Hit the ball, listen to the birds – recreate yourself!
by Friederike Zängl
In times of ongoing crises and changes not only the personal practices and habits are more focused on the future, but also for example municipalities try to set their agendas towards so-called sustainable developments. There is a longing for a greener future, but how to get there, how to understand the present and reach out into the future? This project,or more precisely exercise, called „ProSecobay“ looks at current and already past plans which follow the idea of greener planning and sustainability. New huge development plans by the private owners of the land are to come, and thus it is time to look at what is already existing at the places where these are to be located. Taking the method of subversive affirmation, the project tries to adapt to the planning in the sense of a place for (re)creation and bring it to an extreme. Thus the scale and absurdity of these plans become visible in a subtle way. In addition, care theories are implemented to understand what is actually already happening at the site. The goal is to raise questions and try to understand the developments in a neoliberal field of tension.
The inquiry started at a little artificial lake called Kaelajärv on the western side of Paljassaare in Tallinn that is currently being filled up with soil. During different small ethnographic researches which were reflected in mental maps, it appeared that lots of people are using the lake for fishing, walking the dogs, going for a run, playing or just wandering around. The visitor survey of the NATTOURS project (2018) gives an even deeper look into practices happening on the whole peninsula. As the aim of the report was to figure out usage changes of green areas, the results for Paljassaare were that people are going there to relax mentally and spend time with children or friends. All these practices can be seen as non-monetised recreation practices, which seem to be important for the people living in a city. Additionally it seems to be a very diverse array of people visiting the place. The mostly Russian-speaking fishermen might be part of a different social group than the well-equipped bikers. Also the research (NATTOURS project 2018) distinguished between Russian-speakers, Estonian-speakers and others to understand who is doing what at the place.
The area is used in a diverse form. It’s not only a natural habitat but reffering to lefebvre a place prodruced by people beeing active and interactive. Which makes it rather a l’inhabiter than a habitat (Lefebvre in Purcell 2013:318). In this sense it can be connected with Tronto's theory of critical care. She points out that with every plan the loss should be seen as well. More concrete: what will happen to all the existing practices? Who will occupy the space in the future and how much space will be left for former uses? And also who will take care of the place? (Tronto 2019: 28). Going one step further, one can ask the question if these practices are less important because they are not materialized and monetized? Tronto (2019) also points out that, „What we care about determines what kind of society we are'' (Tronto 2019: 30). The people using the space are also constructing it and caring for it.
The peninsula is currently facing quite an array of changes in its urban fabric. Beside the actual everyday practices of using the space, the planning of Ecobay has played a big role in recent years. A private company bought the plot at the seaside of Paljassaare in 2006 from Tallinna Vesi and started to plan for a new green and sustainable residential development. According to their plan, they wanted to build a green campus that is sustainable and a good place for living for its residents. Paljassaare should be more attractive, Ecobay wants to push characteristics like safety and elegance more further (Ecobay 2019). The plan shows ideas to build accommodation for 6000 inhabitants and 2000 workplaces. One of the recreation features was to build a golf course. Taking into account that more people will visit the space, the area was to be fenced up and visitors charged an entrance fee. The so-called wasteland or brownfield was to evolve into an attractive space for families, offices and people who can afford the privileged location (Ecobay 2019). While the lense of (re)creation was running through the project, Ecobay seemed to focus more on the part of “creation”. In the planning document they announce to “create a human-friendly and sustainable living environment from existing industrial waste land” (Ecobay 2019).
The plan for Ecobay seems to be taking into account solely the future human inhabitants of the area. From the prospect, one could get the feeling that Paljassaare is an empty sheet of paper which can be filled with all future ideas and ideals of sustainability. According to Ross Adams (2010) the idea of building eco-cities is a very neoliberal one. It seems rather to be a way of selling the idea, then of really thinking about future values. These projects use a very specific language and the pressure of the next crisis. While actually the ideas of modern cities are coinciding with ecological disasters (Adams 2010: 6). In this way ecobay seems to be another speculative green city development. On the other side of the peninsula also the Wolfscape project is planned to happen, where the focus lies aswell on green and sustainable development and „creating better urban environment”(Wolfscape 2021). But are these new developments really better and for whom?
Out of these questions the project of “ProSecobay'' sprouted out. The project is an attempt to highlight the absurdity of this kind of projects by emphasizing certain elements of them. Using the method of subversive affirmation, the original project of a golf course from the Ecobay plans started to become real. According to Inke Arms and Sylvia Sasse „Subversive affirmation is an artistic/political tactic that allows artists/activists to take part in certain social, political, or economic discourses and to affirm, appropriate, or consume them while simultaneously undermining them. It is characterised precisely by the fact that with affirmation there is simultaneously taking place a distancing from, or revelation of what is being affirmed. In subversive affirmation there is always a surplus which destabilises affirmation and turns it into its opposite“ (Arms/Sasse 2006: 445). It's a way to criticize an ongoing regime or system by incorporating or over-identifying with it. It was a tactic developed in the 1960s in Eastern European countries and was appropriated by western artists later in the 1980s, especially in (Media)activism. While it was at first the only chance to criticise a suppressive totalitarian system, it seems to be fitting to also criticise more liberal systems. Besides allowing resistance, the method allows one to take part in a certain discourse, which can be social, political or economical. It puts the viewer or listener in a situation he or she will criticize and reflect on later.
In the context of this project it serves as an attempt to take reality more seriously. The newest development in the Ecobay-saga is that the city wants to stop the project in order to protect and expand the nature reserve in the northern tip of the peninsula. (ERR 2021). After years of dismissal – an empty sheet for new greener future developments – and on the other hand active usage of the space by locals, the former wasteland seems to become valid and valued again, this time as a natural asset. While the Ecobay plan foresaw a golf course on the site, the project of “Prosecobay” made it happen – but in a twisted way. By rearranging the game – by deforming the golf balls and clubs and thus making them non-functional – this project aimed to create a confused feeling in the “player” and through that underlines the contrast/conflict between the future plan and the reality of the site. The whole setting was sabotaged, to make it even more visible that the game does not really make sense at this particular place.
In general this project wanted to raise questions about current planning practices and the connections between making a city both from top down, and bottom up through users’ everyday practices. The current times of climate crises makes us question how to deal socially and material-wise with the future. The project offers no solutions for planning but shows on a specific site a glimpse of the actual planning practices. And thus hopefully makes the participants think forward about their role and realises the powerful position of planning and architecture.
References
Adams, Ross (2010): Longing for a greener present: Neoliberalism and the eco-city.
Arms, Inke; Sasse, Sylvia (2006): Subversive Affirmation: On Mimesis as a Strategy of Resistance.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1986): The Form of Capital. 241–58
Ecobay (2019): Detailed planning of Paljassaare põik 16 property and surrounding area.
err (2021): Paljassaare poolsaarele kavandatavat suurarendust ilmselt ei tule. https://www.err.ee/1608205552/paljassaare-poolsaarele-kavandatavat-suurarendust-ilmselt-ei-tule. [06.12.201]
NATTOURS project (2018): Combined report of visitors survey in 2018. Tallinn
Purcell, Mark (2013) The right to the city: the strug- gle for democracy in the urban public realm. Policy & Politics, Vol 43:3. 311–27
Tronto, Joan C. (2019): Caring Architecture. In Critical Care: Architecture and Urbanism for a Broken Planet. Hrsg. Fitz, Angelika, Elke Krasny. Vienna Austria. 26-32
Wolfscape (2021): The pilot project. https://www.wolfscape.eu/en/hundipea [12.11.2021]
The inquiry started at a little artificial lake called Kaelajärv on the western side of Paljassaare in Tallinn that is currently being filled up with soil. During different small ethnographic researches which were reflected in mental maps, it appeared that lots of people are using the lake for fishing, walking the dogs, going for a run, playing or just wandering around. The visitor survey of the NATTOURS project (2018) gives an even deeper look into practices happening on the whole peninsula. As the aim of the report was to figure out usage changes of green areas, the results for Paljassaare were that people are going there to relax mentally and spend time with children or friends. All these practices can be seen as non-monetised recreation practices, which seem to be important for the people living in a city. Additionally it seems to be a very diverse array of people visiting the place. The mostly Russian-speaking fishermen might be part of a different social group than the well-equipped bikers. Also the research (NATTOURS project 2018) distinguished between Russian-speakers, Estonian-speakers and others to understand who is doing what at the place.
The area is used in a diverse form. It’s not only a natural habitat but reffering to lefebvre a place prodruced by people beeing active and interactive. Which makes it rather a l’inhabiter than a habitat (Lefebvre in Purcell 2013:318). In this sense it can be connected with Tronto's theory of critical care. She points out that with every plan the loss should be seen as well. More concrete: what will happen to all the existing practices? Who will occupy the space in the future and how much space will be left for former uses? And also who will take care of the place? (Tronto 2019: 28). Going one step further, one can ask the question if these practices are less important because they are not materialized and monetized? Tronto (2019) also points out that, „What we care about determines what kind of society we are'' (Tronto 2019: 30). The people using the space are also constructing it and caring for it.
The peninsula is currently facing quite an array of changes in its urban fabric. Beside the actual everyday practices of using the space, the planning of Ecobay has played a big role in recent years. A private company bought the plot at the seaside of Paljassaare in 2006 from Tallinna Vesi and started to plan for a new green and sustainable residential development. According to their plan, they wanted to build a green campus that is sustainable and a good place for living for its residents. Paljassaare should be more attractive, Ecobay wants to push characteristics like safety and elegance more further (Ecobay 2019). The plan shows ideas to build accommodation for 6000 inhabitants and 2000 workplaces. One of the recreation features was to build a golf course. Taking into account that more people will visit the space, the area was to be fenced up and visitors charged an entrance fee. The so-called wasteland or brownfield was to evolve into an attractive space for families, offices and people who can afford the privileged location (Ecobay 2019). While the lense of (re)creation was running through the project, Ecobay seemed to focus more on the part of “creation”. In the planning document they announce to “create a human-friendly and sustainable living environment from existing industrial waste land” (Ecobay 2019).
The plan for Ecobay seems to be taking into account solely the future human inhabitants of the area. From the prospect, one could get the feeling that Paljassaare is an empty sheet of paper which can be filled with all future ideas and ideals of sustainability. According to Ross Adams (2010) the idea of building eco-cities is a very neoliberal one. It seems rather to be a way of selling the idea, then of really thinking about future values. These projects use a very specific language and the pressure of the next crisis. While actually the ideas of modern cities are coinciding with ecological disasters (Adams 2010: 6). In this way ecobay seems to be another speculative green city development. On the other side of the peninsula also the Wolfscape project is planned to happen, where the focus lies aswell on green and sustainable development and „creating better urban environment”(Wolfscape 2021). But are these new developments really better and for whom?
Out of these questions the project of “ProSecobay'' sprouted out. The project is an attempt to highlight the absurdity of this kind of projects by emphasizing certain elements of them. Using the method of subversive affirmation, the original project of a golf course from the Ecobay plans started to become real. According to Inke Arms and Sylvia Sasse „Subversive affirmation is an artistic/political tactic that allows artists/activists to take part in certain social, political, or economic discourses and to affirm, appropriate, or consume them while simultaneously undermining them. It is characterised precisely by the fact that with affirmation there is simultaneously taking place a distancing from, or revelation of what is being affirmed. In subversive affirmation there is always a surplus which destabilises affirmation and turns it into its opposite“ (Arms/Sasse 2006: 445). It's a way to criticize an ongoing regime or system by incorporating or over-identifying with it. It was a tactic developed in the 1960s in Eastern European countries and was appropriated by western artists later in the 1980s, especially in (Media)activism. While it was at first the only chance to criticise a suppressive totalitarian system, it seems to be fitting to also criticise more liberal systems. Besides allowing resistance, the method allows one to take part in a certain discourse, which can be social, political or economical. It puts the viewer or listener in a situation he or she will criticize and reflect on later.
In the context of this project it serves as an attempt to take reality more seriously. The newest development in the Ecobay-saga is that the city wants to stop the project in order to protect and expand the nature reserve in the northern tip of the peninsula. (ERR 2021). After years of dismissal – an empty sheet for new greener future developments – and on the other hand active usage of the space by locals, the former wasteland seems to become valid and valued again, this time as a natural asset. While the Ecobay plan foresaw a golf course on the site, the project of “Prosecobay” made it happen – but in a twisted way. By rearranging the game – by deforming the golf balls and clubs and thus making them non-functional – this project aimed to create a confused feeling in the “player” and through that underlines the contrast/conflict between the future plan and the reality of the site. The whole setting was sabotaged, to make it even more visible that the game does not really make sense at this particular place.
In general this project wanted to raise questions about current planning practices and the connections between making a city both from top down, and bottom up through users’ everyday practices. The current times of climate crises makes us question how to deal socially and material-wise with the future. The project offers no solutions for planning but shows on a specific site a glimpse of the actual planning practices. And thus hopefully makes the participants think forward about their role and realises the powerful position of planning and architecture.
References
Adams, Ross (2010): Longing for a greener present: Neoliberalism and the eco-city.
Arms, Inke; Sasse, Sylvia (2006): Subversive Affirmation: On Mimesis as a Strategy of Resistance.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1986): The Form of Capital. 241–58
Ecobay (2019): Detailed planning of Paljassaare põik 16 property and surrounding area.
err (2021): Paljassaare poolsaarele kavandatavat suurarendust ilmselt ei tule. https://www.err.ee/1608205552/paljassaare-poolsaarele-kavandatavat-suurarendust-ilmselt-ei-tule. [06.12.201]
NATTOURS project (2018): Combined report of visitors survey in 2018. Tallinn
Purcell, Mark (2013) The right to the city: the strug- gle for democracy in the urban public realm. Policy & Politics, Vol 43:3. 311–27
Tronto, Joan C. (2019): Caring Architecture. In Critical Care: Architecture and Urbanism for a Broken Planet. Hrsg. Fitz, Angelika, Elke Krasny. Vienna Austria. 26-32
Wolfscape (2021): The pilot project. https://www.wolfscape.eu/en/hundipea [12.11.2021]
