4.000.000 m² of public space The Berlin ‘Tempelhofer Feld’ and a short walk with Lefebvre and Laclau Nikolai Roskamm TU Berlin ‘Tempelhofer Feld’ is the name for an almost 400 hectare terrain of the former airport Berlin-Tempelhof, centrally located inside the Berlin city-railway-ring. The airport-operations were stopped in October 2008; since May 2010 the airfield has been open to the public. The Tempelhofer Feld is a specific space: concerning its texture, quality, usage and materiality. But it is, too, a specific space concerning its discursive representation in the public sphere. About the future of the terrain there has been a big and ongoing debate for a long time. That dispute became very lively after the closure of the airport, particularly during the 18 months when the huge N. Roskamm: 4.000.000 m² OF PUBLIC SPACE 2 free space was hermetically locked. In these debates – and this is already one of the particularities of the Tempelhofer Feld – some fundamental points and questions were brought into the discussion: questions about the future of the urban, about the making of the public, about the conditions of the political and about the production of space. In my chapter I would like to approach this specific space in order to explore its singularity. My thesis is that the peculiarity of the Tempelhofer Feld has something to do with its emptiness. The huge location is almost empty, without buildings (just with some small barracks), without streets and cars, without noteworthy topography, even nearly without trees. This state as an empty space is the result of a complex history which I am going to report next. And this emptiness is, too, a link to some theoretical concepts of the urban and the space. My aim is to connect both things in my report. My contribution is structured into two parts. In the first part I am telling some details about the history of the place, its development and the development of the debates about its present and future use. In the second part I add a glance at urban theory and contrast this story with a more abstract point of view. Therefore I suggest two shortcuts: firstly the consideration of Henri Lefebvre’s theory about the production of space, secondly a glance at Ernesto Laclau’s reflections on the nature of the political. Lefebvre is probably the most discussed thinker in urban theory and his oeuvre affects urban studies until today; for considering a specific urban space and a specific urban discourse a glance at Lefebvre’s thinking is standing to reason. Laclau is not so much represented in urban theory but his works have – in my eyes – a big potential to enhance the debates in urban theory. Thesis of my chapter is that the emptiness of the area corresponds with the absence of