Problem - Ponava is an area with relatively large areas of brownfield sites. Ponava should be territory with clearly defined texture blocks, mixed functions , high proportion of total housing and urban character. The area solved in this work was selected as most suitable for the creation of the initiation core, ie core starting as development of the whole territory. Uncertainty about the future, including needs to be in 5, 10, 20 years doing the classic urban planning dysfunctional method of working with the territory. Solution - My urban concept seeks to provide sufficient flexibility in terms of use of buildings and open spaces. It is particularly advantageous because it can hold more small investors, who can work independently. Each part of the territory may work alone, just under the current situation and needs of society. The concept is simple division of the area in a regular rectangular network by the same part of the individual and their subsequent filling. Placing buildings is chessboard, thus ensuring their adequate sun and at the same time easy permeability of territory in all directions. The spaces between buildings have in the outer parts character of living square with a strong influence of the adjacent street. Inside these areas is the interspace quiet and mainly serves the local population.

Le jardinage urbain demeure un objet d'études récent en sciences sociales, mais déjà la littérature sur le sujet semble être divisée en deux positions distinctes : tandis que certain-e-s chercheur-e-s affirment que les initiatives de jardinage sont radicalement progressistes, mobilisant des notions telles que le droit à la ville ou les communs, d'autres ont moins confiance en ces projets, affirmant qu'ils ont tendance à servir un agenda néolibéral. J’affirme que ce débat bénéficie d’une théorisation plus approfondie de la manière dont le politique se déploie dans ces espaces gérés par des citoyen-ne-s. En m'appuyant sur une étude de cas de deux jardins collectifs situés dans l'espace public de Mexico, le Huerto Tlatelolco et le Huerto Roma Verde, je propose d'analyser le potentiel politique des jardins urbains à travers le prisme de la théorie de la démocratie radicale. En examinant à la fois les discours mis en avant par les jardinier-ère-s et leurs pratiques quotidiennes, j'évalue s'ils sont guidés par des principes de contre-hégémonie et de résistance aux structures de domination et s'ils aboutissent à l'établissement de nouvelles formes de relations sociales basées sur la communalité et la relationnalité. J’observe que la réalisation de ces principes de démocratie radicale dépend principalement des intentions des jardinier-ère-s qui ont initié ces projets, et des valeurs sur lesquelles ils et elles s'appuient pour donner forme à leurs initiatives. / Urban gardening remains an incipient object of study in social science, but already the early literature seems to suggest the existence of two distinct positions on the matter : while some researchers argue that gardening initiatives are radically progressive, mobilizing notions such as the right to the city or the commons, others have less faith in these projects, arguing that they tend to serve a neoliberal agenda. This debate, I argue, benefits from further theorizing the way the political unfolds in these citizen-managed spaces. Drawing from a case study of two collective gardens located in the public space of Mexico City, the Huerto Tlatelolco and the Huerto Roma Verde, I suggest analyzing the political potential of urban gardens through the lens of the theory of radical democracy. Looking at both the discourses put forth by the gardeners and their daily practices, I evaluate whether they are guided by principles of counter-hegemony and resistance towards structures of domination and whether they result in the establishment of new forms of social relations based on communality and relationality. I find that the achievement of these principles of radical democracy depends mainly on the intentions of the gardeners who initiated these projects, and on the values on which they rely to give shape to their initiatives.

At Constitutional level, legislation in South Africa entrenches the provision of food and water for all its citizens. In instances where citizens are unable to provide in these basic requirements for themselves, social assistance should be provided to ensure a healthy life for all. In this regard, legislation and Town Planning ordinances and regulations are in place to ensure that built-up environments in which we live and work are healthy and safe for all. However, this study revealed that food provisioning by community gardeners is peripheral in legislation, ordinances and regulations and the practice of urban agriculture is, in many instances, in conflict with the principle of safe and healthy food for all. Community gardeners/urban agriculturists are food farmers within the city who produce food for themselves and others without the checks and balances that are otherwise applicable to food brought into the city from outside. While food production on any piece of available land is vital for these community gardeners for their sustenance and survival, it could become a potential health hazard if no checks or testing measures are in place to ensure that the food being produced is safe for human consumption. The study sought the views and perceptions of community gardeners, residents, Environmental Health Practitioners and Town Planners in the eThekwini Metro region with regards to community gardening/urban agriculture and its impact on food provisioning to citizens. For data collection, a one-on-one interviewing survey method was used with all four groups and results were calculated and converted to average percentages and analysed. The results revealed that there was conflict between legislation, ordinances and regulations regarding the production of food in the built-up environment of the EThekwini Municipality. It was also revealed that there was no cohesive policy to control the production of food produced and sold by community gardeners in the study area. The need for control measures and regulations regarding food production and sale by community gardeners was highlighted. Moreover, where ineffective or none such measures or controls exist, a transparent and consultative process involving all stakeholders must take place in order to establish up viable and sustainable control measures. The people who will be most affected by these rules, namely the community gardeners, should be pivotal role players in the establishment of a sustainable urban agriculture policy. Recommendations to address the problems illuminated by the study are presented. / Environmental Sciences / Ph. D. (Environmental Management)

Gemeinschaftsgärten unterscheiden sich von anderen urbanen Grünflächen dadurch, dass sie gemeinschaftlich und überwiegend unentgeltlich angelegt und gepflegt werden und einer breiteren Öffentlichkeit zur Verfügung stehen. Marit Rosol führt in ihrer stadtgeographischen Dissertation Gemeinschaftsgärten als einen neuen Freiraumtyp ein und analysiert ihn im Kontext aktueller Tendenzen der Freiraumpolitik, der Forschungen zum bürgerschaftlichen Engagement sowie des Wandels von Staat und Planung. Anhand von neun Berliner Fallbeispielen werden Gemeinschaftsgärten umfassend charakterisiert. Motive und Ziele der relevanten AkteurInnen werden ebenso herausgearbeitet wie Potenziale, Schwierigkeiten und Risiken. Schließlich leitet die Autorin praktische Handlungsempfehlungen sowohl für die GartenaktivistInnen als auch für die räumliche Planung ab. Dabei wird auch auf aktuelle Erfahrungen „grüner Zwischennutzungen“ sowie der community gardens in New York, Toronto und Seattle verwiesen. Gemeinschaftsgärten entstehen derzeit – so die These der Arbeit –vor dem Hintergrund eines gesellschaftlichen Wandels, der einerseits Freiräume für BewohnerInnen schafft, andererseits auch die Gefahr einer Abwälzung bislang kommunaler Aufgaben sowie eine ungleiche Versorgung mit öffentlichen Freiräumen befürchten lässt. Mit der Untersuchung der Bedingungen und Grenzen freiwilligen Engagements leistet die Arbeit einen empirischen und theoretischen Beitrag zur Diskussion um Stand und Entwicklung kommunaler Infrastrukturen. / Community gardens differ from other urban green spaces like parks or allotments, because they are managed collectively and mostly voluntarily and are open to a broader public. Marit Rosol introduces community gardens as a new type of urban green spaces in Germany and analyses it in the context of landscape planning politics, research concerning civic engagement and changes of the (local) state and spatial planning. Based on qualitative research, especially in-depth interviews, nine Berlin case study community gardens are described comprehensively. Motivation and aims of the relevant actors as well as potentials, difficulties and risks are shown. Moreover the author gives practical advise both for gardening activists as for urban planners. For this purpose she also draws on experiences with “green” temporary uses as well as with community gardens in New York, Toronto and Seattle. Community gardens are currently coming into being in Berlin - so the thesis of the work - because of changes in society, which open up new opportunities for residents, but also imply the risk of downloading former state responsibilities onto them and unequal provision with open green spaces. With the study on conditions and barriers of voluntary engagement the work makes a theoretical and empirical contribution to the debates of state and development of municipal infrastructures.