why have I chosen this case for the landscape and democracy seminar? ==
The Nové Zámky case study has been chosen in order to present a common situation in Slovak policy and decision making at the municipal level. The decision making in post-communist countries still follows rather top-down than bottom-up approaches or the combination of both. The case represents an empty space in a prefab neighbourhood near the town centre and has not yet been developed since the 1960s and 1970s. It is an extensive green space with a few trees (rather spontaneous vegetation) used by the locals to pass through or to walk the dog, not necessarily to stay. It could have been an important component of the urban green infrastructure in the neighbourhood, which could improve the air quality, help to manage stormwater, purify the air, eliminate the traffic noise and provide an attractive public open space. A local citizen who is a landscape architecture student has conducted even an intriguing master thesis on this issue, with a massive support and sympathy of the citizens on Facebook, in local newspapers and in the television. Unfortunately, the municipality has sold the land in the meantime in order to compensate losses in the budget and their untransparent decision making helped to push through a shopping mall with an extensive car park. Summarising, this case is meant to represent a negative approach in terms of landscape and democracy or community based planning.

== Representation of my observations ==
The case study area is a 'left-over' of intensive urban development, mainly prefab-housing, in the 1960s and 1970s and very well represents a common situation or general approach to such sites. As an undeveloped, undefined or 'empty' area, it has developed itself through the previous decades and has become a spontaneous spot of urban green infrastructure, with more than 70, mainly adult or adolescent spontaneous trees (predominantly Robinia pseudoacacia L. and Juglans regia L.). Nowadays, the area is used by the citizens to shorten their daily routes or to walk the dog. In terms of urban spatial relations, the site is a transit space between complex and individual housing, between large and small scale. It has become an important every-day landscape for locals, which has not been noticed by the local government and municipal decision making, thus in the master plan, it has remained an 'empty space' to be developed. A since then graduated landscape architecture student has developed a comprehensive landscape architectural study within his master thesis, while the local government was offering this 'empty' space for sale. The main aim was to cover the deficit in the town budget. This aim of the town hall was not properly communicated to the public; there were no public discussions, no architectural or urban design competition. It was a 'hidden' process for the general public. Once it became public, a massive public resistance has started - including the master thesis author's statements for the press and media, a small public meeting on site and a progressively growing Facebook group which is against building-up the site. All these actions were neglected and ignored by the local government and finally, the public land has been sold. Now, it is still empty, waiting for its future development.

<gallery caption="Design Synthesis Drawings" widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="5">
Image:Current_Situation.jpeg|Current Situation of the Site (2012-2015) by Tomáš Pavelka, adviser Attila Tóth
Image:Landscape_Architectural_Design.jpeg|Landscape Architectural Design by Tomáš Pavelka, adviser Attila Tóth
Image:Public_Park_or_Shopping_Mall.jpg|Public Park or Shopping Mall? Public Will vs. Municipality´s and Developer´s Interest
Image:Press_and_Social_Network.jpg|Engagement of the Wider Public via Press, Television and Social Networks
Image:S.H.Vajanského_corrected.jpg|Undefined Present - Uncertain Future?

</gallery>

== Reflection ==
=== What are the major challenges for changing the situation? ===
The main challenge for changing the situation is converting the contemporary, strongly top-down based planning and decision making paradigm. This requires a better involvement of the public in the planning process, organisation of moderated meetings and discussions when preparing the master plan and discussing development aims. It is necessary, to make the master plan more flexible and adaptable. In the current understanding, the master plan is 'saint', infallible and most importantly 'unchangeable'. Once a site is defined by the author of a master plan to become a built-up or developed area, consequent bottom-up protests can hardly change this. Further on, the decision making has to respect that each property owned by the municipality is a public property. Therefore, when making a decision on it, the public has to be asked, fully involved and recognised as an important and respected partner, rather than considered just an annoying and uncomfortable voice.

=== What could be a starting point for democratically-based change? ===
A good starting point for a democratically-based change would be learning the lesson from this negative case of public disappointment and make the upcoming decisions more transparent and involving. Public discussions and workshops are completely missing from the contemporary urban planning and decision making in Slovak municipalities. The municipality only passively informs (the legal minimum, e.g. the physical notice-board at the town hall) but does not really make efforts to actively inform and involve the public (e.g. using social media, networks and public events). Unfortunately, the change can hardly be foreseen for this specific site. Most probably, it can only serve as a negative lesson and hopefully as a starting point for changing the contemporary top-down planning and decision making paradigm.

== Stakeholder Mapping ==

''This stakeholder map is a visual representation of the stakeholder groups that are involved in this case. The following aspects are covered in the representation: Power (high, medium, low) / Support (positive, neutral, negative)/ Influence (high or low)/ Need (strong, medium, weak)+ the relationships between the stakeholder groups''

<gallery caption="Stakeholder Map" widths="600px" heights="300px" perrow="1">
File:Stakeholder_map_at.jpg|Stakeholder Map
</gallery>

== Change Scenario ==

''Look at the various methods and tools available and think how they can be applied creatively. Think about the needs of different stakeholder groups - you may need a methodical mix to address them all. Visualize a scenario illustrating how these methods/tools can be applied within an imagined time frame ''

<gallery caption="Change Scenario" widths="600px" heights="300px" perrow="1">
File:Change_scenario_at.jpg|Change Scenario
</gallery>

== Cross cutting theme ==
Identify a cross-cutting theme/topic between the cases of your group and write a short reflection on it (approx. 150 words)

== Concluding reflections ==
Reflect on your case and your change model. Potentials? Limitations? (approx. 150 words)

== References ==
PAVELKA, Tomáš. 2013. Návrh verejného parku na sídlisku v Nových Zámkoch. Diplomová práca. Nitra: Slovenská poľnohospodárska univerzita. 58 A3 s.

PAVELKA, Tomáš - TÓTH, Attila. 2013. Public Will versus Development Pressure in Urban Landscape Transformations: Case Study Nové Zámky. In: Stará, Kristýna (Eds.): Landscape Transformations of the Post-Communist Countries. Prague: Czech Technical University, 2013, pp.126-131. 200 p. ISBN 978-80-01-05431-4.

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/635827626427736/?fref=ts

Selected Online Press Releases:
http://novezamky.sme.sk/c/6913179/panika-menom-baumax-pozemok-vysutazil-developer-park-nebude.html
http://novezamky.sme.sk/c/7088281/zmluvu-podpisali-baumax-sa-moze-stavat.html
http://reality.etrend.sk/komercne-nehnutelnosti/v-novych-zamkoch-sa-chysta-mensie-obchodne-centrum.html

----
[[Category:Landscape Democracy Case Study]]

About categories: You can add more categories with this tag: "[[Category:Category Name]]", add your categories

Landscape Democracy 2015 - Working Group A

2016-01-24T16:04:37Z

Totha:

--> Back to [[Working_Groups_Seminar_Landscape Democracy 2015|working group overview]]

''Dear working group members. This is your group page and you will be completing the template gradually as we move through the seminar. Each member has an individual page for documenting his/her personal case. Good luck and enjoy your collaboration!
''

== Assignment 2 - Concept Mapping of Seminar Topics ==
*''You can read more details about this assignment [[Landscape_and_Democracy_Assignment_2:_Concept_Mapping_of_Seminar_Topics|here]]''
*''Please add your concept maps here by replacing the dummy image. Your map needs to have a new file name:''

<gallery caption=" " widths="200px" heights="150px" perrow="3">
Image:European_Landscape_Convention.jpg|''Concept map 1 - Theme context:Policy frameworks, laws and resolutions''
Image:Oeding_Cmap.jpg|''Concept map 2 - Theme context:Landscape Concepts''
Image:Ten_principles_for_a_landscape_approach_to_reconciling_agriculture,_conservation,_and_other_competing_land_uses.jpg|''Concept map 3 - Theme context:Participation Discourse and Concepts''
Image:SynthesisMap.jpg|''Concept map 4 - Theme context:Group Synthesis of the three themes''
</gallery>

== Assignment 3 - Landscape Democracy Cases in your Environment ==

*'''Assigned: Tuesday, October 27'''
*'''Due: Monday, November 30'''

''There is one template page for each group member. You can read more about the assignment [[Landscape_and_Democracy_Assignment_3:_Landscape_democracy_cases_in_your_environment|here]] ''

=== [[Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 1|Working Group A - Case Study 1: The Filder Plain]] ===

=== [[Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 2|Working Group A - Case Study 2: Nové Zámky, Slovakia]] ===

=== Presentation Slides Assignment 3 ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="4">
Image:Final_Oeding-Toth_GroupA-L%2BD_ass3_interimpresentation_Page_1.jpg|slide 1
Image:Final_Oeding-Toth_GroupA-L%2BD_ass3_interimpresentation_Page_2.jpg|slide 2
Image:Final_Oeding-Toth_GroupA-L%2BD_ass3_interimpresentation_Page_3.jpg|slide 3
Image:Final_Oeding-Toth_GroupA-L%2BD_ass3_interimpresentation_Page_4.jpg|slide 4
Image:Final_Oeding-Toth_GroupA-L%2BD_ass3_interimpresentation_Page_5.jpg|slide 5
Image:Final_Oeding-Toth_GroupA-L%2BD_ass3_interimpresentation_Page_6.jpg|slide 6
</gallery>

== Assignment 4 - Landscape and Democracy: Collaborative Project ==

*'''Assigned: Tuesday, December 1'''
*'''Due: Tuesday, January 25'''

* Your case study templates will be extended with additional sectionsn for documenting a change model
* You can read more about the assignment [[Landscape_and_Democracy:_Collaborative_Project|here]]

=== Presentation Slides Scenarios and Change Models ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="4">
Image:groupA_slide1.jpg|slide 1
Image:groupA_slide2.jpg|slide 2
Image:groupA_slide3.jpg|slide 3
Image:groupA_slide4.jpg|slide 4
Image:groupA_slide5.jpg|slide 5
</gallery>

----

[[Category: Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group]]

File:SynthesisMap.jpg

2016-01-24T15:53:47Z

Totha:

Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 2

2016-01-24T00:47:34Z

Totha: /* Change Scenario */

---> back to group page [[Landscape_Democracy_2015_-_Working_Group_A|working group A]]

'''''Urban Green Space vs. Shopping Mall or Who Owns the Landscape, the Public or the Municipal Decision Makers?'''''

by Attila Tóth

{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Place name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| '' S.H.Vajanského Street''
|-
| '''Location''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Nové Zámky''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Slovakia''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Attila Tóth''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:S.H.Vajanského.Aerial.View.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| {{#widget:GoogleMaps
|width=300
|height=300
|lat=47.9797557
|lng=18.1550068
|zoom=8
|centermarker=yes
|maptypecontrol=yes
|overviewmapcontrol=yes
|largemapcontrol=yes
|scalecontrol=yes
}}
|}

== Rationale: Why have I chosen this case for the landscape and democracy seminar? ==
The Nové Zámky case study has been chosen in order to present a common situation in Slovak policy and decision making at the municipal level. The decision making in post-communist countries still follows rather top-down than bottom-up approaches or the combination of both. The case represents an empty space in a prefab neighbourhood near the town centre and has not yet been developed since the 1960s and 1970s. It is an extensive green space with a few trees (rather spontaneous vegetation) used by the locals to pass through or to walk the dog, not necessarily to stay. It could have been an important component of the urban green infrastructure in the neighbourhood, which could improve the air quality, help to manage stormwater, purify the air, eliminate the traffic noise and provide an attractive public open space. A local citizen who is a landscape architecture student has conducted even an intriguing master thesis on this issue, with a massive support and sympathy of the citizens on Facebook, in local newspapers and in the television. Unfortunately, the municipality has sold the land in the meantime in order to compensate losses in the budget and their untransparent decision making helped to push through a shopping mall with an extensive car park. Summarising, this case is meant to represent a negative approach in terms of landscape and democracy or community based planning.

== Representation of my observations ==
The case study area is a 'left-over' of intensive urban development, mainly prefab-housing, in the 1960s and 1970s and very well represents a common situation or general approach to such sites. As an undeveloped, undefined or 'empty' area, it has developed itself through the previous decades and has become a spontaneous spot of urban green infrastructure, with more than 70, mainly adult or adolescent spontaneous trees (predominantly Robinia pseudoacacia L. and Juglans regia L.). Nowadays, the area is used by the citizens to shorten their daily routes or to walk the dog. In terms of urban spatial relations, the site is a transit space between complex and individual housing, between large and small scale. It has become an important every-day landscape for locals, which has not been noticed by the local government and municipal decision making, thus in the master plan, it has remained an 'empty space' to be developed. A since then graduated landscape architecture student has developed a comprehensive landscape architectural study within his master thesis, while the local government was offering this 'empty' space for sale. The main aim was to cover the deficit in the town budget. This aim of the town hall was not properly communicated to the public; there were no public discussions, no architectural or urban design competition. It was a 'hidden' process for the general public. Once it became public, a massive public resistance has started - including the master thesis author's statements for the press and media, a small public meeting on site and a progressively growing Facebook group which is against building-up the site. All these actions were neglected and ignored by the local government and finally, the public land has been sold. Now, it is still empty, waiting for its future development.

<gallery caption="Design Synthesis Drawings" widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="5">
Image:Current_Situation.jpeg|Current Situation of the Site (2012-2015) by Tomáš Pavelka, adviser Attila Tóth
Image:Landscape_Architectural_Design.jpeg|Landscape Architectural Design by Tomáš Pavelka, adviser Attila Tóth
Image:Public_Park_or_Shopping_Mall.jpg|Public Park or Shopping Mall? Public Will vs. Municipality´s and Developer´s Interest
Image:Press_and_Social_Network.jpg|Engagement of the Wider Public via Press, Television and Social Networks
Image:S.H.Vajanského_corrected.jpg|Undefined Present - Uncertain Future?

</gallery>

== Reflection ==
=== What are the major challenges for changing the situation? ===
The main challenge for changing the situation is converting the contemporary, strongly top-down based planning and decision making paradigm. This requires a better involvement of the public in the planning process, organisation of moderated meetings and discussions when preparing the master plan and discussing development aims. It is necessary, to make the master plan more flexible and adaptable. In the current understanding, the master plan is 'saint', infallible and most importantly 'unchangeable'. Once a site is defined by the author of a master plan to become a built-up or developed area, consequent bottom-up protests can hardly change this. Further on, the decision making has to respect that each property owned by the municipality is a public property. Therefore, when making a decision on it, the public has to be asked, fully involved and recognised as an important and respected partner, rather than considered just an annoying and uncomfortable voice.

=== What could be a starting point for democratically-based change? ===
A good starting point for a democratically-based change would be learning the lesson from this negative case of public disappointment and make the upcoming decisions more transparent and involving. Public discussions and workshops are completely missing from the contemporary urban planning and decision making in Slovak municipalities. The municipality only passively informs (the legal minimum, e.g. the physical notice-board at the town hall) but does not really make efforts to actively inform and involve the public (e.g. using social media, networks and public events). Unfortunately, the change can hardly be foreseen for this specific site. Most probably, it can only serve as a negative lesson and hopefully as a starting point for changing the contemporary top-down planning and decision making paradigm.

== Stakeholder Mapping ==

''Create a visual representation of the stakeholder groups that are involved in your case. Try to cover the following aspects in your representation: Power (high, medium, low) / Support (positive, neutral, negative)/ Influence (high or low)/ Need (strong, medium, weak)+ also map the relationships between the stakeholder groups''

<gallery caption="Stakeholder Map" widths="600px" heights="300px" perrow="1">
File:Stakeholder_map_at.jpg|Stakeholder Map
</gallery>

== Change Scenario ==

''Look at the various methods and tools available and think how they can be applied creatively. Think about the needs of different stakeholder groups - you may need a methodical mix to address them all. Visualize a scenario illustrating how these methods/tools can be applied within an imagined time frame ''

<gallery caption="Change Scenario" widths="600px" heights="300px" perrow="1">
File:Change_scenario_at.jpg|Change Scenario
</gallery>

== Cross cutting theme ==
Identify a cross-cutting theme/topic between the cases of your group and write a short reflection on it (approx. 150 words)

== Concluding reflections ==
Reflect on your case and your change model. Potentials? Limitations? (approx. 150 words)

== References ==
PAVELKA, Tomáš. 2013. Návrh verejného parku na sídlisku v Nových Zámkoch. Diplomová práca. Nitra: Slovenská poľnohospodárska univerzita. 58 A3 s.

PAVELKA, Tomáš - TÓTH, Attila. 2013. Public Will versus Development Pressure in Urban Landscape Transformations: Case Study Nové Zámky. In: Stará, Kristýna (Eds.): Landscape Transformations of the Post-Communist Countries. Prague: Czech Technical University, 2013, pp.126-131. 200 p. ISBN 978-80-01-05431-4.

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/635827626427736/?fref=ts

Selected Online Press Releases:
http://novezamky.sme.sk/c/6913179/panika-menom-baumax-pozemok-vysutazil-developer-park-nebude.html
http://novezamky.sme.sk/c/7088281/zmluvu-podpisali-baumax-sa-moze-stavat.html
http://reality.etrend.sk/komercne-nehnutelnosti/v-novych-zamkoch-sa-chysta-mensie-obchodne-centrum.html

----
[[Category:Landscape Democracy Case Study]]

About categories: You can add more categories with this tag: "[[Category:Category Name]]", add your categories

File:Change scenario at.jpg

2016-01-24T00:46:48Z

Totha:

Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 2

2016-01-23T21:44:43Z

Totha:

---> back to group page [[Landscape_Democracy_2015_-_Working_Group_A|working group A]]

'''''Urban Green Space vs. Shopping Mall or Who Owns the Landscape, the Public or the Municipal Decision Makers?'''''

by Attila Tóth

{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Place name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| '' S.H.Vajanského Street''
|-
| '''Location''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Nové Zámky''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Slovakia''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Attila Tóth''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:S.H.Vajanského.Aerial.View.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| {{#widget:GoogleMaps
|width=300
|height=300
|lat=47.9797557
|lng=18.1550068
|zoom=8
|centermarker=yes
|maptypecontrol=yes
|overviewmapcontrol=yes
|largemapcontrol=yes
|scalecontrol=yes
}}
|}

== Rationale: Why have I chosen this case for the landscape and democracy seminar? ==
The Nové Zámky case study has been chosen in order to present a common situation in Slovak policy and decision making at the municipal level. The decision making in post-communist countries still follows rather top-down than bottom-up approaches or the combination of both. The case represents an empty space in a prefab neighbourhood near the town centre and has not yet been developed since the 1960s and 1970s. It is an extensive green space with a few trees (rather spontaneous vegetation) used by the locals to pass through or to walk the dog, not necessarily to stay. It could have been an important component of the urban green infrastructure in the neighbourhood, which could improve the air quality, help to manage stormwater, purify the air, eliminate the traffic noise and provide an attractive public open space. A local citizen who is a landscape architecture student has conducted even an intriguing master thesis on this issue, with a massive support and sympathy of the citizens on Facebook, in local newspapers and in the television. Unfortunately, the municipality has sold the land in the meantime in order to compensate losses in the budget and their untransparent decision making helped to push through a shopping mall with an extensive car park. Summarising, this case is meant to represent a negative approach in terms of landscape and democracy or community based planning.

== Representation of my observations ==
The case study area is a 'left-over' of intensive urban development, mainly prefab-housing, in the 1960s and 1970s and very well represents a common situation or general approach to such sites. As an undeveloped, undefined or 'empty' area, it has developed itself through the previous decades and has become a spontaneous spot of urban green infrastructure, with more than 70, mainly adult or adolescent spontaneous trees (predominantly Robinia pseudoacacia L. and Juglans regia L.). Nowadays, the area is used by the citizens to shorten their daily routes or to walk the dog. In terms of urban spatial relations, the site is a transit space between complex and individual housing, between large and small scale. It has become an important every-day landscape for locals, which has not been noticed by the local government and municipal decision making, thus in the master plan, it has remained an 'empty space' to be developed. A since then graduated landscape architecture student has developed a comprehensive landscape architectural study within his master thesis, while the local government was offering this 'empty' space for sale. The main aim was to cover the deficit in the town budget. This aim of the town hall was not properly communicated to the public; there were no public discussions, no architectural or urban design competition. It was a 'hidden' process for the general public. Once it became public, a massive public resistance has started - including the master thesis author's statements for the press and media, a small public meeting on site and a progressively growing Facebook group which is against building-up the site. All these actions were neglected and ignored by the local government and finally, the public land has been sold. Now, it is still empty, waiting for its future development.

<gallery caption="Design Synthesis Drawings" widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="5">
Image:Current_Situation.jpeg|Current Situation of the Site (2012-2015) by Tomáš Pavelka, adviser Attila Tóth
Image:Landscape_Architectural_Design.jpeg|Landscape Architectural Design by Tomáš Pavelka, adviser Attila Tóth
Image:Public_Park_or_Shopping_Mall.jpg|Public Park or Shopping Mall? Public Will vs. Municipality´s and Developer´s Interest
Image:Press_and_Social_Network.jpg|Engagement of the Wider Public via Press, Television and Social Networks
Image:S.H.Vajanského_corrected.jpg|Undefined Present - Uncertain Future?

</gallery>

== Reflection ==
=== What are the major challenges for changing the situation? ===
The main challenge for changing the situation is converting the contemporary, strongly top-down based planning and decision making paradigm. This requires a better involvement of the public in the planning process, organisation of moderated meetings and discussions when preparing the master plan and discussing development aims. It is necessary, to make the master plan more flexible and adaptable. In the current understanding, the master plan is 'saint', infallible and most importantly 'unchangeable'. Once a site is defined by the author of a master plan to become a built-up or developed area, consequent bottom-up protests can hardly change this. Further on, the decision making has to respect that each property owned by the municipality is a public property. Therefore, when making a decision on it, the public has to be asked, fully involved and recognised as an important and respected partner, rather than considered just an annoying and uncomfortable voice.

=== What could be a starting point for democratically-based change? ===
A good starting point for a democratically-based change would be learning the lesson from this negative case of public disappointment and make the upcoming decisions more transparent and involving. Public discussions and workshops are completely missing from the contemporary urban planning and decision making in Slovak municipalities. The municipality only passively informs (the legal minimum, e.g. the physical notice-board at the town hall) but does not really make efforts to actively inform and involve the public (e.g. using social media, networks and public events). Unfortunately, the change can hardly be foreseen for this specific site. Most probably, it can only serve as a negative lesson and hopefully as a starting point for changing the contemporary top-down planning and decision making paradigm.

== Stakeholder Mapping ==

''Create a visual representation of the stakeholder groups that are involved in your case. Try to cover the following aspects in your representation: Power (high, medium, low) / Support (positive, neutral, negative)/ Influence (high or low)/ Need (strong, medium, weak)+ also map the relationships between the stakeholder groups''

<gallery caption="Stakeholder Map" widths="600px" heights="300px" perrow="1">
File:Stakeholder_map_at.jpg|Stakeholder Map
</gallery>

== Change Scenario ==

''Look at the various methods and tools available and think how they can be applied creatively. Think about the needs of different stakeholder groups - you may need a methodical mix to address them all. Visualize a scenario illustrating how these methods/tools can be applied within an imagined time frame ''

<gallery caption="Change Scenario" widths="600px" heights="300px" perrow="1">
File:mychange szenario.JPG|Change Scenario
</gallery>

== Cross cutting theme ==
Identify a cross-cutting theme/topic between the cases of your group and write a short reflection on it (approx. 150 words)

== Concluding reflections ==
Reflect on your case and your change model. Potentials? Limitations? (approx. 150 words)

== References ==
PAVELKA, Tomáš. 2013. Návrh verejného parku na sídlisku v Nových Zámkoch. Diplomová práca. Nitra: Slovenská poľnohospodárska univerzita. 58 A3 s.

PAVELKA, Tomáš - TÓTH, Attila. 2013. Public Will versus Development Pressure in Urban Landscape Transformations: Case Study Nové Zámky. In: Stará, Kristýna (Eds.): Landscape Transformations of the Post-Communist Countries. Prague: Czech Technical University, 2013, pp.126-131. 200 p. ISBN 978-80-01-05431-4.

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/635827626427736/?fref=ts

Selected Online Press Releases:
http://novezamky.sme.sk/c/6913179/panika-menom-baumax-pozemok-vysutazil-developer-park-nebude.html
http://novezamky.sme.sk/c/7088281/zmluvu-podpisali-baumax-sa-moze-stavat.html
http://reality.etrend.sk/komercne-nehnutelnosti/v-novych-zamkoch-sa-chysta-mensie-obchodne-centrum.html

----
[[Category:Landscape Democracy Case Study]]

About categories: You can add more categories with this tag: "[[Category:Category Name]]", add your categories

File:Stakeholder map at.jpg

2016-01-23T21:43:39Z

Totha: Stakeholder map_Slovakia

Stakeholder map_Slovakia

Landscape Democracy 2015 - Working Group A

2016-01-11T21:40:21Z

Totha: /* Assignment 2 - Concept Mapping of Seminar Topics */

--> Back to [[Working_Groups_Seminar_Landscape Democracy 2015|working group overview]]

''Dear working group members. This is your group page and you will be completing the template gradually as we move through the seminar. Each member has an individual page for documenting his/her personal case. Good luck and enjoy your collaboration!
''

== Assignment 2 - Concept Mapping of Seminar Topics ==
*''You can read more details about this assignment [[Landscape_and_Democracy_Assignment_2:_Concept_Mapping_of_Seminar_Topics|here]]''
*''Please add your concept maps here by replacing the dummy image. Your map needs to have a new file name:''

<gallery caption=" " widths="200px" heights="150px" perrow="3">
Image:European_Landscape_Convention.jpg|''Concept map 1 - Theme context:Policy frameworks, laws and resolutions''
Image:Oeding_Cmap.jpg|''Concept map 2 - Theme context:Landscape Concepts''
Image:Ten_principles_for_a_landscape_approach_to_reconciling_agriculture,_conservation,_and_other_competing_land_uses.jpg|''Concept map 3 - Theme context:Participation Discourse and Concepts''
Image:yourconceptmap.jpg|''Concept map 4 - Theme context:Group Synthesis of the three themes''
</gallery>

== Assignment 3 - Landscape Democracy Cases in your Environment ==

*'''Assigned: Tuesday, October 27'''
*'''Due: Monday, November 30'''

''There is one template page for each group member. You can read more about the assignment [[Landscape_and_Democracy_Assignment_3:_Landscape_democracy_cases_in_your_environment|here]] ''

=== [[Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 1|Working Group A - Case Study 1: The Filder Plain]] ===

=== [[Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 2|Working Group A - Case Study 2: Nové Zámky, Slovakia]] ===

=== Presentation Slides Assignment 3 ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="4">
Image:Final_Oeding-Toth_GroupA-L%2BD_ass3_interimpresentation_Page_1.jpg|slide 1
Image:Final_Oeding-Toth_GroupA-L%2BD_ass3_interimpresentation_Page_2.jpg|slide 2
Image:Final_Oeding-Toth_GroupA-L%2BD_ass3_interimpresentation_Page_3.jpg|slide 3
Image:Final_Oeding-Toth_GroupA-L%2BD_ass3_interimpresentation_Page_4.jpg|slide 4
Image:Final_Oeding-Toth_GroupA-L%2BD_ass3_interimpresentation_Page_5.jpg|slide 5
Image:Final_Oeding-Toth_GroupA-L%2BD_ass3_interimpresentation_Page_6.jpg|slide 6
</gallery>

== Assignment 4 - Landscape and Democracy: Collaborative Project ==

*'''Assigned: Tuesday, December 1'''
*'''Due: Tuesday, January 25'''

* Your case study templates will be extended with additional sectionsn for documenting a change model
* You can read more about the assignment [[Landscape_and_Democracy:_Collaborative_Project|here]]

=== Presentation Slides Scenarios and Change Models ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="4">
Image:groupA_slide1.jpg|slide 1
Image:groupA_slide2.jpg|slide 2
Image:groupA_slide3.jpg|slide 3
Image:groupA_slide4.jpg|slide 4
Image:groupA_slide5.jpg|slide 5
</gallery>

----

[[Category: Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group]]

File:European Landscape Convention.jpg

2016-01-11T21:26:07Z

Totha: European Landscape Convention - Concept Map

European Landscape Convention - Concept Map

Landscape Democracy 2015 - Working Group A

2016-01-03T18:49:09Z

Totha: /* Assignment 2 - Concept Mapping of Seminar Topics */

--> Back to [[Working_Groups_Seminar_Landscape Democracy 2015|working group overview]]

''Dear working group members. This is your group page and you will be completing the template gradually as we move through the seminar. Each member has an individual page for documenting his/her personal case. Good luck and enjoy your collaboration!
''

== Assignment 2 - Concept Mapping of Seminar Topics ==
*''You can read more details about this assignment [[Landscape_and_Democracy_Assignment_2:_Concept_Mapping_of_Seminar_Topics|here]]''
*''Please add your concept maps here by replacing the dummy image. Your map needs to have a new file name:''

<gallery caption=" " widths="200px" heights="150px" perrow="3">
Image:yourconceptmap.jpg|''Concept map 1 - Theme context:Policy frameworks, laws and resolutions''
Image:Oeding_Cmap.jpg|''Concept map 2 - Theme context:Landscape Concepts''
Image:Ten_principles_for_a_landscape_approach_to_reconciling_agriculture,_conservation,_and_other_competing_land_uses.jpg|''Concept map 3 - Theme context:Participation Discourse and Concepts''
Image:yourconceptmap.jpg|''Concept map 4 - Theme context:Group Synthesis of the three themes''
</gallery>

== Assignment 3 - Landscape Democracy Cases in your Environment ==

*'''Assigned: Tuesday, October 27'''
*'''Due: Monday, November 30'''

''There is one template page for each group member. You can read more about the assignment [[Landscape_and_Democracy_Assignment_3:_Landscape_democracy_cases_in_your_environment|here]] ''

=== [[Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 1|Working Group A - Case Study 1: The Filder Plain]] ===

=== [[Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 2|Working Group A - Case Study 2: Nové Zámky, Slovakia]] ===

=== Presentation Slides Assignment 3 ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="4">
Image:Final_Oeding-Toth_GroupA-L%2BD_ass3_interimpresentation_Page_1.jpg|slide 1
Image:Final_Oeding-Toth_GroupA-L%2BD_ass3_interimpresentation_Page_2.jpg|slide 2
Image:Final_Oeding-Toth_GroupA-L%2BD_ass3_interimpresentation_Page_3.jpg|slide 3
Image:Final_Oeding-Toth_GroupA-L%2BD_ass3_interimpresentation_Page_4.jpg|slide 4
Image:Final_Oeding-Toth_GroupA-L%2BD_ass3_interimpresentation_Page_5.jpg|slide 5
Image:Final_Oeding-Toth_GroupA-L%2BD_ass3_interimpresentation_Page_6.jpg|slide 6
</gallery>

== Assignment 4 - Landscape and Democracy: Collaborative Project ==

*'''Assigned: Tuesday, December 1'''
*'''Due: Tuesday, January 25'''

* Your case study templates will be extended with additional sectionsn for documenting a change model
* You can read more about the assignment [[Landscape_and_Democracy:_Collaborative_Project|here]]

=== Presentation Slides Scenarios and Change Models ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="4">
Image:groupA_slide1.jpg|slide 1
Image:groupA_slide2.jpg|slide 2
Image:groupA_slide3.jpg|slide 3
Image:groupA_slide4.jpg|slide 4
Image:groupA_slide5.jpg|slide 5
</gallery>

----

[[Category: Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group]]

File:Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses.jpg

2016-01-03T18:48:13Z

Totha:

Landscape Democracy 2015 - Working Group A

2015-12-13T09:51:20Z

Totha: /* Presentation Slides Assignment 3 */

--> Back to [[Working_Groups_Seminar_Landscape Democracy 2015|working group overview]]

''Dear working group members. This is your group page and you will be completing the template gradually as we move through the seminar. Each member has an individual page for documenting his/her personal case. Good luck and enjoy your collaboration!
''

== Assignment 2 - Concept Mapping of Seminar Topics ==
*''You can read more details about this assignment [[Landscape_and_Democracy_Assignment_2:_Concept_Mapping_of_Seminar_Topics|here]]''
*''Please add your concept maps here by replacing the dummy image. Your map needs to have a new file name:''

<gallery caption=" " widths="200px" heights="150px" perrow="3">
Image:yourconceptmap.jpg|''Concept map 1 - Theme context:Policy frameworks, laws and resolutions''
Image:Oeding-_Space_&_Place.jpeg|''Concept map 2 - Theme context:Landscape Concepts''
Image:yourconceptmap.jpg|''Concept map 3 - Theme context:Participation Discourse and Concepts''
Image:yourconceptmap.jpg|''Concept map 4 - Theme context:Group Synthesis of the three themes''
</gallery>

== Assignment 3 - Landscape Democracy Cases in your Environment ==

*'''Assigned: Tuesday, October 27'''
*'''Due: Monday, November 30'''

''There is one template page for each group member. You can read more about the assignment [[Landscape_and_Democracy_Assignment_3:_Landscape_democracy_cases_in_your_environment|here]] ''

=== [[Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 1|Working Group A - Case Study 1: The Filder Plain]] ===

=== [[Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 2|Working Group A - Case Study 2: Nové Zámky, Slovakia]] ===

=== Presentation Slides Assignment 3 ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="4">
Image:Final_Oeding-Toth_GroupA-L%2BD_ass3_interimpresentation_Page_1.jpg|slide 1
Image:Final_Oeding-Toth_GroupA-L%2BD_ass3_interimpresentation_Page_2.jpg|slide 2
Image:Final_Oeding-Toth_GroupA-L%2BD_ass3_interimpresentation_Page_3.jpg|slide 3
Image:Final_Oeding-Toth_GroupA-L%2BD_ass3_interimpresentation_Page_4.jpg|slide 4
Image:Final_Oeding-Toth_GroupA-L%2BD_ass3_interimpresentation_Page_5.jpg|slide 5
Image:Final_Oeding-Toth_GroupA-L%2BD_ass3_interimpresentation_Page_6.jpg|slide 6
</gallery>

== Assignment 4 - Landscape and Democracy: Collaborative Project ==

*'''Assigned: Tuesday, December 1'''
*'''Due: Tuesday, January 25'''

* Your case study templates will be extended with additional sectionsn for documenting a change model
* You can read more about the assignment [[Landscape_and_Democracy:_Collaborative_Project|here]]

=== Presentation Slides Scenarios and Change Models ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="4">
Image:groupA_slide1.jpg|slide 1
Image:groupA_slide2.jpg|slide 2
Image:groupA_slide3.jpg|slide 3
Image:groupA_slide4.jpg|slide 4
Image:groupA_slide5.jpg|slide 5
</gallery>

----

[[Category: Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group]]

File:Final Oeding-Toth GroupA-L+D ass3 interimpresentation Page 6.jpg

2015-12-13T09:48:30Z

Totha:

File:Final Oeding-Toth GroupA-L+D ass3 interimpresentation Page 5.jpg

2015-12-13T09:48:16Z

Totha:

File:Final Oeding-Toth GroupA-L+D ass3 interimpresentation Page 4.jpg

2015-12-13T09:47:58Z

Totha:

File:Final Oeding-Toth GroupA-L+D ass3 interimpresentation Page 3.jpg

2015-12-13T09:47:20Z

Totha:

File:Final Oeding-Toth GroupA-L+D ass3 interimpresentation Page 2.jpg

2015-12-13T09:46:44Z

Totha:

File:Final Oeding-Toth GroupA-L+D ass3 interimpresentation Page 1.jpg

2015-12-13T09:46:10Z

Totha:

Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 2

2015-11-30T11:56:55Z

Totha:

---> back to group page [[Landscape_Democracy_2015_-_Working_Group_A|working group A]]

'''''Urban Green Space vs. Shopping Mall or Who Owns the Landscape, the Public or the Municipal Decision Makers?'''''

by Attila Tóth

{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Place name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| '' S.H.Vajanského Street''
|-
| '''Location''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Nové Zámky''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Slovakia''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Attila Tóth''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:S.H.Vajanského.Aerial.View.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| {{#widget:GoogleMaps
|width=300
|height=300
|lat=47.9797557
|lng=18.1550068
|zoom=8
|centermarker=yes
|maptypecontrol=yes
|overviewmapcontrol=yes
|largemapcontrol=yes
|scalecontrol=yes
}}
|}

== Rationale: Why have I chosen this case for the landscape and democracy seminar? ==
The Nové Zámky case study has been chosen in order to present a common situation in Slovak policy and decision making at the municipal level. The decision making in post-communist countries still follows rather top-down than bottom-up approaches or the combination of both. The case represents an empty space in a prefab neighbourhood near the town centre and has not yet been developed since the 1960s and 1970s. It is an extensive green space with a few trees (rather spontaneous vegetation) used by the locals to pass through or to walk the dog, not necessarily to stay. It could have been an important component of the urban green infrastructure in the neighbourhood, which could improve the air quality, help to manage stormwater, purify the air, eliminate the traffic noise and provide an attractive public open space. A local citizen who is a landscape architecture student has conducted even an intriguing master thesis on this issue, with a massive support and sympathy of the citizens on Facebook, in local newspapers and in the television. Unfortunately, the municipality has sold the land in the meantime in order to compensate losses in the budget and their untransparent decision making helped to push through a shopping mall with an extensive car park. Summarising, this case is meant to represent a negative approach in terms of landscape and democracy or community based planning.

== Representation of my observations ==
The case study area is a 'left-over' of intensive urban development, mainly prefab-housing, in the 1960s and 1970s and very well represents a common situation or general approach to such sites. As an undeveloped, undefined or 'empty' area, it has developed itself through the previous decades and has become a spontaneous spot of urban green infrastructure, with more than 70, mainly adult or adolescent spontaneous trees (predominantly Robinia pseudoacacia L. and Juglans regia L.). Nowadays, the area is used by the citizens to shorten their daily routes or to walk the dog. In terms of urban spatial relations, the site is a transit space between complex and individual housing, between large and small scale. It has become an important every-day landscape for locals, which has not been noticed by the local government and municipal decision making, thus in the master plan, it has remained an 'empty space' to be developed. A since then graduated landscape architecture student has developed a comprehensive landscape architectural study within his master thesis, while the local government was offering this 'empty' space for sale. The main aim was to cover the deficit in the town budget. This aim of the town hall was not properly communicated to the public; there were no public discussions, no architectural or urban design competition. It was a 'hidden' process for the general public. Once it became public, a massive public resistance has started - including the master thesis author's statements for the press and media, a small public meeting on site and a progressively growing Facebook group which is against building-up the site. All these actions were neglected and ignored by the local government and finally, the public land has been sold. Now, it is still empty, waiting for its future development.

<gallery caption="Design Synthesis Drawings" widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="5">
Image:Current_Situation.jpeg|Current Situation of the Site (2012-2015) by Tomáš Pavelka, adviser Attila Tóth
Image:Landscape_Architectural_Design.jpeg|Landscape Architectural Design by Tomáš Pavelka, adviser Attila Tóth
Image:Public_Park_or_Shopping_Mall.jpg|Public Park or Shopping Mall? Public Will vs. Municipality´s and Developer´s Interest
Image:Press_and_Social_Network.jpg|Engagement of the Wider Public via Press, Television and Social Networks
Image:S.H.Vajanského_corrected.jpg|Undefined Present - Uncertain Future?

</gallery>

== Reflection ==
=== What are the major challenges for changing the situation? ===
The main challenge for changing the situation is converting the contemporary, strongly top-down based planning and decision making paradigm. This requires a better involvement of the public in the planning process, organisation of moderated meetings and discussions when preparing the master plan and discussing development aims. It is necessary, to make the master plan more flexible and adaptable. In the current understanding, the master plan is 'saint', infallible and most importantly 'unchangeable'. Once a site is defined by the author of a master plan to become a built-up or developed area, consequent bottom-up protests can hardly change this. Further on, the decision making has to respect that each property owned by the municipality is a public property. Therefore, when making a decision on it, the public has to be asked, fully involved and recognised as an important and respected partner, rather than considered just an annoying and uncomfortable voice.

=== What could be a starting point for democratically-based change? ===
A good starting point for a democratically-based change would be learning the lesson from this negative case of public disappointment and make the upcoming decisions more transparent and involving. Public discussions and workshops are completely missing from the contemporary urban planning and decision making in Slovak municipalities. The municipality only passively informs (the legal minimum, e.g. the physical notice-board at the town hall) but does not really make efforts to actively inform and involve the public (e.g. using social media, networks and public events). Unfortunately, the change can hardly be foreseen for this specific site. Most probably, it can only serve as a negative lesson and hopefully as a starting point for changing the contemporary top-down planning and decision making paradigm.

== References ==
PAVELKA, Tomáš. 2013. Návrh verejného parku na sídlisku v Nových Zámkoch. Diplomová práca. Nitra: Slovenská poľnohospodárska univerzita. 58 A3 s.

PAVELKA, Tomáš - TÓTH, Attila. 2013. Public Will versus Development Pressure in Urban Landscape Transformations: Case Study Nové Zámky. In: Stará, Kristýna (Eds.): Landscape Transformations of the Post-Communist Countries. Prague: Czech Technical University, 2013, pp.126-131. 200 p. ISBN 978-80-01-05431-4.

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/635827626427736/?fref=ts

Selected Online Press Releases:
http://novezamky.sme.sk/c/6913179/panika-menom-baumax-pozemok-vysutazil-developer-park-nebude.html
http://novezamky.sme.sk/c/7088281/zmluvu-podpisali-baumax-sa-moze-stavat.html
http://reality.etrend.sk/komercne-nehnutelnosti/v-novych-zamkoch-sa-chysta-mensie-obchodne-centrum.html

----
[[Category:Landscape Democracy Case Study]]

About categories: You can add more categories with this tag: "[[Category:Category Name]]", add your categories

File:S.H.Vajanského corrected.jpg

2015-11-30T11:55:52Z

Totha: S.H.Vajanského - present - public will - municipality´s decision

S.H.Vajanského - present - public will - municipality´s decision

Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 2

2015-11-30T10:21:05Z

Totha:

---> back to group page [[Landscape_Democracy_2015_-_Working_Group_A|working group A]]

'''''Urban Green Space vs. Shopping Mall or Who Owns the Landscape, the Public or the Municipal Decision Makers?'''''

by Attila Tóth

{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Place name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| '' S.H.Vajanského Street''
|-
| '''Location''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Nové Zámky''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Slovakia''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Attila Tóth''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:S.H.Vajanského.Aerial.View.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| {{#widget:GoogleMaps
|width=300
|height=300
|lat=47.9797557
|lng=18.1550068
|zoom=8
|centermarker=yes
|maptypecontrol=yes
|overviewmapcontrol=yes
|largemapcontrol=yes
|scalecontrol=yes
}}
|}

== Rationale: Why have I chosen this case for the landscape and democracy seminar? ==
The Nové Zámky case study has been chosen in order to present a common situation in Slovak policy and decision making at the municipal level. The decision making in post-communist countries still follows rather top-down than bottom-up approaches or the combination of both. The case represents an empty space in a prefab neighbourhood near the town centre and has not yet been developed since the 1960s and 1970s. It is an extensive green space with a few trees (rather spontaneous vegetation) used by the locals to pass through or to walk the dog, not necessarily to stay. It could have been an important component of the urban green infrastructure in the neighbourhood, which could improve the air quality, help to manage stormwater, purify the air, eliminate the traffic noise and provide an attractive public open space. A local citizen who is a landscape architecture student has conducted even an intriguing master thesis on this issue, with a massive support and sympathy of the citizens on Facebook, in local newspapers and in the television. Unfortunately, the municipality has sold the land in the meantime in order to compensate losses in the budget and their untransparent decision making helped to push through a shopping mall with an extensive car park. Summarising, this case is meant to represent a negative approach in terms of landscape and democracy or community based planning.

== Representation of my observations ==
The case study area is a 'left-over' of intensive urban development, mainly prefab-housing, in the 1960s and 1970s and very well represents a common situation or general approach to such sites. As an undeveloped, undefined or 'empty' area, it has developed itself through the previous decades and has become a spontaneous spot of urban green infrastructure, with more than 70, mainly adult or adolescent spontaneous trees (predominantly Robinia pseudoacacia L. and Juglans regia L.). Nowadays, the area is used by the citizens to shorten their daily routes or to walk the dog. In terms of urban spatial relations, the site is a transit space between complex and individual housing, between large and small scale. It has become an important every-day landscape for locals, which has not been noticed by the local government and municipal decision making, thus in the master plan, it has remained an 'empty space' to be developed. A since then graduated landscape architecture student has developed a comprehensive landscape architectural study within his master thesis, while the local government was offering this 'empty' space for sale. The main aim was to cover the deficit in the town budget. This aim of the town hall was not properly communicated to the public; there were no public discussions, no architectural or urban design competition. It was a 'hidden' process for the general public. Once it became public, a massive public resistance has started - including the master thesis author's statements for the press and media, a small public meeting on site and a progressively growing Facebook group which is against building-up the site. All these actions were neglected and ignored by the local government and finally, the public land has been sold. Now, it is still empty, waiting for its future development.

<gallery caption="Design Synthesis Drawings" widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="5">
Image:Current_Situation.jpeg|Current Situation of the Site (2012-2015) by Tomáš Pavelka, adviser Attila Tóth
Image:Landscape_Architectural_Design.jpeg|Landscape Architectural Design by Tomáš Pavelka, adviser Attila Tóth
Image:Public_Park_or_Shopping_Mall.jpg|Public Park or Shopping Mall? Public Will vs. Municipality´s and Developer´s Interest
Image:Press_and_Social_Network.jpg|Engagement of the Wider Public via Press, Television and Social Networks
Image:S.H.Vajanského_Nové_Zámky.jpg|Undefined Present - Uncertain Future?

</gallery>

== Reflection ==
=== What are the major challenges for changing the situation? ===
The main challenge for changing the situation is converting the contemporary, strongly top-down based planning and decision making paradigm. This requires a better involvement of the public in the planning process, organisation of moderated meetings and discussions when preparing the master plan and discussing development aims. It is necessary, to make the master plan more flexible and adaptable. In the current understanding, the master plan is 'saint', infallible and most importantly 'unchangeable'. Once a site is defined by the author of a master plan to become a built-up or developed area, consequent bottom-up protests can hardly change this. Further on, the decision making has to respect that each property owned by the municipality is a public property. Therefore, when making a decision on it, the public has to be asked, fully involved and recognised as an important and respected partner, rather than considered just an annoying and uncomfortable voice.

=== What could be a starting point for democratically-based change? ===
A good starting point for a democratically-based change would be learning the lesson from this negative case of public disappointment and make the upcoming decisions more transparent and involving. Public discussions and workshops are completely missing from the contemporary urban planning and decision making in Slovak municipalities. The municipality only passively informs (the legal minimum, e.g. the physical notice-board at the town hall) but does not really make efforts to actively inform and involve the public (e.g. using social media, networks and public events). Unfortunately, the change can hardly be foreseen for this specific site. Most probably, it can only serve as a negative lesson and hopefully as a starting point for changing the contemporary top-down planning and decision making paradigm.

== References ==
PAVELKA, Tomáš. 2013. Návrh verejného parku na sídlisku v Nových Zámkoch. Diplomová práca. Nitra: Slovenská poľnohospodárska univerzita. 58 A3 s.

PAVELKA, Tomáš - TÓTH, Attila. 2013. Public Will versus Development Pressure in Urban Landscape Transformations: Case Study Nové Zámky. In: Stará, Kristýna (Eds.): Landscape Transformations of the Post-Communist Countries. Prague: Czech Technical University, 2013, pp.126-131. 200 p. ISBN 978-80-01-05431-4.

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/635827626427736/?fref=ts

Selected Online Press Releases:
http://novezamky.sme.sk/c/6913179/panika-menom-baumax-pozemok-vysutazil-developer-park-nebude.html
http://novezamky.sme.sk/c/7088281/zmluvu-podpisali-baumax-sa-moze-stavat.html
http://reality.etrend.sk/komercne-nehnutelnosti/v-novych-zamkoch-sa-chysta-mensie-obchodne-centrum.html

----
[[Category:Landscape Democracy Case Study]]

About categories: You can add more categories with this tag: "[[Category:Category Name]]", add your categories

Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 2

2015-11-30T09:22:12Z

Totha: /* What could be a starting point for democractically-based change? */

Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 2

2015-11-30T08:57:47Z

Totha:

Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 2

2015-11-30T08:57:04Z

Totha:

File:S.H.Vajanského Nové Zámky.jpg

2015-11-30T08:55:25Z

Totha: Present - Public Will - Municipality´s Decision?!

Present - Public Will - Municipality´s Decision?!

File:Landscape Architectural Design.jpeg

2015-11-30T08:13:15Z

Totha: Landscape Architectural Design

Landscape Architectural Design

Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 2

2015-11-30T08:10:38Z

Totha: /* Representation of my observations */

Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 2

2015-11-30T08:09:02Z

Totha:

File:Current Situation.jpeg

2015-11-30T08:07:46Z

Totha: Current Situation of the Site (2013-2015)

Current Situation of the Site (2013-2015)

Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 2

2015-11-30T08:05:31Z

Totha:

Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 2

2015-11-30T07:56:32Z

Totha:

Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 2

2015-11-30T07:14:17Z

Totha:

Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 2

2015-11-30T07:12:24Z

Totha:

---> back to group page [[Landscape_Democracy_2015_-_Working_Group_A|working group A]]

'''''Urban Green Space or Shopping Mall - Public Will vs. Municipal Decision Making or Who Owns the Landscape?'''''

by Attila Tóth

{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Place name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| '' S.H.Vajanského Street''
|-
| '''Location''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Nové Zámky''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Slovakia''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Attila Tóth''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:S.H.Vajanského.Aerial.View.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| {{#widget:GoogleMaps
|width=300
|height=300
|lat=47.9797557
|lng=18.1550068
|zoom=8
|centermarker=yes
|maptypecontrol=yes
|overviewmapcontrol=yes
|largemapcontrol=yes
|scalecontrol=yes
}}
|}

== Rationale: Why have you chosen this case for the landscape and democracy seminar? ==
The Nové Zámky case study has been chosen in order to present a common situation in Slovak policy and decision making at the municipal level. The decision making in post-communist countries still follows rather top-down than bottom-up approaches or the combination of both. The case represents an empty space in a prefab neighbourhood near the town centre and has not yet been developed since the 1960s and 1970s. It is an extensive green space with a few trees (rather spontaneous vegetation) used by the locals to pass through or to walk the dog, not necessarily to stay. It could have been an important component of the urban green infrastructure in the neighbourhood, which could improve the air quality, help to manage stormwater, purify the air, eliminate the traffic noise and provide an attractive public open space. A local citizen who is a landscape architecture student has conducted even an intriguing master thesis on this issue, with a massive support and sympathy of the citizens on Facebook, in local newspapers and in the television. Unfortunately, the municipality has sold the land in the meantime in order to compensate losses in the budget and their untransparent decision making helped to push through a shopping mall with an extensive car park. Summarising, this case is meant to represent a negative approach in terms of landscape and democracy or community based planning.

== Representation of your observations ==
* you are basically free to use one or a mix of different presentation techniques
* possibilities are: analytical drawings, graphical representations, collages, video clips, comic/graphic novel, written essay/visual essay
* please add any visual material to the gallery, videos can be placed below, you may add text as you like

<gallery caption="Design Synthesis Drawings" widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="4">
Image:Public_Park_or_Shopping_Mall.jpg|Public Park or Shopping Mall? Public Will vs. Municipality´s and Developer´s Interest
Image:Press_and_Social_Network.jpg|Engagement of the Wider Public via Press, Television and Social Networks
Image:yourfilename3.jpg|case representation
Image:yourfilename4.jpg|case representation
</gallery>

== Reflection ==
=== What are the major challenges for changing the situation? ===
=== What could be a starting point for democractically-based change? ===

*Please add approx. 150 words for each questions

== References ==
''* Please make sure that you give proper references of all external resources used.''

''* Do not use images of which you do not hold the copyright.''

''* Please add internet links to other resources if necessary.''

----
[[Category:Landscape Democracy Case Study]]

About categories: You can add more categories with this tag: "[[Category:Category Name]]", add your categories

Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 2

2015-11-23T14:51:17Z

Totha:

---> back to group page [[Landscape_Democracy_2015_-_Working_Group_A|working group A]]

'''''Urban Green Space on the S.H.Vajanského Street in Nové Zámky, Slovakia: Public Will vs. Municipal Decision Making - Who Owns the Landscape?'''''

by Attila Tóth

{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Place name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| '' S.H.Vajanského Street''
|-
| '''Location''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Nové Zámky''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Slovakia''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Attila Tóth''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:S.H.Vajanského.Aerial.View.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| {{#widget:GoogleMaps
|width=300
|height=300
|lat=47.9797557
|lng=18.1550068
|zoom=8
|centermarker=yes
|maptypecontrol=yes
|overviewmapcontrol=yes
|largemapcontrol=yes
|scalecontrol=yes
}}
|}

== Rationale: Why have you chosen this case for the landscape and democracy seminar? ==
The Nové Zámky case study has been chosen in order to present a common situation in Slovak policy and decision making at the municipal level. The decision making in post-communist countries still follows rather top-down than bottom-up approaches or the combination of both. The case represents an empty space in a prefab neighbourhood near the town centre and has not yet been developed since the 1960s and 1970s. It is an extensive green space with a few trees (rather spontaneous vegetation) used by the locals to pass through or to walk the dog, not necessarily to stay. It could have been an important component of the urban green infrastructure in the neighbourhood, which could improve the air quality, help to manage stormwater, purify the air, eliminate the traffic noise and provide an attractive public open space. A local citizen who is a landscape architecture student has conducted even an intriguing master thesis on this issue, with a massive support and sympathy of the citizens on Facebook, in local newspapers and in the television. Unfortunately, the municipality has sold the land in the meantime in order to compensate losses in the budget and their untransparent decision making helped to push through a shopping mall with an extensive car park. Summarising, this case is meant to represent a negative approach in terms of landscape and democracy or community based planning.

== Representation of your observations ==
* you are basically free to use one or a mix of different presentation techniques
* possibilities are: analytical drawings, graphical representations, collages, video clips, comic/graphic novel, written essay/visual essay
* please add any visual material to the gallery, videos can be placed below, you may add text as you like

<gallery caption="Design Synthesis Drawings" widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="4">
Image:Public_Park_or_Shopping_Mall.jpg|Public Park or Shopping Mall? Public Will vs. Municipality´s and Developer´s Interest
Image:Press_and_Social_Network.jpg|Engagement of the Wider Public via Press, Television and Social Networks
Image:yourfilename3.jpg|case representation
Image:yourfilename4.jpg|case representation
</gallery>

== Reflection ==
=== What are the major challenges for changing the situation? ===
=== What could be a starting point for democractically-based change? ===

*Please add approx. 150 words for each questions

== References ==
''* Please make sure that you give proper references of all external resources used.''

''* Do not use images of which you do not hold the copyright.''

''* Please add internet links to other resources if necessary.''

----
[[Category:Landscape Democracy Case Study]]

About categories: You can add more categories with this tag: "[[Category:Category Name]]", add your categories

File:Press and Social Network.jpg

2015-11-23T14:48:59Z

Totha: Involvement of the wider public via press, television and social media.

Involvement of the wider public via press, television and social media.

Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 2

2015-11-23T08:36:56Z

Totha: /* Representation of your observations */

---> back to group page [[Landscape_Democracy_2015_-_Working_Group_A|working group A]]

'''''Urban Green Space on the S.H.Vajanského Street in Nové Zámky, Slovakia: Public Will vs. Municipal Decision Making - Who Owns the Landscape?'''''

by Attila Tóth

{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Place name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| '' S.H.Vajanského Street''
|-
| '''Location''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Nové Zámky''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Slovakia''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Attila Tóth''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:S.H.Vajanského.Aerial.View.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| {{#widget:GoogleMaps
|width=300
|height=300
|lat=47.9797557
|lng=18.1550068
|zoom=8
|centermarker=yes
|maptypecontrol=yes
|overviewmapcontrol=yes
|largemapcontrol=yes
|scalecontrol=yes
}}
|}

== Rationale: Why have you chosen this case for the landscape and democracy seminar? ==
The Nové Zámky case study has been chosen in order to present a common situation in Slovak policy and decision making at the municipal level. The decision making in post-communist countries still follows rather top-down than bottom-up approaches or the combination of both. The case represents an empty space in a prefab neighbourhood near the town centre and has not yet been developed since the 1960s and 1970s. It is an extensive green space with a few trees (rather spontaneous vegetation) used by the locals to pass through or to walk the dog, not necessarily to stay. It could have been an important component of the urban green infrastructure in the neighbourhood, which could improve the air quality, help to manage stormwater, purify the air, eliminate the traffic noise and provide an attractive public open space. A local citizen who is a landscape architecture student has conducted even an intriguing master thesis on this issue, with a massive support and sympathy of the citizens on Facebook, in local newspapers and in the television. Unfortunately, the municipality has sold the land in the meantime in order to compensate losses in the budget and their untransparent decision making helped to push through a shopping mall with an extensive car park. Summarising, this case is meant to represent a negative approach in terms of landscape and democracy or community based planning.

== Representation of your observations ==
* you are basically free to use one or a mix of different presentation techniques
* possibilities are: analytical drawings, graphical representations, collages, video clips, comic/graphic novel, written essay/visual essay
* please add any visual material to the gallery, videos can be placed below, you may add text as you like

<gallery caption="Design Synthesis Drawings" widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="4">
Image:Public_Park_or_Shopping_Mall.jpg|Public Park or Shopping Mall? Public Will vs. Municipality´s and Developer´s Interest
Image:yourfilename2.jpg|case representation
Image:yourfilename3.jpg|case representation
Image:yourfilename4.jpg|case representation
</gallery>

== Reflection ==
=== What are the major challenges for changing the situation? ===
=== What could be a starting point for democractically-based change? ===

*Please add approx. 150 words for each questions

== References ==
''* Please make sure that you give proper references of all external resources used.''

''* Do not use images of which you do not hold the copyright.''

''* Please add internet links to other resources if necessary.''

----
[[Category:Landscape Democracy Case Study]]

About categories: You can add more categories with this tag: "[[Category:Category Name]]", add your categories

File:Public Park or Shopping Mall.jpg

2015-11-23T08:33:54Z

Totha: A collage for the inhabitants to express their opinion on the municipality´s decision and the developer´s intention vs. the master thesis of a local landscape architect

A collage for the inhabitants to express their opinion on the municipality´s decision and the developer´s intention vs. the master thesis of a local landscape architect

Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 2

2015-11-23T08:21:05Z

Totha:

---> back to group page [[Landscape_Democracy_2015_-_Working_Group_A|working group A]]

'''''Urban Green Space on the S.H.Vajanského Street in Nové Zámky, Slovakia: Public Will vs. Municipal Decision Making - Who Owns the Landscape?'''''

by Attila Tóth

{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Place name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| '' S.H.Vajanského Street''
|-
| '''Location''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Nové Zámky''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Slovakia''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Attila Tóth''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:S.H.Vajanského.Aerial.View.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| {{#widget:GoogleMaps
|width=300
|height=300
|lat=47.9797557
|lng=18.1550068
|zoom=8
|centermarker=yes
|maptypecontrol=yes
|overviewmapcontrol=yes
|largemapcontrol=yes
|scalecontrol=yes
}}
|}

== Rationale: Why have you chosen this case for the landscape and democracy seminar? ==
The Nové Zámky case study has been chosen in order to present a common situation in Slovak policy and decision making at the municipal level. The decision making in post-communist countries still follows rather top-down than bottom-up approaches or the combination of both. The case represents an empty space in a prefab neighbourhood near the town centre and has not yet been developed since the 1960s and 1970s. It is an extensive green space with a few trees (rather spontaneous vegetation) used by the locals to pass through or to walk the dog, not necessarily to stay. It could have been an important component of the urban green infrastructure in the neighbourhood, which could improve the air quality, help to manage stormwater, purify the air, eliminate the traffic noise and provide an attractive public open space. A local citizen who is a landscape architecture student has conducted even an intriguing master thesis on this issue, with a massive support and sympathy of the citizens on Facebook, in local newspapers and in the television. Unfortunately, the municipality has sold the land in the meantime in order to compensate losses in the budget and their untransparent decision making helped to push through a shopping mall with an extensive car park. Summarising, this case is meant to represent a negative approach in terms of landscape and democracy or community based planning.

== Representation of your observations ==
* you are basically free to use one or a mix of different presentation techniques
* possibilities are: analytical drawings, graphical representations, collages, video clips, comic/graphic novel, written essay/visual essay
* please add any visual material to the gallery, videos can be placed below, you may add text as you like

<gallery caption="Design Synthesis Drawings" widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="4">
Image:yourfilename1.jpg|case representation
Image:yourfilename2.jpg|case representation
Image:yourfilename3.jpg|case representation
Image:yourfilename4.jpg|case representation
</gallery>

== Reflection ==
=== What are the major challenges for changing the situation? ===
=== What could be a starting point for democractically-based change? ===

*Please add approx. 150 words for each questions

== References ==
''* Please make sure that you give proper references of all external resources used.''

''* Do not use images of which you do not hold the copyright.''

''* Please add internet links to other resources if necessary.''

----
[[Category:Landscape Democracy Case Study]]

About categories: You can add more categories with this tag: "[[Category:Category Name]]", add your categories

Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 2

2015-11-23T08:20:10Z

Totha:

---> back to group page [[Landscape_Democracy_2015_-_Working_Group_A|working group A]]

'''''Urban Green Space on the S.H.Vajanského Street in Nové Zámky, Slovakia: Public Will vs. Municipal Decision Making - Who Owns the Landscape?'''''
by Attila Tóth

{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Place name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| '' S.H.Vajanského Street''
|-
| '''Location''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Nové Zámky''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Slovakia''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Attila Tóth''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:S.H.Vajanského.Aerial.View.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| {{#widget:GoogleMaps
|width=300
|height=300
|lat=47.9797557
|lng=18.1550068
|zoom=8
|centermarker=yes
|maptypecontrol=yes
|overviewmapcontrol=yes
|largemapcontrol=yes
|scalecontrol=yes
}}
|}

== Rationale: Why have you chosen this case for the landscape and democracy seminar? ==
The Nové Zámky case study has been chosen in order to present a common situation in Slovak policy and decision making at the municipal level. The decision making in post-communist countries still follows rather top-down than bottom-up approaches or the combination of both. The case represents an empty space in a prefab neighbourhood near the town centre and has not yet been developed since the 1960s and 1970s. It is an extensive green space with a few trees (rather spontaneous vegetation) used by the locals to pass through or to walk the dog, not necessarily to stay. It could have been an important component of the urban green infrastructure in the neighbourhood, which could improve the air quality, help to manage stormwater, purify the air, eliminate the traffic noise and provide an attractive public open space. A local citizen who is a landscape architecture student has conducted even an intriguing master thesis on this issue, with a massive support and sympathy of the citizens on Facebook, in local newspapers and in the television. Unfortunately, the municipality has sold the land in the meantime in order to compensate losses in the budget and their untransparent decision making helped to push through a shopping mall with an extensive car park. Summarising, this case is meant to represent a negative approach in terms of landscape and democracy or community based planning.

== Representation of your observations ==
* you are basically free to use one or a mix of different presentation techniques
* possibilities are: analytical drawings, graphical representations, collages, video clips, comic/graphic novel, written essay/visual essay
* please add any visual material to the gallery, videos can be placed below, you may add text as you like

<gallery caption="Design Synthesis Drawings" widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="4">
Image:yourfilename1.jpg|case representation
Image:yourfilename2.jpg|case representation
Image:yourfilename3.jpg|case representation
Image:yourfilename4.jpg|case representation
</gallery>

== Reflection ==
=== What are the major challenges for changing the situation? ===
=== What could be a starting point for democractically-based change? ===

*Please add approx. 150 words for each questions

== References ==
''* Please make sure that you give proper references of all external resources used.''

''* Do not use images of which you do not hold the copyright.''

''* Please add internet links to other resources if necessary.''

----
[[Category:Landscape Democracy Case Study]]

About categories: You can add more categories with this tag: "[[Category:Category Name]]", add your categories

Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 2

2015-11-23T08:19:29Z

Totha:

---> back to group page [[Landscape_Democracy_2015_-_Working_Group_A|working group A]]

'''''Urban Green Space on the S.H.Vajanského Street in Nové Zámky, Slovakia: Public Will vs. Municipal Decision Making - Who Owns the Landscape?
by Attila Tóth'''''

{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Place name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| '' S.H.Vajanského Street''
|-
| '''Location''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Nové Zámky''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Slovakia''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Attila Tóth''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:S.H.Vajanského.Aerial.View.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| {{#widget:GoogleMaps
|width=300
|height=300
|lat=47.9797557
|lng=18.1550068
|zoom=8
|centermarker=yes
|maptypecontrol=yes
|overviewmapcontrol=yes
|largemapcontrol=yes
|scalecontrol=yes
}}
|}

== Rationale: Why have you chosen this case for the landscape and democracy seminar? ==
The Nové Zámky case study has been chosen in order to present a common situation in Slovak policy and decision making at the municipal level. The decision making in post-communist countries still follows rather top-down than bottom-up approaches or the combination of both. The case represents an empty space in a prefab neighbourhood near the town centre and has not yet been developed since the 1960s and 1970s. It is an extensive green space with a few trees (rather spontaneous vegetation) used by the locals to pass through or to walk the dog, not necessarily to stay. It could have been an important component of the urban green infrastructure in the neighbourhood, which could improve the air quality, help to manage stormwater, purify the air, eliminate the traffic noise and provide an attractive public open space. A local citizen who is a landscape architecture student has conducted even an intriguing master thesis on this issue, with a massive support and sympathy of the citizens on Facebook, in local newspapers and in the television. Unfortunately, the municipality has sold the land in the meantime in order to compensate losses in the budget and their untransparent decision making helped to push through a shopping mall with an extensive car park. Summarising, this case is meant to represent a negative approach in terms of landscape and democracy or community based planning.

== Representation of your observations ==
* you are basically free to use one or a mix of different presentation techniques
* possibilities are: analytical drawings, graphical representations, collages, video clips, comic/graphic novel, written essay/visual essay
* please add any visual material to the gallery, videos can be placed below, you may add text as you like

<gallery caption="Design Synthesis Drawings" widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="4">
Image:yourfilename1.jpg|case representation
Image:yourfilename2.jpg|case representation
Image:yourfilename3.jpg|case representation
Image:yourfilename4.jpg|case representation
</gallery>

== Reflection ==
=== What are the major challenges for changing the situation? ===
=== What could be a starting point for democractically-based change? ===

*Please add approx. 150 words for each questions

== References ==
''* Please make sure that you give proper references of all external resources used.''

''* Do not use images of which you do not hold the copyright.''

''* Please add internet links to other resources if necessary.''

----
[[Category:Landscape Democracy Case Study]]

About categories: You can add more categories with this tag: "[[Category:Category Name]]", add your categories

Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 2

2015-11-23T08:17:27Z

Totha:

---> back to group page [[Landscape_Democracy_2015_-_Working_Group_A|working group A]]

'''''Green Space on the S.H.Vajanského Street in Nové Zámky, Slovakia: Public Will vs. Municipal Decision Making or Who owns the Landscape?'''''

{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Place name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| '' S.H.Vajanského Street''
|-
| '''Location''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Nové Zámky''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Slovakia''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Attila Tóth''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:S.H.Vajanského.Aerial.View.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| {{#widget:GoogleMaps
|width=300
|height=300
|lat=47.9797557
|lng=18.1550068
|zoom=8
|centermarker=yes
|maptypecontrol=yes
|overviewmapcontrol=yes
|largemapcontrol=yes
|scalecontrol=yes
}}
|}

== Rationale: Why have you chosen this case for the landscape and democracy seminar? ==
The Nové Zámky case study has been chosen in order to present a common situation in Slovak policy and decision making at the municipal level. The decision making in post-communist countries still follows rather top-down than bottom-up approaches or the combination of both. The case represents an empty space in a prefab neighbourhood near the town centre and has not yet been developed since the 1960s and 1970s. It is an extensive green space with a few trees (rather spontaneous vegetation) used by the locals to pass through or to walk the dog, not necessarily to stay. It could have been an important component of the urban green infrastructure in the neighbourhood, which could improve the air quality, help to manage stormwater, purify the air, eliminate the traffic noise and provide an attractive public open space. A local citizen who is a landscape architecture student has conducted even an intriguing master thesis on this issue, with a massive support and sympathy of the citizens on Facebook, in local newspapers and in the television. Unfortunately, the municipality has sold the land in the meantime in order to compensate losses in the budget and their untransparent decision making helped to push through a shopping mall with an extensive car park. Summarising, this case is meant to represent a negative approach in terms of landscape and democracy or community based planning.

== Representation of your observations ==
* you are basically free to use one or a mix of different presentation techniques
* possibilities are: analytical drawings, graphical representations, collages, video clips, comic/graphic novel, written essay/visual essay
* please add any visual material to the gallery, videos can be placed below, you may add text as you like

<gallery caption="Design Synthesis Drawings" widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="4">
Image:yourfilename1.jpg|case representation
Image:yourfilename2.jpg|case representation
Image:yourfilename3.jpg|case representation
Image:yourfilename4.jpg|case representation
</gallery>

== Reflection ==
=== What are the major challenges for changing the situation? ===
=== What could be a starting point for democractically-based change? ===

*Please add approx. 150 words for each questions

== References ==
''* Please make sure that you give proper references of all external resources used.''

''* Do not use images of which you do not hold the copyright.''

''* Please add internet links to other resources if necessary.''

----
[[Category:Landscape Democracy Case Study]]

About categories: You can add more categories with this tag: "[[Category:Category Name]]", add your categories

Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 2

2015-11-23T08:15:12Z

Totha:

---> back to group page [[Landscape_Democracy_2015_-_Working_Group_A|working group A]]

'''''Please add the title of your case study here, adjust the map coordinates (lat + lng) and replace the moa image with a characteristic image of your site'''''

{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Place name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| '' S.H.Vajanského Street''
|-
| '''Location''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Nové Zámky''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Slovakia''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Attila Tóth''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:S.H.Vajanského.Aerial.View.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| {{#widget:GoogleMaps
|width=300
|height=300
|lat=47.9797557
|lng=18.1550068
|zoom=8
|centermarker=yes
|maptypecontrol=yes
|overviewmapcontrol=yes
|largemapcontrol=yes
|scalecontrol=yes
}}
|}

== Rationale: Why have you chosen this case for the landscape and democracy seminar? ==
The Nové Zámky case study has been chosen in order to present a common situation in Slovak policy and decision making at the municipal level. The decision making in post-communist countries still follows rather top-down than bottom-up approaches or the combination of both. The case represents an empty space in a prefab neighbourhood near the town centre and has not yet been developed since the 1960s and 1970s. It is an extensive green space with a few trees (rather spontaneous vegetation) used by the locals to pass through or to walk the dog, not necessarily to stay. It could have been an important component of the urban green infrastructure in the neighbourhood, which could improve the air quality, help to manage stormwater, purify the air, eliminate the traffic noise and provide an attractive public open space. A local citizen who is a landscape architecture student has conducted even an intriguing master thesis on this issue, with a massive support and sympathy of the citizens on Facebook, in local newspapers and in the television. Unfortunately, the municipality has sold the land in the meantime in order to compensate losses in the budget and their untransparent decision making helped to push through a shopping mall with an extensive car park. Summarising, this case is meant to represent a negative approach in terms of landscape and democracy or community based planning.

== Representation of your observations ==
* you are basically free to use one or a mix of different presentation techniques
* possibilities are: analytical drawings, graphical representations, collages, video clips, comic/graphic novel, written essay/visual essay
* please add any visual material to the gallery, videos can be placed below, you may add text as you like

<gallery caption="Design Synthesis Drawings" widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="4">
Image:yourfilename1.jpg|case representation
Image:yourfilename2.jpg|case representation
Image:yourfilename3.jpg|case representation
Image:yourfilename4.jpg|case representation
</gallery>

== Reflection ==
=== What are the major challenges for changing the situation? ===
=== What could be a starting point for democractically-based change? ===

*Please add approx. 150 words for each questions

== References ==
''* Please make sure that you give proper references of all external resources used.''

''* Do not use images of which you do not hold the copyright.''

''* Please add internet links to other resources if necessary.''

----
[[Category:Landscape Democracy Case Study]]

About categories: You can add more categories with this tag: "[[Category:Category Name]]", add your categories

File:S.H.Vajanského.Aerial.View.jpg

2015-11-23T08:14:18Z

Totha: Aerial View to the green space on the S.H.Vajanského Street in Nové Zámky

Aerial View to the green space on the S.H.Vajanského Street in Nové Zámky

Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 2

2015-11-23T07:59:22Z

Totha:

---> back to group page [[Landscape_Democracy_2015_-_Working_Group_A|working group A]]

'''''Please add the title of your case study here, adjust the map coordinates (lat + lng) and replace the moa image with a characteristic image of your site'''''

{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Place name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| '' S.H.Vajanského Street''
|-
| '''Location''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Nové Zámky''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Slovakia''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Attila Tóth''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:Moa.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| {{#widget:GoogleMaps
|width=300
|height=300
|lat=47.9797557
|lng=18.1550068
|zoom=8
|centermarker=yes
|maptypecontrol=yes
|overviewmapcontrol=yes
|largemapcontrol=yes
|scalecontrol=yes
}}
|}

== Rationale: Why have you chosen this case for the landscape and democracy seminar? ==
The Nové Zámky case study has been chosen in order to present a common situation in Slovak policy and decision making at the municipal level. The decision making in post-communist countries still follows rather top-down than bottom-up approaches or the combination of both. The case represents an empty space in a prefab neighbourhood near the town centre and has not yet been developed since the 1960s and 1970s. It is an extensive green space with a few trees (rather spontaneous vegetation) used by the locals to pass through or to walk the dog, not necessarily to stay. It could have been an important component of the urban green infrastructure in the neighbourhood, which could improve the air quality, help to manage stormwater, purify the air, eliminate the traffic noise and provide an attractive public open space. A local citizen who is a landscape architecture student has conducted even an intriguing master thesis on this issue, with a massive support and sympathy of the citizens on Facebook, in local newspapers and in the television. Unfortunately, the municipality has sold the land in the meantime in order to compensate losses in the budget and their untransparent decision making helped to push through a shopping mall with an extensive car park. Summarising, this case is meant to represent a negative approach in terms of landscape and democracy or community based planning.

== Representation of your observations ==
* you are basically free to use one or a mix of different presentation techniques
* possibilities are: analytical drawings, graphical representations, collages, video clips, comic/graphic novel, written essay/visual essay
* please add any visual material to the gallery, videos can be placed below, you may add text as you like

<gallery caption="Design Synthesis Drawings" widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="4">
Image:yourfilename1.jpg|case representation
Image:yourfilename2.jpg|case representation
Image:yourfilename3.jpg|case representation
Image:yourfilename4.jpg|case representation
</gallery>

== Reflection ==
=== What are the major challenges for changing the situation? ===
=== What could be a starting point for democractically-based change? ===

*Please add approx. 150 words for each questions

== References ==
''* Please make sure that you give proper references of all external resources used.''

''* Do not use images of which you do not hold the copyright.''

''* Please add internet links to other resources if necessary.''

----
[[Category:Landscape Democracy Case Study]]

About categories: You can add more categories with this tag: "[[Category:Category Name]]", add your categories

Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 2

2015-11-23T07:53:11Z

Totha:

---> back to group page [[Landscape_Democracy_2015_-_Working_Group_A|working group A]]

'''''Please add the title of your case study here, adjust the map coordinates (lat + lng) and replace the moa image with a characteristic image of your site'''''

{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Place name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| '' S.H.Vajanského Street''
|-
| '''Location''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Nové Zámky''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Slovakia''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Attila Tóth''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:Moa.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| {{#widget:GoogleMaps
|width=300
|height=200
|lat=71.295556
|lng=-156.766389
|zoom=8
|centermarker=yes
|maptypecontrol=yes
|overviewmapcontrol=yes
|largemapcontrol=yes
|scalecontrol=yes
}}
|}

== Rationale: Why have you chosen this case for the landscape and democracy seminar? ==
The Nové Zámky case study has been chosen in order to present a common situation in Slovak policy and decision making at the municipal level. The decision making in post-communist countries still follows rather top-down than bottom-up approaches or the combination of both. The case represents an empty space in a prefab neighbourhood near the town centre and has not yet been developed since the 1960s and 1970s. It is an extensive green space with a few trees (rather spontaneous vegetation) used by the locals to pass through or to walk the dog, not necessarily to stay. It could have been an important component of the urban green infrastructure in the neighbourhood, which could improve the air quality, help to manage stormwater, purify the air, eliminate the traffic noise and provide an attractive public open space. A local citizen who is a landscape architecture student has conducted even an intriguing master thesis on this issue, with a massive support and sympathy of the citizens on Facebook, in local newspapers and in the television. Unfortunately, the municipality has sold the land in the meantime in order to compensate losses in the budget and their untransparent decision making helped to push through a shopping mall with an extensive car park. Summarising, this case is meant to represent a negative approach in terms of landscape and democracy or community based planning.

== Representation of your observations ==
* you are basically free to use one or a mix of different presentation techniques
* possibilities are: analytical drawings, graphical representations, collages, video clips, comic/graphic novel, written essay/visual essay
* please add any visual material to the gallery, videos can be placed below, you may add text as you like

<gallery caption="Design Synthesis Drawings" widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="4">
Image:yourfilename1.jpg|case representation
Image:yourfilename2.jpg|case representation
Image:yourfilename3.jpg|case representation
Image:yourfilename4.jpg|case representation
</gallery>

== Reflection ==
=== What are the major challenges for changing the situation? ===
=== What could be a starting point for democractically-based change? ===

*Please add approx. 150 words for each questions

== References ==
''* Please make sure that you give proper references of all external resources used.''

''* Do not use images of which you do not hold the copyright.''

''* Please add internet links to other resources if necessary.''

----
[[Category:Landscape Democracy Case Study]]

About categories: You can add more categories with this tag: "[[Category:Category Name]]", add your categories

Landscape Democracy 2015 - Working Group A

2015-11-23T07:47:47Z

Totha: /* Working Group A - Case Study 2: Nové Zámky, Slovakia */

--> Back to [[Working_Groups_Seminar_Landscape Democracy 2015|working group overview]]

''Dear working group members. This is your group page and you will be completing the template gradually as we move through the seminar. Each member has an individual page for documenting his/her personal case. Good luck and enjoy your collaboration!
''

== Assignment 2 - Concept Mapping of Seminar Topics ==
*''You can read more details about this assignment [[Landscape_and_Democracy_Assignment_2:_Concept_Mapping_of_Seminar_Topics|here]]''
*''Please add your concept maps here by replacing the dummy image. Your map needs to have a new file name:''

<gallery caption=" " widths="200px" heights="150px" perrow="3">
Image:yourconceptmap.jpg|''Concept map 1 - Theme context:Policy frameworks, laws and resolutions''
Image:yourconceptmap.jpg|''Concept map 2 - Theme context:Landscape Concepts''
Image:yourconceptmap.jpg|''Concept map 3 - Theme context:Participation Discourse and Concepts''
Image:yourconceptmap.jpg|''Concept map 4 - Theme context:Group Synthesis of the three themes''
</gallery>

== Assignment 3 - Landscape Democracy Cases in your Environment ==

*'''Assigned: Tuesday, October 27'''
*'''Due: Monday, November 30'''

''There is one template page for each group member. You can read more about the assignment [[Landscape_and_Democracy_Assignment_3:_Landscape_democracy_cases_in_your_environment|here]] ''

=== [[Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 1|Working Group A - Case Study 1]] ===

=== [[Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 2|Working Group A - Case Study 2: Nové Zámky, Slovakia]] ===

=== [[Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 3|Working Group A - Case Study 3]] ===

=== [[Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 4|Working Group A - Case Study 4]] ===

=== [[Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 5|Working Group A - Case Study 5]] ===

=== Presentation Slides Assignment 3 ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="4">
Image:groupA_slide1.JPG|slide 1
Image:groupA_slide2.JPG|slide 2
Image:groupA_slide3.JPG|slide 3
Image:groupA_slide4.JPG|slide 4
Image:groupA_slide5.JPG|slide 5
</gallery>

== Assignment 4 - Landscape and Democracy: Collaborative Project ==

*'''Assigned: Tuesday, December 1'''
*'''Due: Tuesday, January 25'''

* Your case study templates will be extended with additional sectionsn for documenting a change model
* You can read more about the assignment [[Landscape_and_Democracy:_Collaborative_Project|here]]

=== Presentation Slides Collaborative Design ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="4">
Image:groupA_slide1.jpg|slide 1
Image:groupA_slide2.jpg|slide 2
Image:groupA_slide3.jpg|slide 3
Image:groupA_slide4.jpg|slide 4
Image:groupA_slide5.jpg|slide 5
</gallery>

----

[[Category: Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group]]

Landscape Democracy 2015 - Working Group A

2015-11-23T07:46:58Z

Totha: /* Working Group A - Case Study 2: Nové Zámky, Slovakia */

--> Back to [[Working_Groups_Seminar_Landscape Democracy 2015|working group overview]]

''Dear working group members. This is your group page and you will be completing the template gradually as we move through the seminar. Each member has an individual page for documenting his/her personal case. Good luck and enjoy your collaboration!
''

== Assignment 2 - Concept Mapping of Seminar Topics ==
*''You can read more details about this assignment [[Landscape_and_Democracy_Assignment_2:_Concept_Mapping_of_Seminar_Topics|here]]''
*''Please add your concept maps here by replacing the dummy image. Your map needs to have a new file name:''

<gallery caption=" " widths="200px" heights="150px" perrow="3">
Image:yourconceptmap.jpg|''Concept map 1 - Theme context:Policy frameworks, laws and resolutions''
Image:yourconceptmap.jpg|''Concept map 2 - Theme context:Landscape Concepts''
Image:yourconceptmap.jpg|''Concept map 3 - Theme context:Participation Discourse and Concepts''
Image:yourconceptmap.jpg|''Concept map 4 - Theme context:Group Synthesis of the three themes''
</gallery>

== Assignment 3 - Landscape Democracy Cases in your Environment ==

*'''Assigned: Tuesday, October 27'''
*'''Due: Monday, November 30'''

''There is one template page for each group member. You can read more about the assignment [[Landscape_and_Democracy_Assignment_3:_Landscape_democracy_cases_in_your_environment|here]] ''

=== [[Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 1|Working Group A - Case Study 1]] ===

=== [[Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 2: Nové Zámky, Slovakia|Working Group A - Case Study 2: Nové Zámky, Slovakia]] ===

=== [[Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 3|Working Group A - Case Study 3]] ===

=== [[Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 4|Working Group A - Case Study 4]] ===

=== [[Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group A - Case Study 5|Working Group A - Case Study 5]] ===

=== Presentation Slides Assignment 3 ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="4">
Image:groupA_slide1.JPG|slide 1
Image:groupA_slide2.JPG|slide 2
Image:groupA_slide3.JPG|slide 3
Image:groupA_slide4.JPG|slide 4
Image:groupA_slide5.JPG|slide 5
</gallery>

== Assignment 4 - Landscape and Democracy: Collaborative Project ==

*'''Assigned: Tuesday, December 1'''
*'''Due: Tuesday, January 25'''

* Your case study templates will be extended with additional sectionsn for documenting a change model
* You can read more about the assignment [[Landscape_and_Democracy:_Collaborative_Project|here]]

=== Presentation Slides Collaborative Design ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="4">
Image:groupA_slide1.jpg|slide 1
Image:groupA_slide2.jpg|slide 2
Image:groupA_slide3.jpg|slide 3
Image:groupA_slide4.jpg|slide 4
Image:groupA_slide5.jpg|slide 5
</gallery>

----

[[Category: Landscape Democracy 2015 Working Group]]