Why Green Spaces Are the Foundation of Urban Life

According to a recent analysis by Deutsche Umwelthilfe (German Environmental Aid), almost one million trees have disappeared from German cities in recent years (see: Hitze-Check 2026). The figure is alarming. Yet it represents only the visible tip of a much larger problem. In reality, we are not simply losing trees. We are losing the ecological infrastructure that makes our cities livable.

Discussions about urban greenery are often reduced to nature conservation. Yet the issue extends far beyond individual trees or green spaces. It concerns how we want to live in the future. How we shape our cities. How we safeguard health, quality of life, and economic attractiveness over the long term. From my perspective, there are three key reasons why green spaces are more important today than ever before: they are infrastructure. They are building culture. And they create meaning.

Why Urban Greenery Is More Than Beautification
The role of greenery as infrastructure is often underestimated. We naturally invest in roads, bridges, power grids, and sewer systems. No one would question their importance. At the same time, trees and open spaces are still frequently treated as decorative additions – something that can be afforded when budget and land are available.
Yet they perform essential functions that enable a city to operate. They cool our neighborhoods during heat waves, retain rainwater, reduce flood risks, improve air quality, produce oxygen, and provide habitats for birds, insects, and countless other species. Above all, they protect human health.
Anyone who steps from a fully sealed urban surface into a shaded park or beneath a group of trees on a hot summer day immediately understands the difference. The temperature drops noticeably. The environment becomes comfortable. People stay longer. The city becomes habitable again. This is precisely why greenery in urban spaces is not beautification. It is infrastructure. And yet we continue to lose it.
We would never accept large portions of our sewer network or road infrastructure disappearing within a few years. When it comes to the loss of trees, however, we often fail to recognize the scale of the problem. Yet our cities’ ability to adapt to climate change depends significantly on this green infrastructure.

Greenery as Building Culture
Landscape architecture is still too often regarded as something that comes after buildings have been designed. As the final step. As embellishment. Yet green spaces shape our perception of cities just as strongly as architecture.
When we think of Paris, we think of its boulevards. When we think of Barcelona, we think of Las Ramblas. When we think of Copenhagen, we think of the connection between water, public space, and urban life. The world’s most successful cities are not successful because they have the most spectacular buildings. They are successful because they have created high–quality public spaces. Urban greenery is therefore not a luxury. It is urban planning.

Especially today, as many city centers struggle with vacancies, online retail, and declining quality of stay, the quality of public space has become a decisive competitive factor. People do not visit city centers because of the asphalt. They come for atmosphere, identity, and experience.
If we want to revitalize our urban centers, we must talk about quality of stay in public space; about trees, water, and shade. The future of our city centers will not be determined by retail alone. It will be determined by the quality of public life.

Best Practice Examples
In many of our projects, we experience these connections firsthand. In the “Neue Mitte Südost” project in Erfurt, for example, we are working on the transformation of an urban area that connects different neighborhoods. The challenge is not only to create new open spaces. It is about creating identity, bringing people together, and giving a place new perspectives. High–quality public spaces can become a catalyst for social and urban development.

Another example is the Melbbad in Bonn. At first glance, the project involves the modernization of an outdoor swimming facility. In reality, however, we are working on a place with which generations of people associate personal memories. Places like these are part of a city’s collective identity. When we develop them further, we are not only shaping infrastructure. We are simultaneously preserving and renewing cultural and social values.

A similar example is the observation tower in Titz. It is a key component in the transformation process of the Garzweiler mining region and serves as a landmark, a space for learning and interaction, and a starting point for a landscape that will fundamentally reshape itself over the coming decades. In this way, the tower creates a new relationship between people and landscape. It makes the region visible, strengthens identification with the place, and fosters a new awareness of nature, agriculture, and landscape transformation. High–quality open space planning does not merely create use. It creates meaning.

Green Spaces Create Meaning
Green spaces provide orientation in a world that is constantly accelerating. They connect people with the seasons, with nature, and with their immediate surroundings. They create places for interaction and exchange. Places where children play, older people spend time, neighbors engage in conversation, and communities can emerge.
A tree is often the only part of a city that grows older than we do. It accompanies generations. It creates memories. It gives a place identity. Perhaps this is precisely the special strength of green spaces: they fulfill not only ecological functions, but emotional and social ones as well.
In my own work, I am particularly fascinated by this connection between people and nature. Having grown up in Greece, I experienced how naturally public life takes place outdoors. Squares, streets, and open spaces are not residual areas between buildings. They are social spaces. People meet there, spend time together, and create community.
Later, I had the opportunity to work in numerous countries and on a wide range of projects. Time and again, I observed the same pattern: livable cities are not those with extraordinary architecture. They are cities where people enjoy spending time.

I am currently experiencing this particularly vividly through the European project “Cooling Havens” in Athens. There, we are developing climate–resilient public spaces that remain usable even during extreme heat waves. For many people, a shaded place is not a matter of comfort. It determines whether they can leave their homes, spend time outdoors, and participate in social life.

Conclusion
Climate adaptation is not merely a technical challenge. It determines whether public life can take place at all.
Cities such as Singapore already demonstrate what is possible. There, nature is not viewed as a luxury that can be afforded after economic success has been achieved. Nature is regarded as a prerequisite for economic attractiveness, quality of life, and future viability. This is a mindset that should become more firmly established in Europe as well.
Perhaps we should therefore reframe the debate. Not: How many trees can we afford? But rather: How many trees can we afford to lose? Because today, the greatest infrastructure crisis facing our cities is not the condition of their roads. It is the condition of their ecosystems.

The cities of the future will not be judged by how much they have built. They will be judged by how livable they have remained.