About the proposed metropolitan park at Elliniko

N. Mantzaris, Environmentalist - Master of City Planning
5/2003

Taking cause from the recently announced government plans to create a metropolitan-scale park, of an area of at least 400 hectares (988 acres), at the grounds of the former airport at Elliniko and the reactions / objections triggered by this announcement, I chose to take a look at a number of big cities and at some basic elements of their most famous parks (see Table below).

How the selection was made: From my own personal experience (so that I could have a somewhat more direct picture) or / and based on the parks' reputation. Here's what comes out of this mini-survey:

• Out of the 14 parks "examined" (in 7 big cities) 13 lie within the central municipality of the metropolitan area and 1 borders the central municipality.

• Out of the 14 parks, only 3 have an area greater than the 400 hectares announced / proposed for Elliniko park. These are the 2 woods of Paris, which are old, conserved natural spaces, and Lincoln Park in Chicago which partly owes its large area to the fact that part of it was built to act as a natural breakwater area. But even these 3 spaces are within the limits of the central municipality and not in some "distant" suburb.

• Out of the 7 parks exceeding 100 hectares in area, 3 are conserved natural woods and 4 are artificial parks. Out of these 4 large artificial parks, 3 are situated in the very center of the city (Central Park, Grant Park, Parque del Buen Retiro) and only Lincoln Park lies slightly away from the center, as there is another park (Grant Park) in the center of the same city (Chicago).

• Furthermore, these metropolitan areas have already developed, in the passage of time, a system of parks and open spaces covering every neighborhood, while they have also proven their ability to create and maintain open spaces of high aesthetic and functional value, which often attract visitors in and of themselves and act as engines of increased economic activity. Of course, this pre-supposes the presence of people (locals) within the park, the vitality of the place.

As a reminder, here are the population figures of the 7 metropolitan areas where these parks lie:

London:	13.100.000
New York:	12.700.000
Paris:	>11.200.000
Chicago:	8.400.000
Atlanta:	4.100.000
Athens:	3.700.000
Madrid:	3.000.000
Barcelona:	1.500.000

-------------------------------
Source: 2000, 2001 censuses (except for Paris: 1990)

• So, one further sees that the 4 metropolitan areas that have very large parks (in the central municipality, let's not forget) all have a population more than double that of greater Athens.

• It is perhaps more important to notice that the value of parks lies not in their mere presence (an antiquated view, yet still prevalent in Greece due to the scarcity of such spaces) but in their capacity to act as critical poles for transforming and revitalizing an area, for the cultivation of bonds between citizens and social groups, for the economic development they encourage, etc. Therefore, the prerequisites for a park's success are many more besides its area.

Below are some indicative criteria used to assess open space services provided to a population:

1. Percentage of population lying within a 500-meter radius from local-level parks.
2. Square meters of open spaces / resident per municipality.
3. Open space area as a percentage of each city's area.
4. Open space expenditures / resident per municipality, etc.

It is obvious that these indices / criteria will be minimally affected for the majority of the residents of the Athens basin with the creation of a huge park at Elliniko (see Athens metro map).
As a reminder, here are the population figures for the municipalities bordering the site of Elliniko (2001 census):

A recent British study on the parks of London, supports in quantitative terms something that is also intuitively obvious: That even a big, metropolitan park, has a limited catchment area for visitors. Specifically, it mentions a catchment radius of up to 3,2 km for metropolitan parks (which are defined at 60 hectares size) and a catchment radius of 3,2 - 8 km for natural, regional parks (defined at 400 ha).

Two words on this last figure: These data come out after empirical studies (visitor surveys) and are not universally valid. I assume that in this particular case the main reference example is that of Hyde Park. If one would want to interpret this (higher) number (8km) in an absolute way it could be claimed that the catchment radius of Elliniko park would extend to the south of the municipality of Athens (Nea Smyrni). Yet, there is no guarantee for that. The ability of the park to attract visitors from far away is a function of its success and its success is dependent on its state (and on whether it looks derelict and abandoned or not). But even so, the most densely built and neglected areas of Athens would still remain non-covered while even those people who would go to the park would tend to use their cars (!).

A similar case
Putting theory aside, I would urge anyone to take a look at the most similar, existing example (in location and -proposed- form) that already exists in the capital's area: I am referring to the "Parko Pyrgou Vasilissis, (a.k.a. Park of Environmental Education) at the municipality of Ilion (of an area size close to 116 hectares). I wonder how many of the readers of this article have ever been to t his place or even know where it lies. Anyone who may pass through it will witness the full absence of life, even though there were thoughts of… artificially increasing its visitor base, with planned student visits. It is better to avoid making any reference to… naturally occurring visits. It was only some months ago, after years of complete abandonment that a decision was taken to establish an organization for its management.

The decision to create such a large park in this particular location (Elliniko) could make sense (if one puts aside all other concerns raised above) only if it was part of a wider policy of "moving" the center of the urban agglomeration towards the coast. That is, if it was part of a wider program of re-planning the whole metropolitan agglomeration with land-use changes and raising of building-coefficients and maximum heights in the zone around the park (so that it would be used by more people). Yet, nothing of this nature can be induced from what is known so far, nor does it seem to be in the minds of any of the stakeholders in this case (government, municipalities, etc.)

Obvious lack of know-how
On the contrary, the counter-proposal of creating many small parks throughout metropolitan Athens (10-hectare parks are not exactly "small" by the way) could, besides its other effects, help in the development and propagation of knowledge in this field. It could act as the starting point for the development of some short of competition between municipalities but also between design and planning firms. On the contrary, the logic of the one, giant public work does not provide such opportunities for the development and propagation of know-how in the creation of open spaces.

Therefore, one can rather safely reach the conclusion that what we have before us is a policy with unclear goals. A policy in which the means seem to be misinterpreted as goals. Quite simply, a policy that is carried out for its own shake.

P.S. I accidentally came across the following quote the days I was writing this article. I think it fits doubly well in this case:
Search all the parks in all your cities. You'll find no statues of committees.