Budapest, Hungary
City population: 1728868
Duration: 2013 – 2014
Implementation status: Completed
Scale: Micro-scale: District/neighbourhood level
Project area: 10000 m2
Type of area: Previous derelict area
Last updated: October 2021

The square is located in the most stigmatized area of Budapest, in the 8th district. The project was part of the third phase of the socially sensitive urban regeneration programme of the neighbourhood, the so-called Magdolna Quarter Programme III. Within the renovation of the park, 12,000 plants were planted and 8,125 square metres of grassland was created, which has its own irrigation system. During the rehabilitation, the green area was expanded to one hectare. The park was renovated with the involvement of local people. The local participants later established an association that provides them a legal framework for taking care of the park. The aim of the project was to strengthen social cohesion, sense of security, and to ensure the sustainability of the newly renovated park. (Reference 3)

Overview

Nature-based solution

  • Parks and urban forests
  • Pocket parks/neighbourhood green spaces

Key challenges

  • Green space, habitats and biodiversity (SDG 15)
  • Green space creation and/or management
  • Regeneration, land-use and urban development
  • Regulation of built environment
  • Inclusive and effective governance (SDG 16)
  • Inclusive governance
  • Combatting crime and corruption
  • Social justice, cohesion and equity (SDG 10)
  • Social cohesion
  • Social interaction
  • Health and well-being (SDG 3)
  • Creation of opportunities for recreation

Focus

Creation of new green areas, Transformation of previously derelict areas, Knowledge creation and awareness raising, Improved governance of green or blue areas

Project objectives

The main goals of the project include: - increasing social cohesion among the residents of the neighbourhood; - strengthening local civil society; - creating a healthier and more attractive environment to live in; - promoting environmental consciousness; - fostering responsibility for the environment; - attracting higher value-added enterprises; - changing the negative image of the neighbourhood (Reference 1).

Implementation activities

Workshops were organized, where the local people could decide about what the new park should look like. At the workshops, a real community was formed and the lay participants established an association for managing the park and organizing programs in it. The association is active in the local public sphere and it considers itself as being responsible for protecting the quality of the newly renovated public space (Reference 3). As part of the renovation, 12,000 plants were planted and 8,125 square metres of grassland was created, which has its own irrigation system. During the rehabilitation, the green area was expanded to one hectare.

Main beneficiaries

  • Local government/Municipality
  • Non-government organisation/Civil Society
  • Citizens or community groups
  • Marginalized groups: Socio-economically disadvantaged populations (e.g. low-income households, unemployed)
  • Young people and children

Governance

Management set-up

  • Co-governance with government and non-government actors

Type of initiating organisation

  • Local government/municipality
  • Citizens or community group

Participatory approaches/ community involvement

  • Co-planning (e.g. stakeholder workshops, focus groups, participatory mapping)
  • Consultation (e.g. workshop, surveys, community meetings, town halls)
  • Co-management/Joint management

Details on the roles of the organisations involved in the project

The local government is in charge of the management of the park and it agreed with the association about the rules to use the park. The association can decide about the design features of the park. Furthermore, it can organize programs there, however, only with the approval of the local government (Reference 4).

Project implemented in response to ...

... an EU policy or strategy? Yes (The project was implemented with the support of the ERDF and in line with the EU territorial cohesion objectives (Reference 8).)
... a national policy or strategy? Yes (The project was implemented under the 2007-2013 National Strategic Reference Framework of Hungary (The New Hungary Development Plan) that aims to provide direction for the use of the EU Cohesion and Structural Funds. (Reference 8))
... a local policy or strategy? Yes (It was an important part of the third phase of the social urban regeneration programme of the district, the Magdolna Quarter Programme III (Reference 1).)

Financing

Total cost

€100,000 - €500,000

Source(s) of funding

  • EU funds

Type of funding

  • Direct funding (grants, subsidies, or self-financed projects by private entities)

Non-financial contribution

Unknown

Impacts and Monitoring

Environmental impacts

  • Green space and habitat
  • Increased green space area
  • Restoration of derelict areas

Economic impacts

  • Unknown

Socio-cultural impacts

  • Safety
  • Decreased crime rates
  • Social justice and cohesion
  • Improved access to urban green space
  • Increased opportunities for social interaction
  • Increased involvement of locals in the management of green spaces

Type of reported impacts

Achieved impacts

Presence of formal monitoring system

Yes

Presence of indicators used in reporting

Yes

Presence of monitoring/ evaluation reports

Yes

Availability of a web-based monitoring tool

No evidence in public records

References

1. RÉV8. (2012). Magdolna Negyed Program: Integrált Szociális Városrehabilitációs Program, Volume 4. Budapest: Józsefvárosi Önkormányzat. Available at: Source link [Accessed: 17.06.2020]
2. Majorné Venn. M. (2014). "Creating Partnership in Teleki Square". Urbact. [Blog] Available at: Source link. [Accessed: 19.06.2020].
3. JózsefváSource link. (2014). "Szép parkkal és szoborcsoporttal gazdagodott a kerület". Józsefváros. [online] Available at: Source link. [Accessed: 19.06.2020].
4. Balazs, R. D. and D. Zein (2017). Social Cohesion in Spatial Division: The Contradictive Character of Participatory Planning. In: Albrecht P. and B. Nisha, eds., Public Space Design and Social Cohesion: a Comparative Perspective between the Western World and Global South. London:Routledge. Manuscript submitted for publication. Available at: Source link [Accessed: 17.06.2020]
5. Balazs, R. (2017). Interpretations and clashes around a participatory design project: The Teleki Square Community Park. MA thesis. Central European University. Available at: Source link [Accessed: 17.06.2020]
6. Tosics, I. (2015). Participation or Inclusion? Urbact. [Blog] Available at: Source link [Accessed: 17.06.2020].
7. Source link (2015). Teleki Square Community Park. [image] [website not available in 2020].
8. Source link. (2017). Magdolna Negyed Program III. [online] Available at: Source link. [Under development in June 2020].
9. Benkő, M. and Germán, T. (2016), Crime prevention aspects of public space renewal in Budapest, Journal of Place Management and Development, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 191-209. Available at: Source link [Accessed: 12.07.2020]
10. Boros, L. Fabula, Sz. Horváth, D. Kovács, Z. (2016) , Urban diversity and the production of public space in Budapest. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin, 209-224. Available at: Source link [Accessed: 12.07.2020]