The greening imaginary: urbanized nature in Germany’s Ruhr region

  • Hillary AngeloEmail author


This article provides a sociological explanation for urban “greening,” the normative practice of using everyday signifiers of nature to fix problems with urbanism. Although greening is commonly understood as a reaction against the pathologies of the industrial metropolis, such explanations cannot account for greening’s recurrence across varied social and historical contexts. Through a study of greening in Germany’s Ruhr region, a polycentric urban region that has repeatedly greened in the absence of a traditional city, I argue that greening is made possible by a social imaginary of nature as an indirect or moral good, which I call urbanized nature, that is an outcome of, and subsequently becomes a variable in, urbanization. I draw on processual accounts of urbanization and the sociology of morality to explain urbanized nature’s emergence in the Ruhr at the beginning of the twentieth century, and its use to fulfill two competing visions of urban democracy in the postwar period. I find that rather than an ideological reaction against cities, greening is an aspirational practice that can be mobilized by a range of actors in a variety of places and times. By showing how a new social imaginary made new forms of moral action possible and how those ideals were then materialized in urban space, this article draws attention to the role of cultural imaginaries in urban change and to the material consequences of moral beliefs.


Green space Morality Social imaginaries Urban greening Urban nature Urbanization 



This article has benefitted greatly from the insights and suggestions of Gianpaolo Baiocchi, Claudio Benzecry, Neil Brenner, Craig Calhoun, John Hall, Eric Klinenberg, Gemma Mangione, Harvey Molotch, Colin Jerolmack, Hannah Wohl, and Richard Sennett, as well as the T&S editors and three reviewers. I am especially indebted to Gianpaolo Baiocchi and Craig Calhoun for their thoughtful engagement with several drafts. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the Social Science History Association (2015), American Sociological Association (2016), and American Association of Geographers (2018) annual meetings, as well as at the University College London, University of California Santa Cruz, Northwestern University, Georgetown University, and Dartmouth College. The research was supported in part by the Horowitz Foundation for Social Policy and a Mellon/ACLS Dissertation Completion Fellowship.


  1. Abend, G. (2014). The moral background. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aglietta, M. (2000). A theory of capitalist regulation: The US experience. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  4. Angelo, H. (2017). From the city as a lens to urbanization as a ‘way of seeing:’ Country/city binaries on an urbanizing planet. Urban Studies, 54(1), 158–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Angelo, H. (2019). Added value: denaturalizing the “good” of urban greening. Geography Compass, 7(8), 578–587 e12459.Google Scholar
  6. Angelo, H., & Wachsmuth, D. (2015). Urbanizing urban political ecology: A critique of methdological cityism. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(1), 16–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arboleda, M. (2016). Spaces of extraction, metropolitan explosions: Planetary urbanization and the commodity boom in Latin America. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 40(1), 10–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bahrdt, H. P. (1952). Nachbarschaft oder Urbanität. Bauwelt, 51/52, 1467–1477.Google Scholar
  9. Bell, M. M. (1995). Childerley: Nature and morality in a Country Village. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bell, M. M. (2018). City of the good: Nature, religion, and the ancient search for what is right. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bender, T. (1982). Toward an urban vision: Ideas and institutions in nineteenth century America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2006). On justification: Economies of worth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Brenner, N. (2004). New state spaces: Urban governance and the rescaling of statehood. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brenner, N. (2013). Theses on urbanization. Public Culture, 25.1(69), 85–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brenner, Neil & Katsikis, Nikos. 2014. “Is the Mediterranean urban?” Implosions/explosions: Towards a study of planetary urbanization, 428–459. Berlin: Jovis.Google Scholar
  16. Brenner, N., & Schmid, C. (2015). Towards a new epistemology of the urban? City, 19(2–3), 151–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brenner, N., & Schmid, C. (2017). Planetary urbanization. In The globalizing cities reader (pp. 479–482). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Brewster, B. H., & Bell, M. M. (2009). The environmental Goffman: Toward an environmental sociology of everyday life. Society & Natural Resources, 23(1), 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Brubaker, R., & Cooper, F. (2000). Beyond “identity”. Theory and society, 29(1), 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Calhoun, C. (2008). Cosmopolitanism in the modern social imaginary. Daedalus., 137(3), 105–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Calhoun, C., Gaonkar, D., Lee, B., Taylor, C., & Warner, M. (2015). Modern social imaginaries: A conversation. Social Imaginaries, 1(1), 189–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Čapek, S. M. (2010). Foregrounding nature: An invitation to think about shifting nature-city boundaries. City and Community, 9(2), 208–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Castoriadis, C. (1997). The imaginary institution of society. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Cioc, M. (2002). The Rhine: An eco-biography, 1815–2000. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  25. Cranz, G. (1982). The politics of park design: A history of urban parks in America. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Crawford, M. (1995). Building the workingman’s paradise. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  27. Crew, D. F. (1979). Town in the Ruhr. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Crompton, J. L. (2001). The impact of parks on property values: A review of the empirical evidence. Journal of Leisure Research, 33(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Cronon, W. (1992). Nature’s metropolis: Chicago and the great West. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  30. Cronon, W. (1995). The trouble with wilderness; or, getting Back to the wrong nature. In W. Cronon (Ed.), Uncommon ground: Rethinking the human place in nature. New York: W. W. Norton & Co..Google Scholar
  31. Dege, W., & Dege, W. (1983). Das Ruhrgebiet. Berlin: Gebrüder Borntraeger.Google Scholar
  32. Diefendorf, Jeffry. 1999. The West German debate on urban planning. Presentation. The American impact on Western Europe: Americanization and westernization in transatlantic perspective. Conference at the German Historical Institute. Washington, D.C. ( (Accessed March 2013).
  33. Drucker, P. (2012). Management. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ehrich, M., & Springorum, D. (1978). Hier bin ich Mensch: Oasen einer Industrielandschaft. Essen: Siedlungsverband Ruhrkohlenbezirk.Google Scholar
  35. Eliasoph, N. (1998). Avoiding politics: How Americans produce apathy in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Elliot, J. R., & Frickel, S. (2015). Urbanization as socioenvironmental succession: the case of hazardous industrial site accumulation. American Journal of Sociology, 6, 1–42.Google Scholar
  37. Faecke, P., Stefaniak, R., & Haag, G. (1977). Gemeinsam gegen Abriß: Ein Lesebuch aus Arbeitersiedlungen und ihren Initiativen. Wuppertal: Hammer.Google Scholar
  38. Farrell, J. (2017). The battle for Yellowstone: Morality and the sacred roots of environmental conflict. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Fitzsimmons, M. (1989). The matter of nature. Antipode., 21(2), 106–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Fourcade, M. (2011). Cents and sensibility: Economic valuation and the nature of “nature”. American Journal of Sociology, 116(6), 1721–1777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gandy, M. (2002). Concrete and clay: Reworking nature in New York City. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gaonkar, D. P. (2002). Toward new imaginaries: An introduction. Public Culture, 14(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Glaeser, A. (2011). Political Epistemics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Göderitz, J., R. Rainer, and H. Hoffman. 1957. “Die gegliederte und aufgelockerte Stadt.” Archiv für Städtebau und Landesplanung. (Bd. 4).Google Scholar
  45. Goswami, M. (2002). Rethinking the modular nation form: Toward a sociohistorical conception of nationalism. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 44(04), 770–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Gramsci, A. (1996). Prison notebooks. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Grazian, D. (2017). American zoo: A sociological safari. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Green, N. (1990). The spectacle of nature. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Günter, R. (1970). Krupp und Essen. In M. Warnke (Ed.), Das Kunstwerk zwischen Wissenschaft und Weltanschauung (pp. 128–174). Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Kunstverlag.Google Scholar
  50. Günter, J., & Günter, R. (1999). ‘Sprechende Straßen’ in Eisenheim. Essen: Klartext.Google Scholar
  51. Günther, A., & Prévôt, R. (1905). Die Wohlfahrtseinrichtungen der Arbeitgeber in Deutschland und Frankreich (Vol. CXIV). Leipzig: Dunder & Humblot.Google Scholar
  52. Gustafson, S., Heynen, N., Rice, J. L., Gragson, T., Shepherd, J. M., & Strother, C. (2014). Megapolitan political ecology and urban metabolism in Southern Appalachia. The Professional Geographer, 66(4), 664–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  54. Hall, P. (2002). Cities of tomorrow (3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  55. Harvey, D. (1993). The nature of environment: Dialectics of social and environmental change. Socialist Register, 29, 1–51.Google Scholar
  56. Heinrichsbauer, A. (1936). Industrielle Siedlung im Ruhrgebiet. Essen: Verlag Glückauf.Google Scholar
  57. Hickey, S. H. F. (1985). Workers in Imperial Germany: The miners of the Ruhr. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Hitlin, S., & Vaisey, S. (2013). The new sociology of morality. Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Hundt, R. (1902). Bergarbeiter-Wohnungen im Ruhrrevier. Berlin: Julius Springer.Google Scholar
  60. Ives, C. (2018). Public parks, private gardens: Paris to Provence. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.Google Scholar
  61. Jackson, J. H., Jr. (1997). Migration and urbanization in the Ruhr Valley 1821–1914. Boston: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
  62. Jameson, F. (1988). On Negt and Kluge. October, 46, 151–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Jerolmack, C. (2007). Animal practices, ethnicity, and community: The Turkish pigeon handlers of Berlin. American Sociological Review, 72(6), 874–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Jerolmack, C. (2013). The global pigeon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Jessop, B. (2002). Liberalism, neoliberalism, and urban governance: A state-theoretical perspective. Antipode, 34(3), 452–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Jessop, B. (2010). Cultural political economy and critical policy studies. Critical Policy Studies, 3(3–4), 336–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Kaika, M. (2005). City of flows: Modernity, nature, and the city. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  68. Kallen, P. W. (1984). Idylle oder Illusion? Die Margarethenhöhe in Essen von Georg Metzendorf. In T. Konerding & Z. Felix (Eds.), Die Margarethenhöhe. Das Schöne und Die Ware, Der Westdeutsche Impuls 1900-1914: Kunst und Umweltgestaltung im Industriegebiet (pp. 48–96). Essen: Museum Folkwang.Google Scholar
  69. Klemek, C. (2011). The transatlantic collapse of urban renewal. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  70. Koch, M. J. (1954). Die Bergarbeiterbewegung im Ruhrgebiet zur Zeit Wilhelms II. Düsseldorf: Droste.Google Scholar
  71. Krause, M. (2014). The good project. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Krupp’sche Gussstahlfabrik. 1912. Krupp 1812–1912: Zum 100-jährigen Bestehen der Firma Krupp und der Gussstahlfabrik zu Essen. Herausgegeben auf den hundertsten Geburtstag Alfred Krupps. Essen-Ruhr.Google Scholar
  73. Landesregierung Nordrhein-Westfalen. 1968. Entwicklungsprogramm Ruhr 1968–1973. Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
  74. Landesregierung Nordrhein-Westfalen. 1970. Nordrhein-Westfalen-Programm 1975. Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
  75. Larsen, C. (1996). What should be the leading principles of land use planning? A German perspective. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 29(5), 967–1017.Google Scholar
  76. Lees, A. (1985). Cities perceived. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Lekan, T. M., & Zeller, T. (Eds.). (2005). Germany’s nature. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Loughran, K. (2016). Imbricated spaces: The High Line, urban parks, and the cultural meaning of city and nature. Sociological Theory, 34(4), 311–334.Google Scholar
  79. Lüdtke, H. (1972). Freizeit in der Industriegesellschaft: Emanzipation oder Anpassung? Opladen: Leske.Google Scholar
  80. Margarethe Krupp-Stiftung für Wohnungsfürsorge. 1915. “Mietvertrag und Hausordnung.” Visitor's Center, Gartenstadt Margarethenhöhe, Essen.Google Scholar
  81. Marx, L. (2000). The machine in the garden: Technology and the pastoral ideal in America. Oxford: New York.Google Scholar
  82. McClintock, N. (2014). Radical, reformist, and garden-variety neoliberal: Coming to terms with urban agriculture's contradictions. Local Environment, 19(2), 147–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. McCreary, E. C. (1964). Essen 1860–1914: A case study of the impact of industrialization on German community life. New Haven: Yale University History Department, PhD Dissertation.Google Scholar
  84. McDonnell, T. (2010). Cultural objects as objects: Materiality, urban space, and the interpretation of AIDS campaigns in Accra, Ghana. American Journal of Sociology, 115(6), 1800–1852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Metzendorf, G. (1906). Denkschrift über den Ausbau des Stiftungsgeländes. Essen-Rüttenscheid: Margarethe Krupp-Stiftung für Wohnungsfürsorge.Google Scholar
  86. Metzendorf, R., & Mikuscheit, A. (1997). Margarethenhöhe: Experiment und Leitbild. Essen: Margarethe Krupp-Stiftung für Wohnungsfürsorge.Google Scholar
  87. Mische, A. (2009). Projects and possibilities: Researching futures in action. Sociological Forum, 24(3), 694–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Mische, A. (2014). Measuring futures in action: Projective grammars in the Rio+20 debates. Theory and Society, 43(3-4), 437–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Mukerji, C. (1997). Territorial ambitions and the gardens of Versailles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Mumford, Lewis. 1965. “Revaluations I: Howard’s Garden City.” The New York Review of Books. Accessed online, Aug. 3, 2018:
  91. Nash, R. F. (2014). Wilderness and the American mind. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Negt, Oskar and Alexander Kluge. 1993. Public sphere and experience. Translated by Assenka Oksiloff and Peter Labanyo. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  93. Osthaus, Karl Ernst. 1911. “Die Bedeutung der Gartenstadtbewegung für die künstlerische Entwickelung unserer Zeit.” Pp. 99–101 in Die deutsche Gartenstadtbewegung. Zusammenfassende Darstellung über den heutigen Stand der Bewegung. Berlin.Google Scholar
  94. Park, R. E., & Burgess, E. W. (1984). The City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Pounds, N. J. G. (1968). The Ruhr: A Study in Historical and Economic Geography. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  96. Projektgruppe Eisenheim mit Jörg Boström und Roland Günter. (1973). Rettet Eisenheim. Bielefeld: Verlag für das Studium der Arbeiterbewegungen.Google Scholar
  97. Purvis, T., & Hunt, A. (1993). Discourse, ideology, discourse, ideology, discourse, ideology... British Journal of Sociology, 43(3), 473–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Rosenzweig, R., & Blackmar, E. (1992). The park and the people: A history of Central Park. New York: Henry Holt and Company, Inc..Google Scholar
  99. Rubio, F. D. (2014). Preserving the unpreservable: Docile and unruly objects at MoMA. Theory and Society, 43(6), 617–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Schmidt, R. (1912). Ein modernes Stadtgebilde: Die Industrie und Wohnstadt. In Essens Entwicklung 1812-1912 Herausgegeben aus Anlaß der hundertjährigen Jubelfeier der Firma Krupp (pp. 34–42). Essen: Fredebeul & Koenen.Google Scholar
  101. Schmitt, P. J. (1990). Back to nature: The Arcadian myth in urban America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  102. Schulte, B. (2009). Karl Ernst Osthaus, Folkwang and the ‘Hagener Impuls:’ Transcending the walls of the museum. Journal of the History of Collections., 21(2), 213–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Scott, J. (1998). Seeing like a state. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  104. Siebel, W. (1999). Industrial Past and Urban Future in the Ruhr. In R. Smith & B. Blanke (Eds.), Cities in Transition (pp. 123–134). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Sieverts, T. (2003). Cities without cities: An interpretation of the Zwischenstadt. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Simmel, G. (1964). The metropolis and mental life. In K. H. Wolff (Ed.), The sociology of Georg Simmel (pp. 409–424). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  107. Smith, N. (1998). Nature at the millennium: Production and re-enchantment. In B. Braun & N. Castree (Eds.), Remaking reality: Nature at the millennium (pp. 271–285). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  108. Steinborn, V. (1991). Arbeitergärten im Ruhrgebiet. Recklinghausen: Westfälisches Industriemuseum (Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe.Google Scholar
  109. Steinborn, V. (2010). Arbeitergärten im Ruhrgebiet. In M. Oldengott & C. Vogt (Eds.), Zwischen Kappes und Zypressen: Gartenkunst an Emscher und Ruhr (pp. 52–58). Essen: Klartext.Google Scholar
  110. Strand, M. (2015). The genesis and structure of moral universalism: Social justice in Victorian Britain, 1834–1901. Theory and Society, 44(6), 537–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Tavory, I. (2011). The question of moral action: A formalist position. Sociological Theory, 29(4), 272–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Taylor, C. (2004). Modern social imaginaries. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Taylor, D. (2016). The rise of the American conservation movement. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Tönnies, Ferdinand. 2011. Community and society. Translated by Charles P. Loomis. Mineola: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  115. Vertovec, S. (2012). “Diversity” and the social imaginary. European Journal of Sociology, 53(3), 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Von Einem, E. (1982). National urban policy—The case of West Germany. Journal of the American Planning Association, 48(1), 9–23.Google Scholar
  117. Wachsmuth, D. (2012). Three ecologies: Urban metabolism and the society-nature opposition. The Sociological Quarterly, 53, (4), 506–523.Google Scholar
  118. Walton, J. (1992). Western times and water wars. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  119. Williams, R. (1973). The country and the city. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  120. Williams, R. (1977). Marxism and literature. Oxford: New York.Google Scholar
  121. Williams, R. (2005). Ideas of nature. In Culture and materialism (pp. 67–85). New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  122. Wilson, N. H., & Bargheer, S. (2018). On the historical sociology of morality: Introduction. European Journal of Sociology, 59(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. American Journal of Sociology, 44(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of CaliforniaSanta CruzUSA

Personalised recommendations