Why we did it?
We think that there is no serious discussion about future of Riga and the
official Plan creates the impression that it is the one and only solution for
the city.
In our opinion the ideological background which we find in this Plan is
contradictory to the UE’s spatial policy. There are two, fundamental mistakes:
misunderstanding of “polycentric idea” and the compact city idea. The former
concerns regional, state and European level and cannot be implemented on a city
scale; the latter is present only in the list of priorities but clearly would
not be a result of the proposed solutions.
What is our goal?
First of all we would like to show that “official” Plan is NOT one and
only possibility for Riga development. At least one more is possible.
We want to start the serious discussion about future of the city. We
would like to invite to this discussion every group, every individual who is
interested in quality of urban environment and therefore, the quality of life
in the city.
Democracy and Vision.
In our opinion, the “official” Development Plan
lacks:
-
vision of the future of Riga
-
democratic
planning process.
Lack of public
participation has increased and promoted opportunities for corruption. The main
reason for insufficient public participation has been the time that this
requires, which is why it is considered to be an obstacle to speedy preparation
of documents. Another reason is that not enough time is allowed for submitting
comments. NGO participation in Monitoring Committees has also been poor.
Janis Brizga, PROVIDUS Public Policy Fellow
-
Neglecting
of actions and research made by independent groups – like "Let's leave Riga for our
children!" Public participation in the creation of the future vision for
Riga's historical center, conducted by Aivita Putnina, Gunta Aistara
What we propose is
exactly opposite. We are sure that planning process should be really democratic
and all important actors of Riga society have to be involved.
Transport.
Key
problem in city:
Lack of easy, quick and comfortable accessibility in Riga
Related
problem in New plan:
-
Two
parallel major transport systems are developed: for public transport and
private cars (this leads to waste of city’s money and resources, development of
infrastructure for private cars leads to social segregation and the destination
of urban space, landscape and architecture to cars, not people)
-
Planning
of qualitative neighborhoods is not located properly
-
Planned
new centers will increase the necessity for travel
Some urban planners often idealize polycentric cities by thinking
that a self-sufficient community is likely to grow around each cluster of
employment. According to them, a number of self-sufficient “urban villages”
would then aggregate to form a large polycentric metropolis (SCHEME). In such a
large city, trips would be very short; ideally, everybody could even walk or
bicycle to work2. Nobody has ever observed this behavior in any large
city.Trips in a polycentric city will tend to be longer than in a monocentric
city.
Alain Bertaud
Proposed
solutions: Use of
worldwide known solutions
–
reduce
the need for trips by planning qualitative neighborhoods within existing city
limits (compact city idea)
–
transport
system must be based on pedestrians, bicycle and public transportation
–
Priority
for pedestrians, bicycle and public transportation must be integrated in
planned activities of New plan, project lists and financial plans.
–
Private
car infrastructure must be only secondary.
–
Creating
the RING. This is worldwide known solution of traffic problems
Examples: Vienna, Oslo
Economic development
One of
basis for wealthy city: vital and diverse economics, good profit for city budget.
Related
problem in New plan:
- Planning of qualitative neighborhoods is not addressed properly (this leads to migration of wealthiest families their income tax to Riga region ). Quality of life is low, attractive urban environment is very small.
-
The
strong, unchangeable rules are not defined in plan, all can be changed by
detail plans.
-
Lack
of normative basis for implementation and monitoring of implementation of the
Plan.
Proposed
solutions:
How cities become great? “Creative class”
settle down. Where is exciting environment in Riga for these people?
-
to
create normative basis for consequent implementation of the plan,
-
Establishment
of regulations of economic development and safety.
-
Create
vital, exciting urban environment. Develop cultural and scientific life in
Riga. City core should be dense of human interactions, RING is a potential area
of city development inside existing urban area.
Housing/Neighborhoods
One of
basis for city: we
want to live in qualitative housing and neighborhood.
Related
problem in New plan:
-
Planned
transport infrastructure will create landscape and space for cars not for people
and for sure higher pollution and noise in neighborhoods,
-
Almost
all new development is planned in greenfields and green area (this will lead to
further decline of neighborhood quality)
-
„isolated”
housing is planned in further development: private house areas and
intensification of block houses with more block houses (this will intensify
social segregation and visual, economic degradation of some neighborhoods and
its housing and infrastructure)
-
New
big centers are not in walking distance from existing neighborhoods (priority
for its development will degrade old local small centers)
Proposed
solutions:
-
new
zoning law for housing: mixed types of houses for different layers of
inhabitants, large private house areas are not affordable for the city.
-
Panel housing - in next 50 years this
building bacome slums and partly ruin. We suggest that instead of the modernist
structure of free standing huge slabs, we should re-create city structure. It
means, that the panel residential areas should be slowly filled by new,
low-rise structures, organized as a typical parametric blocks. Classical
division of space: public/semi-public/semi-private/private as a fundamental
aspect of new Riga.
-
RING.
Ring somehow is “sucking back“ extra muros development. This is the
possibility for Riga to develop without occupying new areas.
We can suggest that area inside the border makes by the Ring is real
city – with priority of pedestrian, bikes and public transport.
The RING is also some kind of “dirty space” in Riga. Each city needs something
like that – and we also should create some kind of “emergency exit”
All these functions could be fulfill in the RING.
-
Neighborhoods
with available services in 3-5 minutes = 300-400m.
Strong policy for supermarket development (= they are enough of them, if anyone more it should be in walkable distance to existing residential areas or/and more commercial spaces should be developed in City Center) will stop the degradation of existing commercial spaces and may be some development of SME