THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Each plan has its objectives, more precisely; each plan is a tool to reach particular objectives.
Any discussion about any plan should start with two fundamental questions:
- do needs really meet objectives?
- does the plan fulfill objectives properly?
The word /plan/ is derived from Latin word planta – meaning a sketch of a building.
However, town planning and planning a building are two, completely different processes. Planning is definitely not architecture in bigger scale. This is a common mistake made by architects who become planners. They think that planning a town is like planning a huge building.
The main difference is not a scale. The main difference is that a city is an open system which is always in never ending evolution. The tale about Riga as a city which cannot be finished, otherwise a monster living in Daugava would destroy it, is actually true for every city.
Town planning is more like directing a movie or telling the story, this is more like a system of algorithms, guides or procedures than simply a map.
Time of town planning understood as drawing the map is over.
Contemporary planning is about people in space, not like years ago - about building in space.
Once again – town is a system. The system is build of different autonomous but connected elements.
The elements of town-system one can call “functions”. Functions of the city are: residential, industrial, service, ecological to name just a few.
These functions have, of course, spatial representation.
Classical modernist town planning of 20th century used very strict separations of these functions and each function was placed in a separate zone.
The problem is, that town is somehow a living organism, and functions tend to change. The situation is even more complicated because the interactions between functions are extremely rich and changeable. There are few “mediums” of these interactions. The most important are people.
We would like to stress this point – people are interacting with other people and with an artificial environment. To make the matter as simple as possible we can say that all autonomous parts of town-system interact between themselves in three spheres: spatial, social and economical.
Let’s put things into order.
Town is a system. Town-system has goals and regulations to achieve them.
Town-system has some ability to regulate itself. However, very often it is too weak and needs some intervention. The very important is the balance between free-market which is a part of a self-regulating mechanism, and intervention.
The main tool of the regulation is the plan. The plan is only a tool – it has to be used by clever people to work properly. The plan itself creates nothing.
To use the tool properly, a user must know what are goals of the town is and how the town-system works. But the most important is the goal. Generally - what could be (or is) the goal of the town?
The answer is – development.
The question how this development is defined is another matter.
It could be just a quantity development understood as spatial growing or grow of population. It could be a quality development – development of quality of life.
To reach the goal, the hierarchy of development procedures is needed.
Contemporary town planning is based on three conflicting elements: economic development, social justice and environmental protection.
Traditionally, urban planning was founded on three conflicting development dimensions: economic development, social justice, and environmental protection. In the 21st century urban development planning in Europe is premised on the principles of sustainable development. Today, urban living is the cause of many local, regional and global development problems. The paradigm of sustainable development, which offers solutions to many of these problems, has become a development goal for the European Union and Latvia. Several EU documents, which are binding on Riga and Latvia, define guidelines and recommend actions regarding the creation of a sustainable and quality urban environment (EC Lisbon Process (2000), EU Strategy for Sustainable Development (2001), Towards a Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment (2004)). In 1994 Riga signed the Aalborg Charter and in 2004 the Aalborg Commitments which define a framework and criteria for sustainable urban development in specific sectors, for urban development planning in general and for the process of urban management and governance. Riga has collected and compiled data and information for the European Common Indicators that allow the sustainability of urban development to be measured from 10 different aspects.
In the past development priorities were defined largely by city administrations and politicians with an emphasis largely being placed on economic development that provided positive impacts or solutions in the shortest period of time. Social and environmental issues were of secondary concern. Today, economic development in urban areas should take place according to the principles of sustainable development. Urban sustainability principles include: integrated, open and transparent development planning and governance with meaningful involvement of citizens and community stakeholders in issues related to quality of urban life; development of a compact city; remediation and development of “brown-field” sites; minimization of environmental contamination; protection and effective utilization of natural resources; reduction in the consumption non-renewable energy resources and replacement with renewable energy resources; avoidance of unnecessary consumption; avoidance of social segregation and elimination of poverty; equity in terms of access to a healthy environment and health services; a longer term view of development so as not to limit development opportunities for next generations.
At first glance it could appear that sustainability principles make the urban development planning process more difficult, but in reality they can help to identify and clarify which solutions are most appropriate for attaining the goals defined in the city development plan. Furthermore, solutions that are in accord with the principles of sustainability will help the city avoid the same development mistakes that have been made by the cities of more developed industrialized countries.
Urban planners, specialists, the business sector, community stakeholders and residents should together define the development priorities of the city. Only then should professional planners and specialists develop strategies with which to attain the goals.
What is critical is that all involved stakeholders and not the least residents should cooperatively participate in the definition of the priority goals for development in the city. Every stakeholder group has its own particular experience and, consequently, their own biases, views and opinions regarding city development. Residents typically have meaningful knowledge regarding development needs in their local community and regarding the availability, accessibility to and quality of municipal services used by their families. The views of residents regarding urban development are equally as important as those of the business sector, investors and specialists, because it is important that the city be a good place for for families to live, work, raise and educate their children, socialize and recreate. It is important that urban planners, when defining the development priorities of a city, identify, compile, and analyse all views expressed by stakeholders and residents. In the event that some of the views that are expressed are not utilized in the planning process, it is important that planners provide an explanation as to why they are considered to not be applicable, so that the process of defining development priorities is professionally argued in an open process.
Only when development goals have been defined in an open and transparent stakeholder and public consultation process should planners and sector specialists begin to develop strategies to attain the defined goals. The strategies should be developed on the basis of an analysis of existing conditions and development trends and in accordance with the principles of sustainable development. Equally important is the need for the strategies to be non-conflicting and harmonised with one another and that win-win solutions are sought between different strategies.
Now, we reach the crucial moment – the plan. From legal point of view any activities are possible only if they are included in the plan. The plan has to be used then as the tool of implementing certain directions of development and following them, achieving certain goals.
How to judge a plan?
There is only one criteria of judging the plan – its efficiency of achieving goals. It is not the plan itself to be judged but the goals it is trying to achieve.
We would like to stress that we do not have access to the materials which used authors of the Plan but despite that, relying on our professional knowledge and experience we are able to present our own opinions.
Is presented plan a scenario of development? Or maybe it is rather a scenario of stagnation? Are the goals defined properly? There are some serious doubts about it. This is a good point to start criticism but instead we would like to do something constructive. We will try to define objectives for Riga development and ways of achieving them.
Objectives for Riga development
We are defining goals of spatial development but in context of social and economic development.
First of all, a strategic situation of the city has to be examined.
Riga is the biggest Latvian city and it is also a state’s capital. No doubt, that Riga has to be analyzed as a city of a metropolitan character in the first place. In special metropolitan city case interrelations of functions decide of its speciality/uniqness. Therefore, the capital city cannot only fulfill basic needs of its residents, because that is the task for any other city. It has more tasks. The central functions should be at the top of the hierarchy of importance. The capital has to be also functioning on over-local and over regional level. This is – in our opinion – the most important task for the development plan for Riga – to strengthen metropolitan function of the city. Because of generality and complexity of this objective it could be also called a “mission” of Riga. This mission could be realized by strengthening a role of Riga in many fields – not only as a central functions area with over local impact.
Riga does not have a problem with „overloaded’ centre, on the opposite, the centre is underdeveloped, badly linked with the rest of the city and it lacks conditions for further development. The solution for this problem would be supporting the centre instead of neglecting it.
TRANSPORTATION
The existing dense network of railway lines in Riga offers the potential for the development of a modern public transportation system.
According to sustainability principles the key to modern transportation at the local level is to minimize the need for travel. It is essential that transportation planning is undertaken in close coordination with land use planning. Land use planning should avoid mono-functional zoning of land and ensure that compatible multifunctional land use zoning is fostered. Riga is sufficiently compact and topographically flat to enable the development of a city-wide network of bicycle paths. For young and free spirited persons a network of bicycle paths offers quick mobility and as a consequence automobile congestion and associated air and noise pollution in the city can be reduced.
Transportation system of the city is its circulation. It is one of the basic spatial components. It is also the one which lasts the longest. Transportation system is inherited after previous stages of city spatial development and any changes may have very serious consequences. This is why it is much easier to replace buildings, even whole blocks, than changing the communication system.
From its beginning, Riga was an important transport node in this part of Europe. Its geographical position makes it the important element in the European water and land communication network. It is important to develop transportation system in relation to its primary metropolitan function. Transportation system should support it and never collide with it. It cannot cause spatial conflicts otherwise it may lead to degradation of big areas in the city.
It is important to find a basic model on which a segregation of movement should be designed. Riga is not only a part of European communication network but also it is a generator of heavy traffic itself. A basic rule of segregation of transit and local traffic should be primary for the future plan. It is also important not to lead the transit traffic into the city core/centre because that may cause numerous conflicts. Geographical situation of Riga and spatial structure of its boundary territories allows locating a system of by-passes around it. It would save the fragile city structure from damaging interventions.
CENTRAL FUNCTIONS
The most important features defining the metropolitan area are central functions. So called central functions have over local impact and they also gather and stimulate development of other functions. The local functions can be also defined as exclusive and unique for the capital. It is important to realize that central functions are not only commercial but they also strengthen urban character of the city. They also play important role in identification of the residents with their city. These functions play crucial role in defying the city centre both for residents and guests. And that is why it is so important to locate them within the existing city centre. Development of new centers would make the existing centre loose the competition.
Readable and recognizable centre would support spatial and social identification with the city. It is especially important as Riga is socially very diverse.
This can be achieved only by very clearly defined central area and also by upgrading quality of public spaces in the city. The centre should be in the centre of planners’ interest. But then planning should be understood as action having not only spatial impact but also social, ecological and political.
RESIDENTIAL AREAS
In metropolitan cities residential areas do dot influence the metropolitan functions, it is the other way round – residential areas are more an outcome/result of attraction of the city itself.
Riga suffers from a typical urban sprawl problem. It is caused, among others, by search of a better place to live by fast growing Latvian middle class. It cannot be found within the city because neither existing capitalist city with its access problems and poor state of housing stock nor soviet panel housing districts cannot offer qualitative dwellings. Last but not least Latvian love of nature makes them looking for more close to nature locations. It all results in instant shrinking of the city.
MULTIZONE
In each city there are different functional zones: production, industrial, agricultural to name just a few. But this division is very general both in relation to the existing situation and to desired one. According to New Athens Chapter and to EU guidelines monofunctional zones should be avoided. Residential districts without basic services and city centers without residents are examples of the undesired result of such strict zoning. Public spaces, green areas should \glue together\ the whole system in respect to priorities such as e.g. eco standards or maximum floor height. Avoiding monofunctional zoning should be then a principle in the rule of zoning.
MODEL
We would like to present an alternative model to both Riga Development Plans - the expired and the new. It is a graphic representation of an idea, still far away from a finished Development Plan document. It is more a set of guidelines for a direction in which city could develop. By presenting this model we would like to prove that a different attitude is possible and this is simply not true that the one and only plan is possible. We do not claim, that our proposal is the best but presenting an alternative to something what was claimed not to have any we would like to start a discussion and researches of optimal solutions. Coming up with the model we also would like to avoid accusations of unconstructive criticism and start the discussion from fundamental level.
Fundamental principle of our model is the integration of Riga urban tissue in social, spatial and also compositional meaning. The basic value for the model is a proposal which follows examples of many European cities – changing postindustrial areas into central areas. Riga’s structure seem to be very convenient for such a solution - the /capitalist city/ is surrounded by industrial areas. Together with the railway they form a tight belt surrounding the capitalist centre. These industrial areas play a double role in our model.
On one hand it would become a transportation ring /including both private and public transport on the other hand these areas are perfect location for further development of the centre. As shown on the schemes xyz capitalist city oversteps the ring and using it reaches post Soviet panel housing districts. This contact can give them needed impulse to upgrade. Obviously, to make the ring work it is necessary to build, apart from “the southern bridge”, the north tunnel/bridge. The strong centre located in and around the Old City has to be given a possibility to further expansion. The optimal direction for that would be east - west, along the main city axis - Brivibas street. This centre would be defined as social centre and therefore it is suggested to reduce private car access to this part of the city. We also suggest careful but consistent revitalization of blocks in the area, following a successful example of Berga Bazars. /Attractive blocks’ interiors, first floors with commercial functions/.
Despite the east direction of expansion it is also important not to neglect the possibility of linking the centre with Agenskalns district. To achieve it it is necessary to use/maybe even rebuild/ the Stone Bridge to allow easy access. Agenskalns district centre because of its morphology and location has a big potential to become strong and important local centre.
The next issue is reclaiming the River for the city. Daugava, by Soviet planning decisions was cut off the city by means of the road - Krastmala street. Since then, the city turned back on Daugava, almost forgetting about its existence.
We propose to create a structure which overstep the road and join the Old City with the river. The structure should contain commercial functions supporting the old city and be a kind of fold which could be an artificial cityscape on which qualitative waterfront areas would be located.
One of the most difficult problems for Riga are soviet panel housing areas. Apart from them with the communication ring we propose to raise density of the built tissue by adding lower buildings with needed services introducing human scale. Spatial structure should also allow easy identification of public, semi public, semi private and private spaces.
Access to services and amenities can be an indicator of sustainable multifunctional land use. The structure of a city should be developed so that at 5 minutes walking distance (300 meters) from home is located: a grocery store that sells amongst other items fresh vegetables and fruit; a primary health care facility; a primary school; a public transportation stop with a service interval of half an hour. Just as important is access to a sufficiently large greenspace area (5000 m2) that can be used for recreation. If residents are satisfied with their neighbourhood, including access to quality services, most likely the need for motorized transportation will be significantly reduced.
Expansion South should be hold. It seems to be also Soviet heritage. On the contrary Riga should face back the sea. Further development should and in fact it already does stretch between the city centre, Bolderaja district and Jurmala.
Further north expansion should be stretched along bank of Daugava, however we suggest considering east and west bank separately.
Nowadays, majority of industrial function (including port) are located on east bank. We suggest developing this bank as a bussines/industial zone linking city and the sea.
On the contrary, we suggest that west bank should be developed as mix use ecological/recreational/residential zone development.
Existing industrial functions on west bank should be decreased as much as possible.
Letter published in Diena, 15th of March 2005
Full version.
I am very grateful to Mr. Peteris Strancis and Mr.Andis Kublacovs who in the article „Pilseta veidosanas dialektika” published in Diena tried to answer my concerns about the new Riga Development Plan, of whom they are authors.
Authors of the text seem to be surprised by the fact that one non-Latvian dared to criticize efforts of many experts and professionals, whose work must have cost Riga tax payers serious money.
I only would like to remind that Latvia is now a European Union member, and as I live here and pay my taxes I have also voting rights on a municipal level. I am equal to Mr Strancis and Kublacovs as a Riga s citizen.
As the Riga citizen I wanted to express my concerns about a direction in which the development of the city would be going according to the new RDP.
Unfortunately, explanations presented in the text published in Diena, not only did not answer my doubts but made me even more concerned about future of Riga. Authors of the text stressing the big amount of work done to prepare the Plan seem to be personally offended by questioning its effects.
They seem to forget that urban planning is not leading to one and only proper solution. As I wrote and as present this issue authors like professors Scott Bolens, Leonie Sandercock and working nearby in Helsinki professor Kimmo Lapintie, planning is never an ideologically neutral action and since long time ago it not any more top-down master-planning. Time of demiourgos planners is over.
Riga can be developed in different directions so it is important to understand whose interests and which values are given the priority.
But let’s come back to the meritum.
The authors wrote that all Riga citizens regardless of their nationality and status had and have the right to express their opinions about the Plan. This is exactly the same thing which I wrote in my text. The problem lays somewhere else – regardless of nationality and status – these opinions are equally unimportant to the authors of the Plan. They can take them into consideration but there is no legal way to make them really do it. Comparing 4877 comments made by Riga citizens with the amazing rush in which the Plan was voted makes me suspicious that authors of the Plan not only did not take them into consideration but also did not read them at all.
In my article I did not commented any real or supposed decrease of green areas in the city. I objected the fact that the green areas do not create any integrated system – they are not connected to bicycle roads, public spaces and pedestrian routes. Authors of the Plan did not find it important enough to answer.
Knowing about the lack of national development plan and about a regional plan being prepared (it was voted on January 2005) I did not question lack of connection to non existing documents. I questioned ignoring in a graphical part of the Plan connections with important, closely tied to Riga cities of Jurmala and Sigulda. This issue is also still waiting for a response.
Authors are right writing that one of important problems of contemporary cities is urban sprawl which is an uncontrolled development and blurring city edges in suburban areas. They are also right that one of the methods how to prevent cities from this disease is creating cities tightly kept within theirs boundaries – so called - compact cities. But further parts of the text are in complete opposition with these statements.
Let’s start with the biggest mistake made by authors of the Plan. Mr Strancis and Kublacovs wrote that the polycentric city idea goes along European standards of Sustainable Development.
Documents
A Sustainable Europe for a Better World
and European Spatial Development Perspective argue for more
polycentric and balanced development of the EU territory. It presents
policy ideas for global integration zones, euro-corridors, urban-rural
relations, cross-border and trans-national relations and partnerships, to
achieve ‘parity of access’ to services and opportunity across the EU.
Polycentric structure described in these documents concerns planning on -at
least- regional level. In this scale, a single city, in this case Riga, is
treated as a single center. The same idea is present in New Athens Charter
accepted by The European Council of Town Planners (ECTP) “Such
polycentric networks of cities, connected in various ways, will
support the distribution, growth and strength of economic activities throughout
Europe.“
It
is hard to believe that authors of the Plan do not distinguish town
planning from regional planning!
Moreover, if this mistaken approach would be implemented as a base for planning in other Latvian cities – it is time to speak out. It is enough to imagine the polycentric structure in cities with population about 20 000 people to understand how absurd and potentially dangerous this philosophy may be.
Authors of the article explain to me that gulamrajons and darba vietas are effects of Soviet time planning. I think I am familiar with history of European urbanism not worse than them. I did not question their existence but the usage of Soviet lingo in the Plan. Soviet panel housing is crucial element in further development of the city. Proposing a reasonable strategy of rehabilitation of these regions should be a duty of the new Plan, Sadly, apart from few very general comments this issue is constantly ignored.
Now, we reached the key point – the idea of weakening the existing city centre and developing new ones. The authors are concerned that residential function would be pushed out of the centre by commercial functions. I am concerned about it, too. The problem is, that even now, The Old City becomes a dead place in the evenings. Small amount of central functions, attractive for people activate only some part of the center. What is then a solution proposed by Plan’s authors? A further decrease of commercial functions! Amazing, that the Plan’s authors do not see the difference between a bank or an office and a restaurant or a night club. This absurd idea, as the
Plan’s authors imagine will draw residents to the centre. I just have a question – who would like to live in a place without a good public transport access, according to the new Plan – it is going to be even reduced? Who would like to live in a place where parking a car is a problem, not mentioning finding a garage?
Even if this strategy would work, Riga’s centre would become a disabled residential district in the heart of the city. In a document entitled Green Paper on Urban Environment prepared by commission of the Europe Communities this negative scenario can be found. This actually came true in some European cities. “In some cities the move to the suburbs continues with the centres taken over by low- income families living next to office enclaves” Is this scenario really desired by the Plan’s authors?
The
idea of creating four new centres in the city with about 750 000
population seems to me too extravagant for Riga to afford such an
experiment. Moreover, it is in opposition to The European urban tradition
: “… it is possible to define the spatial
characteristics of European cities: a dominantly
monocentric structure with a center where
exceptionally rich cultural amenities and prestigious
retail reinforce its monocentric character. The monocentricity is
maintained by
the prestigious amenities in spite of many jobs moving to the suburbs. As
a corollary to
the strongly attractive center, an efficient radial transit network make
the center accessible
even when many job commuting trips are made by individual cars from
suburbs to suburbs”.(Alain Bertraud).
The
implementation of this kind of American polycentric solutions is widely
criticized by majority of European planners, like for example Tim
Richardson or Michael Wegener. Some experts suggest a boundary – minimal
population of a city for which the polycentric system would be implemented-
as 5 millions residents.
Major Riga’s problem is not a too dense existing centre but, on the contrary – its underdevelopment and traffic problems. New centers, according to the strategy of Development of Riga should integrate existing districts – I am curious what is going to be integrated by a center on Lucavsala island?
I am deeply convinced that the implementing of a spatial pattern based on a polycentric scheme will not increase importance of Riga in the Baltic region and will not upgrade the quality of life in the city but will strengthen chaos in transportation system, it will diffuse new investments and central functions of the city. The city neither would be compact nor sustainable. Contrary to expectations, Riga structure would not be based on 4+1 centres scheme but would have none properly functioning centre.
Together with concerned Riga residents I am waiting for – this time not personal but professional response from The new Plan’s authors.
dr inz. arch. Krzysztof Nawratek
Dr. eng. arch. Krzysztof Nawratek.
Riga, 20th of February 2005
'What is a human being, then?'
'A seed.'
'A... seed?'
'An acorn that is unafraid to destroy itself in growing into a tree'
David Zindell, The Broken God
I have been growing up in Silesia region. This heavy industry region in South Poland houses about 4 million people. It consists of several cities, but in fact one can see it as a one, huge urban agglomeration. It is my natural environment.
The word ‘natural’ is somehow in fashion, widely used by politicians, thinkers and regular people. When we say “this is not natural” or “this is against the nature” it means “it is wrong”. The problem starts when one should explain what “natural” really means.
This is crucial to realize, before any serious discussion starts, that term “natural” is highly imprecise. Too often it is just a tool of ideological manipulation.
However, let’s try.
What is natural for humans?
My opinion is simple as that – changes.
I mean, that the most important feature of humankind is our flexibility and ability to adjust to extreme different conditions.
This is the reason of humankind’s evolution success.
In my opinion, human being is not _just an animal_, we do not belong to nature anymore.
"Adam, we give you no fixed place to live, no form that is peculiar to you, nor any function that is yours alone. According to your desires and judgment, you will have and possess whatever place to live, whatever form, and whatever functions you yourself choose. All other things have a limited and fixed nature prescribed and bounded by our laws. You, with no limit or no bound, may choose for yourself the limits and bounds of your nature. We have placed you at the world's center so that you may survey everything else in the world. We have made you neither of heavenly nor of earthly stuff, neither mortal nor immortal, so that with free choice and dignity, you may fashion yourself into whatever form you choose. To you is granted the power of degrading yourself into the lower forms of life, the beasts, and to you is granted the power, contained in your intellect and judgment, to be reborn into the higher forms, the divine." As in 15th century wrote Picco della Mirandola in his marvelous Oration On the Dignity Of Man.
So, where do we belong?
We, humans, create our environment and in fact, we also create ourselves.
We are using artificial environment outside our bodies, but we also change bodies themselves. We change our bodies not only by such drastic interventions as plastic surgery, pacemakers but about glasses, prosthesis and vaccines.
This opinion may seem to be extreme but some humans could be called as pre-cyborgs.
Obviously, humans are in the beginning of the road and no one can predict how the future human would look like.
Of course, humans still have bodies and are animals. People still feel connections to the earth, water, trees – to everything what was important for our ancestors. But these are rather like relics of our animal past.
This is somehow significant that the more humans look to the future, which is unpredictable, the more they try to find something stable. I absolutely agree with Mircea Eliade that man could be called homo religious, in the meaning that humans always look for something “bigger and more important” than themselves. In fact, it does not matter what it is.
Then, we can see two contradictory tendencies. One we can call “ultra progressive” – this is about self-evolution of a human being. For many years, transhumanism was a kind of an underground cult, considered as rather weird way of thinking.
However, thinkers like Francis Fukuyama, James J. Hughes or Glenn McGee put this issue in the main stream of intellectual debate.
Second tendency we can call “unconscious pagan conservatism“.
Let’s try to see the issue as clear as possible.
Actually, humans live in artificial environment using artificial buffers to protect themselves against dangers of “natural” world. In fact what we really discuss is the quality and form of these artificial surroundings.
The controversy does not lay in quality but in quantity. How much our contemporary surroundings may be “futuristic” or “progressive” and how much should be “conservative”?
How important for humans’ health are relicts of our animal past? How strong connection to (pseudo-)natural environment humans need?
This is a real background of environmental discussion.
Answer is always subjective. Some people and some societies are and will be conservative. They just want to remain the way they are. The important thing is that this conservatism has nothing to do with political orientation. It could be on right, center or left side of the political scene.
Let’s leave our a little bit esoteric deliberations at this point and concentrate on spatial problems of contemporary cities.
“Compact city” is nowadays the main idea in European town-planning. The idea is very simple and seems logic - to use better and more effectively what city already uses and not to “spoil” (develop) new land. In short: to make city intensive rather than extensive. However, this idea is sometimes criticized by several contemporary environmental activist and thinkers.
Actually, they criticize a contemporary city itself, as an almost completely artificial environment.
“We can’t live without nature” – writes David Nicholson-Lord and further – “Cities, and the buildings they enclose – the “doubleindoors” we now inhabit – offer less of the stuff that we need for our sustenance: less light, less oxygen, less of the commodity that we describe, loosely, as “fresh air.”
Somehow, this way of argumentation seems to be just a copy of modernist thinking – exactly taken from Charters of Athens (1933). However, even if this thinking is just repeating of old anti-urban phobias, it is worth to be examined. The anti-urban approach exists as an important part of our culture because many people just prefer to live in the country.
In general, contemporary cities are not healthy places. Pollution, noise, crimes – it is not very difficult to show urban environment as a bad place to live. But in the same time cities are vital and active places. Rural environment is calmer and quieter but also much sleepier.
In my opinion the most important feature of city is density of provoked interactions. The country is just opposite. This is the place where life is not very demanding; it is the place which lets people celebrate and contemplate their life.
However, natural environment for our ancestors was dangerous. It is banal truth but people often do not realize that contemporary countryside is very different and much more artificial than years ago.
Once again – humans are changing every environment. Almost every inhabited place in the Earth is partly artificial – it is only the matter of extent to which it is changed.
This is the most important aspect – humans create artificial environment which works as a protective buffer. Houses, cloths, cars and medicines create a kind of shell. People do not even think about it, but the truth is that without this protection none of us could survive Latvian winter.
I do not believe in ideologically neutral reasoning of pro or against city values. I would like to be honest and I declare that I am a city believer. However, I am not a fanatic.
The dichotomy - country / city is somehow similar to ancient debate – nature or nurture.
In fact, there is no clear answer, clear solution. For me also the choice is not so obvious. City people were and still are fascinated by folk culture, country lifestyle and country landscape. Country people are in a similar way mesmerized by big cities.
What are the most important differences between city’s and country’s environment?
Urban environment is more “dense”. It stimulates and forces people to more vital and active interrelationships. This is the main reason why cities could be seen as a more efficient environment for cultural and scientific development of any society.
I think that cities are better places for cultural and scientific development of humans and the society. This is the real reason why I am so strong pro-city oriented.
The city environment is much more artificial than the village one. However, as I said previously – there are in fact only quantity differences.
This is the fundamental reason of urban sprawl. If the distinction between city and the country is not clear it is extremely difficult to stop dispersion of the city. And, in the same way – protect rural areas against not-rural development.
How to shape urban environment to make it clearly distinguish from rural? And at the same time to shape it in the way which would fulfill humans’ needs?
The idea to create environment which could use positive aspects of the city and the country comes from beginning of 20th century. Unfortunately, despite good intensions, the results were terrible. Garden City idea and later Modernism Movement hurt cities so much that even now we can still feel it.
Post-soviet panel-block residential districts are notorious traces of these ideas.
“We are just farmers” – my Latvian friend says. This is the reason, that foreigners find Riga during weekends almost empty. Riga’s people just leave the city and go to the country – to environment which they find much more “natural” for them.
The situation provokes us to ask crucial question – is there any sense in forcing people to live in environment they just do not like?
To some extent and for some time – maybe. However, as we keep in mind experiences of 20th Century, any kind of social engineering is highly dangerous.
What then could be the solution for this dilemma?
I suggest very careful planning of the city. It should be based on a deep analysis not only of existing economic, demographic and spatial situation. It should also fit to local mentality and take into consideration citizens demands.
As a result, I image a kind of urban porous structure – in some places extremely dense and in others almost empty. This structure could be reached by a combination of interrelated systems. Each of them, being to some extent self-sufficient should also be strongly connected to the whole system. What kind of systems and what kind of interrelationships?
In general, residential areas would be connected to public transport; public transport to pedestrian routes; pedestrian routes to green areas and so forth. The city appears as a marvelous superimposition of huge number of systems. Great city, successful city is the superimposition which does not exclude any element.
How it could look like in Riga’s case?
I will try to present my own, alternative version of Riga spatial development next time.
(START FOR DISSCUSSION)
Dr. eng. arch. Krzysztof Nawratek
Riga, 23rd of January 2005
GENERAL:
The town planning can never be seen as an ideologically neutral action. Town planning has always ideological background. It is about a city as a spatial, economical and social body so the result has also ideological and political meaning.
The new Riga Development Plan (RDP) and the Riga Development Strategy (RDS) should be seen as a manifestation of Riga Authorities (or at least authors of the plan) ideological and political vision of the town.
The very important issue is that citizens could express their opinion about the plan, but in fact there is no possibility to “force” authorities and plan’s authors to take these opinions into consideration.
Actually, RDP is not a tool of implementing grass-roots democracy into city life - on the contrary - by promoting “public consultation” instead of “public action” RDP is building only a democratic facade not a real civil society.
This problem is important everywhere, but in Riga case is crucial because of social and political situation. The fact, that about 30% of Riga population are non-citizens seems to be dangerous for town social integrity. In my opinion, town planning could and should be used as a tool of integration non-citizens and the society.
Despite declared socially equal approach, based on European values and corresponding to EU standards of urban development, new RDP seems to be at least partly contradictory to these declarations.
RDS declares that Riga should be developed as a “compact city”, but in fact RDP drifts in exactly opposite direction. The main idea of “compact city” – a buzz phrase in European planning – is to use better and more effectively what city already uses and not to “spoil” (develop) new land. In short: to make city intensive rather than extensive. This is definitely not new RDP case.
In fact, even more controversial is that new RDP seems to shape spatial structure of Riga as a poly-centric city, which is against European model of the City:
“… it is possible to define the spatial characteristics of European cities: a dominantly
monocentric structure with a center where exceptionally rich cultural amenities and
prestigious retail reinforce its monocentric character. The monocentricity is maintained
by the prestigious amenities in spite of many jobs moving to the suburbs.”.(Bertraud 2003)
MORE DETAILED:
The graphic part of new RDP shows Riga as a place in the middle of nowhere. There
is no information about regional and national context. The most controversial is that
RDP ignores existence of Jurmala and Sigulda. It is especially surprising in Jurmala
case, which is a kind of satellite city of Riga, functionally very closely tied to it. Developments located between Riga and Jurmala prove that and therefore should not be ignored.
The new RDP shapes Riga as a town with an empty centre. The Plan tries to keep new investments as far from the city center as possible.
Proportions of residential/tourist/leisure/commercial/administration functions will establish the Old Town as a dead place, a kind of open urban museum.
Detailed solutions for the Old City (e.g. curious regulation about providing exactly the same amount of sunlight to existing buildings in a case of new developments) will block future developments in this part of the city.
RDP limits access to the Old Town for public transport. It cancels one tram-line but nothing is proposed instead. Not mentioning that existing system is not sufficient.
New Centers. There are many places/areas without “identity” in Riga. The idea to create new centers which would integrate Riga’s districts – both socially and spatially - seems to be correct. This is a fulfillment of promised in RDS decentralization. However, four new huge centers will destroy Riga’s structure and it will also have two dangerous side effects: increasing private car traffic and weakening local communities in districts. Existing local centers are not strengthened in the new Plan. Moreover, locations of new centers ignore existing district pattern. Consequently, existing local centers will loose the competition with new ones and already existing hypermarkets.
Park and ride system. Implementing this system seems to be absurd in Riga’s case as the metropolitan area is so small. Localization of parking lots for the system nearby city border – this is strange. A lot of people should _drive back_ from inner city areas to use this system.
Park and ride system needs efficient public transport – rough analysis of proposed public transport scheme shows “holes” in the structure – it means that not whole area of the city is covered by the equally effective public transport system. It has social consequences – some parts of the city would be treated worse than others.
Green areas. Existing pattern of green areas in the city is rather chaotic – new plan _conserves_ this bad scheme. What is also missing is an integrated system of pedestrian friendly zones/links connected with green/recreation areas.
Road system. Why new main roads do not use empty, post-industrial areas? In opposite – they go partly through densely populated and urbanized areas. It increases costs – economic and social. The main roads – highways are “cutting” the city, it is more blocking accesse than providing it. Why there is no wider context of Riga road scheme? There is no information about potential connections to over-city traffic system.
Housing.
Actually, the Plan ignores the fact that about 60% of the population lives in post-soviet panel housing. This type of urban (?) environment everywhere in the world causes problems like social and ethnic segregation. There is no perfect cure for that problem (different than demolition) but it is not an excuse to leave it as it is.
The Plan is giving a priority to one-family housing. This is a revolutionary idea – there is no town in the world of such structure. Maybe authors of the Plan took by mistake American suburbia for European towns?
In fact, the issue of new designed multi storey housing is crucial.
Riga’s regulation about “green / free area” (minimala briva teritorija) is very unique. The percentage of this area is a ratio of total area of the build structure (all levels) and the area of the plot. The result is that architects are “forced” to design buildings as high as possible with minimal plan area. It is exactly structure of soviet panel residential districts.
In fact, this regulation causes that in Riga only two types of buildings will be build – one family and high rise. None of these structures supports “urban values”. None of them builds urban community; none creates wealth interpersonal relationships and so on.
This solution could outcome next level of social segregation – one-family housing is for rich people, high rise will stay as a low income residential areas. One could predict, that similar to the rest of the word, high rise will probably become slums.
Priority of one family housing in urban environment areas seems to be strange from economic point of view – this is very extensive way of using land.
The language very often demystifies deep rooted ideology.
When phrases “darba vietu rajoni” or “gulamistabi rajoni” are used, one can understand why the plan looks so deeply contradict to contemporary European planning theory and practice, strongly expressed e.g. in New Charter of Athens (European Council of Town Planners 1998): In the context of planning the economic structure of the city and supporting business activity, the advantages of mixed-use areas have to be considered very seriously, against the more traditional approach of concentrating commercial and residential uses in designated zones. It is appropriate to note that, in land use terms, that mixed-use areas, already found in older cities may provide diversity, coupled with increased social and economic activity.”
The new RDP quite rigorous zoning seems to be rather based on dated Charter of Athens from the 1933.
CONCLUSION:
New RDP seems to be dangerous document for future development of the city. Despite “democratic” declarations, RDP will destroy (nowadays weak) spatial and social integrity of the city. Despite European experience and tendencies, RDP will weaken monocentric structure of the city.
RDS seems to be kind of magic document – authors believe that if something is published it becomes real.
Riga is nowadays loosing its chance – strong regional competitors, Vilnius and Tallin develop better, faster and attract more investment. Despite good geographical location, Riga is not – and along new RDP will not be – center of the region.
The one of the weak points is that Riga is not creating any fascinating “vision” of development. Riga Authorities have no idea for the city. The result is that the city as a “product” cannot be sold.
The example of Eurovision shows how important events, which should be used to promote the city, did not work.
“Visioning” is one of the most popular planning techniques in USA. Apart marketing aspect, which could be very successful, this kind of planning practice involves most of influential town groups of interest (political, economical, social etc.) in the planning process.
This technique is not perfect of course, I am not going to focus on it, but this is another kind of democratic planning which could be use in Riga.
The crucial point is to realize that any spatial development of Riga would not be possible without the high correlation to development of a democratic society.
In my opinion, new RDP is a wrong document, based on wrong ideological foundation.
.
Text published in Kultūras Forums
T o b e o r n o t t o b e a C I T Y
Public discussion on new Riga Development Plan and Riga Development Strategy is a good opportunity to ask more fundamental questions about future of the town.
It is a pity that the discussion has not taken place _before_ anyone had started to prepare these documents yet this is still a chance to examine general issues concerning urban environment.
First of all “urban values” should be defined.
Urban values mean social and spatial diversity, density of human interaction and anonymity.
I am afraid, that for Plan’s authors “city” is not as a public realm but rather an abstract pattern of coloured surfaces and red lines.
The question is - what is then the relationship between built structures and the society?
Between spatial structures and social structures? The most important are vital interpersonal relationships. In a city a level of interaction among people and artificial environment is extremely high. This artificial environment works as a “mediator” among people (Internet, mobiles and phones, newspapers, magazines etc.) or exist as a quasi independent entity (adverts, TV, interactive games etc.) The division between entities which “mediate” between people and quasi independent entities is rather fuzzy. Anyway – architecture and every kind of artificial environment - increase the level of information and factors with which human beings interact. New technologies let people to interact despite their spatial localization. Obviously, outside towns people are also able to interact but in cities they are somehow forced to do it.
These provoked interactions create value of city life. Classical sociological anti-urban theories highlight destruction of traditional community, family and a person itself, contemporary post-modern theories rather dip into positive aspects of life in cities.
In this meaning – large number of factors and interpersonal interactions create completely new existential situation for human being's life in cities.
The important thing is that this kind of “violence” constitutes the essence of a city. A city is a place where people are strongly forced to interact with other people and artificial entities.
A city has the power to violate and to destroy existing and common social structures but also the power to liberate and create new ones.
This is lifeblood of the city.
There are two additional “ideological” features, which are very important in European approach: Social cohesion and democracy – “Stadt Luft macht frei”.
Correlations between spatial planning and democracy, excluding problems and urban governance are in the centre of interest European planners. In some countries town planning and spatial development became important and effective part of government programs.
The Public Relations materials and programs prepared for Riga Development Plan are on a very high level. The problem is that PR is a part of marketing strategy – it is only about making the audience feeling good. So, in fact, this is more manipulating that participating. This is not a democratic practice but exactly the opposite.
The reason for this severe judgement is the fact that citizens could express their opinion about the Plan, but in fact there is no possibility to force authorities and plan’s authors to take these opinions into consideration.
Actually, RDP is not a tool of implementing grass-roots democracy into city life - on the contrary - by promoting “public consultation” instead of “public action” RDP is building only a democratic facade not a real civil society.
This problem is important everywhere, but in Riga is crucial because of social and political situation. The fact, that about 30% of Riga population is non-citizens seems to be dangerous for town social integrity. In my opinion, town planning could and should be used as a tool of integration non-citizens and the society.
The most fundamental question is: do authors of the Plan want Riga to be real European city?
This is an ideological question. In my personal opinion – urban values are background for modern European culture.
I am a believer in the “urban way of life” and to use biblical expression - I want a city to be a city and a village to be a village.
Maybe it is controversial opinion, but somehow I feel that ghost of de-urbanization is flying over Riga. (*for the translator: the sentence is a travestation of Lenin (?) sentence – spirit of the communism is flying over the World)
There are many different and dispersed ideas and factors which created this feeling.
First of all – despite cluster structure of historical Riga’s districts, many people in Riga still see soviet residential districts as an urban structure. Regular people could be forgiven for having such a point of view, but when one of the most famous Latvian architects expresses the opinion that cluster (*for the translator: in Latvian – cluster=kvartals) structure is dull and boring – I am very surprised.
This anti-cluster approach is supported by specific building-law regulations which promote tower-buildings more than clusters.
Why cluster structure is better than others?
Because urban structure is not only an esthetical matter – it is also (or maybe first of all) social entity. Urbanism is not about creating “interesting buildings” – it is about people and societies in space.
Classic division to public/semi-public/semi-private/private space is realised well in cluster or semi cluster structure. This division is fundamental for supporting healthy interpersonal relationship and even more – to support small communities, protect them against crime and in general to improve quality of life.
The anti-urban tendencies are not only present in Riga in “architectural” scale, but are even more visible in town planning.
New Riga Development Plan expresses them in three main ways:
- by implementing into about 1milion people metropolis idea from bigger cities – (presumably American) - park and ride system
- by implementing polycentric structure into city with weak centre
- by giving priority to one-family housing
These three tools will shape Riga as the city far away from the European model.
Why?
Implementing park and ride system seems to be absurd in Riga’s case as the metropolitan area is so small. Localization of parking lots for the system nearby city border forces people to _drive back_ from inner city areas to use the system.
Implementing polycentric structure which ignores existing district pattern will do a terrible harm to Riga. Many areas in the town need strong local centres, but idea to create brand new centres just because planners found some free plots to locate them- is absurd.
Existing local centers are not strengthened in the new Plan. Consequently, existing local centers will loose the competition with new ones and already existing hypermarkets.
Giving priority to one-family housing is another amazing idea – there is no town in the world of such structure. Maybe authors of the Plan took by mistake American suburbia for European towns?
There are more unclear issues in the Plan. One of them is a relationship between the city and the river. It seems that for authors of the Plan, Daugava is only a problem -the barrier which should be crossed over. Exactly opposite is their vision of roads in the city – they seem to believe that roads always provide access. Plan’s authors see the city from drivers’ not pedestrians’ point of view. Heavy traffic roads do not provide access, on the contrary – they block it. This is the reason why in Europe and the USA heavy traffic roads are planned around cities or – in case an existing road has to be used in the system – put underground.
Riga is a strange city. On one hand is an old, Hanzeatic city, a reasonable popular tourist's destination. On the other hand half of this city was built during the soviet period and about 60% of a population lives in block-house residential areas – the biggest percentage in all European cities.
Most of the population are first generation of “urban people” or at least “Riga people”.
The structure of the city reflects 800 years of history. Swedish, Polish, Russian, German and finally Latvian rulers’ legacy tells a lot of different stories, loosely connected to each other. I often quip that Riga is the most postmodernist city in the world, because of the magnitude of chaotic micro narrations. The lack of clear structure is, in my opinion, principle feature of this city. No logic traffic scheme, green areas divided by heavy traffic roads, pavements ending suddenly generate the unpleasant feeling of a haemorrhage.
This not only reflects complicated history but somehow creates an unpleasant feeling of unpredictability of the future.
I would like to quote one of the most influential Riga's politicians who claimed that the best politics for Riga would be encouraging more affluent people to settle down in the city and push the poor beyond its boundaries.
This statement shows clearly how some authorities see the shape and social structure of the city. In the city core they would like to see offices, banks, government's buildings, facilities for tourism and a small number of luxury apartments.
Near the boundary – outside the urban tissue but inside city limits – they prefer new luxury residential districts with all necessary infrastructures: shopping malls, bowling centres, aqua parks etc.
Despite declared socially equal approach, based on European values and corresponding to EU standards of urban development, new RDP seems to be at least partly contradictory to these declarations.
In my opinion, the RDP is prepared rather to fulfill imaginary demands of rich people than to take into consideration the whole city society.
Historically, a virtue of Riga was its multi-cultural, multi-religious and multi-national character. It was definitely urban, European environment.
I do hope that Riga could be again extremely vital European city but choice should be made right now.
I am afraid that acceptance of new the Plan will result in reducing quality of life, disturbing economic development of the town, loosing competition with Vilnius and Tallin and generally, in marginalization of Riga in the Baltic region.
Riga, 31st of January 2005
dr. eng. arch. Krzysztof Nawratek