THE UNIVERSITY OF TURKU
Faculty of Humanities Baltic Sea Region Studies
Waterfront Revitalization in Riga
The case of !"psala
Stefanie Bischof Neckarstr. 13 45663 Recklinghausen Germany Student No. 72620 September 2007
THE UNIVERSITY OF TURKU Baltic Sea Region Studies Faculty of Humanities BISCHOF, STEFANIE: Waterfront Revitalization in Riga – the case of !"psala Master`s thesis. 89 p., 9 appendix pages Baltic Sea Region Studies September 2007 While in Western countries waterfront redevelopment has been an established practice for decades, cities in the Baltic States have only recently rediscovered the potential of their waterfronts. In Riga, even though the need for revitalization along the waterfronts is formulated in the major city development plans, the implementation of waterfront projects is mostly left for the private market. Currently there are several large-scale waterfront projects planned, but only one has exceeded the planning stage so far: the projects of the private developer M#ris Gailis on the island of !"psala. His aim was to restore the industrial and wooden heritage in the protected historical centre of the island, which once was a fishermen`s village, for residential uses. The target group consists of wealthy Latvians and foreigners. The restoration projects have caused drastic social changes on !"psala, developing the island from one of the poorest neighbourhoods to one of the most exclusive places in the city. This thesis aims to analyse the waterfront projects on !"psala against the theoretical background of post-socialist urban development. A case study was carried out, which shows that the projects achieved to re-establish a stronger connection between the island and the water by water-related activities and maritime symbols, but that the way the historical buildings were restored must be criticized. Also, the city lacks the measures to control the social consequences caused by the restoration projects, namely gentrification and segregation. Inhabitant participation does not play any role in the planning process on !"psala. The issues raised by the case study open up more general issues about the way of urban planning in Riga: The way the city deals with its historical architecture gives the impression that facades are more important than authentic restoration. This bears the risk of creating nice areas that lack authenticity. Most of the urban land in Riga has been privatized – and the city does not have any measures to regulate the developments on private land. Thus, it loses the possibility to steer the direction to which the city is developing. Also concerning the social processes caused by development projects, the city does not have any measures or interest to control. Genuine public participation is not very high on the agenda of the city, combined with the fact that the inhabitants show a very low interest in participation. Major developments are driven by the neo-liberal market and completely out of control. Keywords waterfront revitalization, urban regeneration, post-socialist urban development, gentrification, segregation
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 2 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 CHANGES IN URBAN DEVELOPMENT FROM “SOCIALIST” TO “POST-SOCIALIST” ........................................... 5 Common features of socialist cities........................................................................................................ 6 Common features of post-socialist urban transformation .................................................................... 9 Perspectives for post-socialist cities .................................................................................................... 13 Redevelopments along the water`s edge – reasons and opportunities .............................................. 19 Factors of successful waterfront revitalization ................................................................................... 20
2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 3
PORT AND WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION .................................................................................................. 17
WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT IN RIGA ......................................................................................... 25 3.1 3.2 INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE STUDY AREA ................................................................................................... 27 LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN RIGA ........................................... 29 Long-term development strategy until 2025 ........................................................................................ 31 Development Programme 2006-2012 .................................................................................................. 32 Riga Spatial Plan 2006-2018................................................................................................................ 33 Planning of the Riga Historical Centre and its Protection Zone Territory....................................... 33 Building regulations in the historical centre and the buffer zone...................................................... 34 Detailed Plan !"psala ........................................................................................................................... 35 Evaluation of the development plans ................................................................................................... 38
3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.2.5 3.2.6 3.2.7 4
CASE STUDY !"PSALA................................................................................................................................... 40 4.1 !$PSALA IN THE CONTEXT OF CURRENT WATERFRONT PROJECTS IN RIGA .................................................. 43 !"psala ................................................................................................................................................... 44 Riga Port City ........................................................................................................................................ 45 Cultural projects by J3B ....................................................................................................................... 47 New commercial centre on Kl"versala and !"psala............................................................................ 49 Waterfront along the old town.............................................................................................................. 50
4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.4 4.1.5 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 5
THE MAIN REGENERATION PROJECTS ON !$PSALA ....................................................................................... 51 RESULTS OF THE EMPIRICAL RESEARCH IN THE CASE STUDY AREA ............................................................. 62 EVALUATION OF THE RESTORATION PROJECTS ............................................................................................. 66 PROBLEMS AND PERSPECTIVES OF URBAN PLANNING IN RIGA..................................................................... 73
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................... 78
LIST OF REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 83 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................................. 90
................................................. 8: RESTAURANT CORNER OF THE GYPSUM FACTORY BEFORE (2000) AND AFTER THE RESTORATION (2004) ................ 3: MODEL OF URBAN TRANSITION FROM SOCIALISM TO POST-SOCIALISM .................................LIST OF FIGURES
FIG................................... 9: A MBASSADOR`S RESIDENCE “RED HOUSE” BEFORE (2001) AND AFTER THE RESTORATION (2005) ..... 3 FIG..........12 FIG.................. 2: SPATIAL STRUCTURE IN A SOCIALIST LARGE CITY .................91 APPENDIX 3: QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN (NEW RESIDENTS) .......................................90 APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN (ORIGINAL RESIDENTS) .............................................44 FIG..................................................52 FIG.................................................................................................. 9 FIG....... 8 FIG.... 1: LOCATION OF THE ISLAND OF !$PSALA ALMOST OPPOSITE RIGA` S OLD TOWN......................................................54
FIG.... 5: LOCATION OF THE MAIN WATERFRONT PROJECTS IN CENTRAL RIGA ............. 6: LOCATION OF THE PROTECTED HISTORICAL AREA AND THE GYPSUM FACTORY PROJECT ON !$PSALA ..............................................................................56 FIG......... 7: MAP AND MODEL SHOWING THE DIFFERENT BUILDINGS OF THE FIRST PHASE OF THE GYPSUM FACTORY
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: ZONING MAP OF KIPSALA (EXTRACT) .... 4: SPATIAL STRUCTURE IN A POST-SOCIALIST LARGE CITY..........................................................................................95
which impressed me from the very first moment with its elegant housing and the eye-catching contrast between rich and poor.
. I would also like to express my gratefulness to the teachers and staff from the Baltic Sea Region Studies programme at the University of Turku for their guidance and helpful comments on the manuscript. At this place I would like to thank my interview partners for their friendly support and the inhabitants of !"psala for sharing their opinions and ideas with me. It was organised by the Riga Technical University (RTU) and had the title “Industrial Heritage in Riga: Contemporary Developments and Future Visions”. Jonathan is thanked for his suggestions and language polishing. And last but not least I would like to thank Anita. who was not only a great translator for Latvian and Russian. in which I participated in August 2006. The school included seminars about current waterfront redevelopment projects and also an excursion to the island of !"psala – an area.Preface
The idea for this thesis originated from an international summer school for architects and urban planners in Riga. but who also became a very good friend during my exchange semester in Riga. The summer school provided me with useful contacts for my later research and gave me a first impression about the culture of urban planning in Riga.
While there is an immense body of academic literature about waterfront regeneration in Western countries. 11-14 3 One prominent example is the first phase of the redevelopment of the London Docklands. 57-70 4 Marshall. D. 7-10 5 Feldman. (2001).2 Not all of these projects were successful. p. these areas can turn from no-go places to the catalysts of urban development. 13-16 Schubert. London or Hamburg to many smaller port cities. 829-850
. have discovered the value of their waterfronts later than in Western Europe or North America. not even in Latvian.1 Waterfront revitalization has been carried out all over the world. these are the places. how these cities deal with their waterfronts. p.1 Introduction
Within the last century. there is almost no literature about the projects available. (2000). It is based on interviews with relevant key persons either directly involved in
Strauß. p. M. Since waterfront redevelopment is a very recent phenomenon in Riga. the case study presented in this thesis shall be an attempt to fill the gap. For more information please see Page. Now it is interesting to observe. p. most of my findings are based on empirical research. which was carried out in Riga between October 2006 and January 2007. (2001).3 But still. p. followed by a rediscovery of the run-down waterfront areas for redevelopment. C. there is hardly any literature about Eastern Europe and the Baltic States.4 Generally cities in transformation societies. The only analysis about a Baltic case is the interesting article on urban waterfront regeneration in Tallinn published by Merje Feldman in Europe-Asia Studies in 2000. such as Riga. J. the process of waterfront revitalization is regarded as essential in urban regeneration. (2001c). R. Thus. cities with ports or waterfronts worldwide have experienced a process of disintegration between city and water. which have the power to give the city a new image and if carried out in a balanced and high-quality way. Thus. S. since waterfronts belong to the most visible sites of the city. (1995).5 Thus. ranging from large-scale projects like Baltimore.
conservation and architecture as well as on questionnaires with inhabitants of my research area. (2000).2006
. reaching the peak in the end of the 19th century. such water-related activities began to decline after World War II. p. Another fact that attracted my attention was that these projects focus primarily on the restoration and reconstruction of wooden and industrial
Pope. not exclusively port areas. opposite Riga`s centre.8 The waterfront areas that had former been the liveliest parts of the city. Historically.12. A. the city has always had a very strong connection to the water. 267-268 Interview with P%teris Bl&ms. exemplifies this phenomenon.7 This development has affected all waterfront areas.12. 19.2006 9 Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs. but only one has partly been finished already – this is one reason why I chose this area for my research: A restoration project by the private developer M#ris Gailis in the protected historical area of !"psala. among them the construction of bridges.12.2006 8 Interview with P%teris Bl&ms. 14. The island of !"psala. however. In those days. when Riga was the biggest export harbour of the Russian Empire and the biggest export harbour for timber in the whole world. the close connection between city and water got lost for several reasons. developed into underused or even abandoned no-go places.6 Within the last century. streets and the relocation of port activities away from the city centre. Only recently the city council and especially private actors have rediscovered the enormous potential of the 400 kilometers of waterfront in Riga. Unique to the region. consisting of an ensemble of wooden fishermen`s houses and the buildings of the former gypsum factory B%ma.9 Many waterfront projects are currently under development. port development. Riga is the only capital city in the Baltic Sea Region located at the junction of a major river and the Baltic Sea.waterfront projects or experts coming from a background in urban planning. This special location has dominated the city`s development since it was founded in 1201. the waterfronts of the city were extensively used. 14. Traditionally a fishermen`s village with wharfs and warehouses.
Thus. Together with its prime location. Some typical features of post-socialist urban development can be derived from the !"psala case.2006 Based on Google Maps. how it deals with the urban land. My main interest is to find out how the heritage of the historical project area is taken into account in the planning.de/ (18.10 As the first regenerated waterfront area in Riga.06. These issues raised by the case study open up more general questions on the way of urban planning in Riga: how the city deals with its historical architecture.
FIG. http://maps. how these projects are controlled and which role the needs of the local inhabitants plays. which social processes on the island are caused by the restoration projects. if and how it regulates urban development and which role public participation plays in the planning process. !"psala is a precursor of current waterfront projects. 1: LOCATION OF THE ISLAND OF !$PSALA ALMOST OPPOSITE RIGA` S OLD TOWN11
With this thesis I aim to present waterfront redevelopment in Riga as an example of current processes in urban development in a post-socialist Baltic city.google. these issues make !"psala a unique and interesting case in Riga.12. what is done to re-establish a stronger connection between city and water.
Interview with P%teris Bl&ms. 14.heritage – types of architecture that had previously been neglected by developers.2007)
Before I come to the specific case of Riga. Concerning the Riga case. The actual case study on the restoration projects on !"psala starts with a short introduction to the methodology that was used to conduct the fieldwork. They would. which elements of the transformation process can still be identified in Riga and what kind of post-socialist city Riga will presumably be in the future. Based on these evaluations the conclusion returns to the question. Therefore I will give an overview on urban development in socialist and post-socialist cities as a theoretical framework for this thesis. be a very interesting issue for further research.my research focuses primarily on spatial.
. The thesis consists of the following parts: In order to understand the processes of waterfront redevelopment in Eastern Europe. presents the major waterfront projects that are under development at the moment and continues with an analysis of the two main projects by developer M#ris Gailis. general statements about the mode of urban planning in Riga can be drawn. defining the basic concepts used in this paper and presenting factors of successful revitalization relying on the theories by Bruttomesso and Schubert. From the evaluation of the waterfront projects on !"psala. social and political processes in urban waterside regeneration. I will introduce a general theoretical background for waterfront revitalization. Other aspects like political economy – urban revitalization as a form of capital circulation – would go beyond the scope of this thesis and are therefore largely left out. as it is formulated in the major urban planning documents of the city of Riga. however. first the project area will be introduced and the legal administrative framework for waterfront redevelopment will be given. it is necessary to incorporate the specific postsocialist context of urban development.
The second part of the chapter will define waterfront revitalization and gentrification as two of the main concepts within this thesis and present the factors of successful waterfront revitalization based on the theories by Bruttomesso and Schubert. 15-16
.12 It means basically that urban planning by public authorities becomes weaker. P./Tsenkova. S. the first part of this chapter will present the common features of socialist cities. M. (2006). due to its transformation from state socialism and central planning towards democracy and neo-liberal market economy. p. 3-10 Harloe. namely the aspects of transformation from socialist to post-socialist cities. while private developers play an increasing role in shaping the city.
2. The transformation of the city from a rather homogenous entity to a rather heterogeneous playground of sometimes contradicting private interests and power is the result./Marcuse.1 Changes in urban development from “socialist” to “post-socialist”
The mode of planning in the city of Riga has changed drastically during the past two decades. Thus.13
Nedovi(-Budi(. Z. and it will outline the scholarly debate about their possible future. p. the presentation of two theoretical issues is necessary to understand the processes of waterfront revitalization in Riga: urban development in post-socialist cities and general theories of waterfront redevelopment. explore which factors contributed to the urban change in Central and Eastern European cities (hereafter Eastern European cities) in recent years.2 Theoretical Framework
In my opinion. (1996).
In my understanding, all cities that have been under socialist rule until the fall of the iron curtain should now be called post-socialist in that sense, that these cities had certain common characteristics in socialist times and faced similarities in the transformation process starting in the beginning of the 1990s, as it will be outlined below. This, however, does not mean that these cities will present a distinct type of city also in the future – in fact their developments are quite different.14 It is much debated to which direction the cities are heading and what might be the outcome in the future. Of course, the models and features below present a highly theoretical and idealized way to look at the change of Eastern European cities, which in reality does not exist in this form. Another aspect that limits the value of these static models is that cities are constantly under development – thus, a “status quo” as it is presented in the models does not really exist. Nevertheless this theoretical presentation is useful and necessary in my opinion, since it gives a general idea about the different processes that can be observed in Eastern European cities during the socialist era, in the beginning of the transformation period and today.
2.1.1 Common features of socialist cities
It is much debated whether such a thing as the socialist city with a distinctive urban form really existed, since geographical and political variations caused differences in the urbanization processes even under very similar ideologies.15 Early theories like “The Socialist City”16 by French and Hamilton in 1979 argued in favour of a distinct model of a socialist city, in which central planning had succeeded in preventing spatial and social segregation. Later studies challenged this attitude, showing that urban inequalities also existed in socialist
Tosics, I. (2005), p. 71-74 Wyly, E., www.geog.ubc.ca/~ewyly/g350/socialist.pdf (13.03.2007) 16 French, R. A./Hamilton F. E. I. (1979)
cities.17 It must also be considered, that the socialist system itself was not static, but constantly developing.18 Thus, it is difficult to give general statements about the entire period. However, some typical characteristics of urban development in Eastern European cities under the socialist rule can be identified. These comparable processes are caused by similarities in the socialist ideology, the framework set by state policy, concrete measures of implementation and the issue of pre-communist urban structures that had to be dealt with. 19 On the ideological level, cities were considered to be the catalysts of modernization and progress. A central planning system was implemented, in which industrialization and urbanization were based on “state ownership of the means of production and the centrally planned determination of the use and allocation of resources”20. A key issue for central planning was the nationalization of land. Heavy industry was favoured, while light industry, consumer good production and the service sector were neglected. The state provided subsidized and therefore cheap public welfare goods and services. It also held a monopoly control over foreign trade.21 The one-party system and the centrally planned economy along with the state ownership of land put urban development under a very tight public control. Urban planning had a very high status, since it was viewed as an important tool to achieve political aims.22 Since the goal was an egalitarian society, the state had to ensure equal living conditions for everyone, eradicating any individual character of a dwelling. Pre-socialist urban structures, which symbolized the capitalist past, were demolished or at least neglected. A specific and central socialist housing policy was crucial for the construction of residential and urban social areas. Subsidized housing was the rule. However, all socialist states had to face problems of inefficiency and shortage of urban housing. In practice this led to the
Ruoppila, S. (2006), p. 19-21 Hamilton, F. E. I./Pichler-Milanovic, N. /Dimitrovska Andrews, K. (2005), p. 11 19 Sailer-Fliege, U. (1999), p. 8 20 Andrusz, G. (1996), p. 37 21 Andrusz, G. (1996), p. 37-38 22 Smith, D. M. (1996), p. 72
preference of certain social and political groups, thus strengthening spatial inequalities, selective migration and segregation.23
FIG. 2: SPATIAL STRUCTURE IN A SOCIALIST LARGE CITY24
The spatial structure (Fig. 2) was usually that of a compact city, which developed along its main arterial roads and railway lines. Concerning land use, the city could be divided into functionally rather homogenous areas. Another feature was the creation of over-dimensioned industrial areas, which covered a relatively high proportion of urban land. Areas from presocialist times next to the city centre were primarily used for residential purposes, but left in decay. Socialist housing projects could mostly be found adjacent to the pre-socialist housing stock or on the urban fringe and close to the new industrial areas. In social terms, middle- and higher-status groups were over-represented in socialist housing estates, while the decaying
Sailer-Fliege, U. (1999), p. 8-11 Sailer-Fliege, U. (1999), p. 10
End of central planning
Shift to market regulation
Transformation of labour market
Transformation of housing market
New Urban Order
Globalisation Commercialisation Polarisation Segregation/Gentrification Suburbanisation etc. Z. (1999). the states in Central and Eastern Europe have undergone a period of political and economical transformation. U. (1999).pre-socialist areas close to the city centre were to a big extent populated by low social status groups. several common features of planning during the transformation period can be identified. the transformation process is still underway. (2006). p. 3: MODEL OF URBAN TRANSITION FROM SOCIALISM TO POST-SOCIALISM28
Sailer-Fliege.1. 8 28 Based on Kovács. 349 27 Sailer-Fliege. 2
. (1999). 12-14 Tsenkova. U.25
2./Nedovi(-Budi(. p. Even though there exist variations from state to state. p. S.26 In some countries.
FIG. p. Z.2 Common features of post-socialist urban transformation
Since the collapse of communism and the gaining of independence.
The economic transformation comprised the collapse of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON). The transformation towards market regulation caused major changes on the labour and housing market. the realisation of free elections and the return to self-governance.31 On the level of economic transformation. An important fact for urban development is that there are not many restrictions on private ownership of enterprises and land. the process of drastic deindustrialization led to a fast development of the previously neglected service sector. (2006). market economy ideologies. All those changes contributed to the creation of a new urban order./Nedovi(-Budi(. the change from one dominating party to a multi-party system. p.29 The immense changes within the first decade after the collapse of communism resulted from inherited urban structures. Foreign investors played an increasing role in the economic restructuring process. This had also many social consequences. political and economic aspects. Z. the reintegration in the world economy and an enormous privatization wave. determined by a globalized and commercialized society. the reintegration into the European and the international economy was an influential factor. Housing and properties have been realized as economic commodities again. the restructuring of the economy according to neo-liberal ideas was crucial. however. p. I. (1999). only a minority of the population has
. led to the end of central planning in urban planning. The major political factors were the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. 3 shows.30 On the ideological level. as it will be seen below. p. (2005). the transformation of Eastern European cities can be divided into political and economic aspects. social and spatial segregation and gentrification. the emergence of free flows of capital. a new governmental framework and the general processes of societal transformation. Furthermore. Z. 1-5 Tsenkova. So far. S. such as an increasing income gap between rich and poor.As Fig. 349-353 31 Tosics. Both.
Especially elderly people. The state has also largely withdrawn from the housing sector. Thus. (1996). U. (1999). 180-181
. 2-4 34 Marcuse. This results in the fact that the private market determines land uses and thus the shape of the city gets completely out of public control.34
Sailer-Fliege. since in line with the privatization of land the public sector has not been able or willing to put effective new forms of control in place. p. but tight local budgets and mistrust against urban planning among the citizens keep the influence of public urban planning relatively low.32 In urban planning. which leads to increasing social problems. P. social housing is not very high on the agenda any longer and only the poorest households receive housing allocations. p. (1999). 11 Kovács. Z.33 Regulatory land-use controls and planning procedures have been problematic in many transformation societies so far. a shift from state to local self-government can be recognized. p.benefited from the developments. giving way for a massive privatization process and leaving the construction of new housing for private investors. unskilled workers and state employees belong to the losers of the transformation.
. is the way they use their history for city marketing and urban development. 4). Another interesting feature of Eastern European cities in transformation. previously suppressed pasts. 4: SPATIAL STRUCTURE IN A POST. which took place in most Eastern European cities after the collapse of communism. the most important spatial changes.FIG. (1999). These are actively used for political and
Sailer-Fliege. U. In my understanding. also close to the city centre. p. are that the city loses its compact form through suburbanization. which is relevant for this thesis. The rejection of the built symbols of the recent past goes in line with a restitution of earlier. that huge industrial areas.SOCIALIST LARGE CITY35
These changes influence the spatial structure of post-socialist cities (Fig. are not in use any longer and that some former neglected neighbourhoods with historical housing stock are gentrified.
the question is rather: post-socialist and what else? In fact this is an issue. (1999).3 Perspectives for post-socialist cities
As in my opinion all previously socialist cities should now be called post-socialist. establishing a new institutional framework and a new system of public control. no matter in which direction these cities will develop. which currently is
Ashworth. (2005).economic purposes. p. Most important in this respect are the discovery of heritage tourism and the restoration and marketing of heritage for new uses. J. Political uses include not only the abolishment of the recent. In economic terms. G. For me. entertainment or residential. which is different from types of cities in modern capitalist societies.36 In my opinion this commercialization of the specific history of post-socialist cities might be a feature./Tunbridge. which will be able to survive the transition and which will be present also in the future. is likely to emerge. negatively perceived past. It must be noted that Eastern European cities also have to face two other kinds of transformation: the change from industrial to post-industrial societies and the integration into the globalization process. but also new interpretations of the pre-socialist past to support the new state(or in our case city-) structures and to foster a new sense of identity. such as commercial. the potential of built heritage for economic development has been realized and plays now an essential role in development strategies. In order to be able to manage these challenges. J. competitive world. p. E.37
. which are prerequisites for a long-term strategy of urban development and key factors in the globalizing. I. 105-111 Tosics. it is necessary to successfully complete the transformation after socialism.1. the term post-socialist does not necessarily mean that a distinctive post-socialist type of city.
a regulated capitalist city model and an unregulated third world city model. (2005). R. While Albania and some other Balkan states are regarded as future third world types of cities with quick development without any public control. the level of investments and the participation of the citizens. M. the functioning of the land market. I. I. Thus.highly debated among scholars. the more will the cities develop towards the European “compact”-type of city. (1996). D. the more will these cities develop towards an American “sprawl”-type of city. p. Kovács 40 Feldman. M. I would agree with Tosics that they are likely to develop into either a Western European type of city or into a North American type of city or
Smith. 74 43 Smith.38 Some scholars argue that post-socialist cities are generally heading towards a global capitalist type of city. (2005). Eastern European cities including the Baltic capitals are predicted to develop into different kinds of market-oriented capitalist cities. p. but this does not mean that there is only one distinct type of a capitalist city. 71-72 42 Tosics. that one social order – socialism – cannot merely be replaced by another – capitalism – and thus also urban transformation cannot merely be regarded as a development from a socialist towards a capitalist city. The stronger the public intervention. I support Tosics` idea that post-socialist cities might head towards different types of cities./Feagin. (2000). 40 Therefore an increasing number of scholars differentiate between several potential outcomes of future cities depending on the level of public control. (1987). Indeed cities are part of the global capitalist economy43. J. The less public control is established.41 According to this differentiation three types of cities are likely to emerge: an unregulated capitalist city model. 71 For example Z. p. Concerning the general orientation of post-socialist cities towards Western Europe and the US. 3
.42 In my opinion it is not possible to talk about “the global capitalist city”. p.39 But today in the scholarly debate it is increasingly accepted. M. p. but without defining what capitalist city actually means to them. P. 832 41 Tosics.
revitalization efforts in the city centres. if the level of public control remains as low in Eastern European cities as it is now.45 Public actors usually play a regulating role in the planning process. key terms in European urban planning are “density”. decay and ghettoization in the inner city.php?page=geo_infothek&node=Stadttypen&article=Infoblatt+Die+europ%E4isc he+Stadt (13. “decentralization” and “community participation”. the creation of edge cities and gated communities. it is therefore most likely that Eastern European cities will develop towards different levels of “in between”.2007) 46 Heineberg. http://www. Currently.06. In my opinion. “mixeduse”. H. The North American type of city is based on the dominance of private actors and a low level of public control. Since cities date from different historical periods.44 In contrast. until now they could usually keep their distinct character due to their historical structures.something in between.klett. p. I can neither imagine. 129-131
.klett. Even though global trends make European cities more and more similar to North American ones. It has to deal with processes like suburbanization and urban sprawl. Concerning the future perspectives for the Baltic countries Tosics gives the following interpretation: “Relatively quick transition from the socialist (and ex-Soviet) into a ‘mixed’ (‘Scandinavian’) model with some elements of state control. Growing capital investments into
Klett Verlag. that they will develop completely into a European type of city. http://www. maybe even keeping certain post-socialist features such as the commercialization of their specific history. On the other hand.de/sixcms/list. which shall ensure the sustainable development of European cities. which is still visible in the urban structure.php?page=geo_infothek&node=Nordamerika&article=Infoblatt+Die+Nordameri kanische+Stadt (13.06. also their structure can be very different which makes it hard to speak about “the European city”.46 Since the major Eastern European cities usually have a rich history. the urban development in European cities is usually influenced by historical structures.2007) 45 Klett Verlag. the “compact city”. (2001).de/sixcms/list. I cannot imagine that they will completely develop into a North American type of city.
”47 From my experiences in Riga. 73 Tsenkova.50 On !"psala. while in the direct neighbourhood some of the poorest and socially weakest people in the city live from support of friends and families. depending on the strength and direction of public control. and establishment of new type of public control over the land market. Riga has faced a creeping privatization process during the past five years. I would agree with Tsenkova.
Tosics. private investors construct an exclusive area for high-income and high-status residents.48 Currently. The outcome might be somewhere between the unregulated and regulated capitalist city-model. S. planning. p. and the public sector is not willing or able to regulate the polarising developments. no regional planning or land use controls exist in Latvia that would be able to effectively regulate the urban development. An in-depth analysis of the situation on !"psala and the underlying factors follows in the case study later in this paper. and building process. slow differentiation of rather low population incomes. Social problems such as marginalisation. 45
. First slow. which has to deal with an extreme gap between rich and poor.the property market.49 All these issues are relevant for my project area on the island of !"psala in Riga. the new marketoriented governments have adopted a laissez-faire approach to planning which gives rise to uneven urban development. p. p. (2006). but from 1996 accelerated privatization housing to sitting tenants. (1996). 180-181 50 Tsenkova. P. 42 49 Marcuse. p. S. who claims that instead of promoting public control. in which another 50% of Riga`s stock was transferred into private hands. gentrification and segregation are taking place. (2006). (2005). however. I. because with the small pensions and housing allocations alone they would not be able to stay.
However. but perforated by passageways. 16-18 Breen. A. p. but which are tied to it visually and historically. but with quays or embankments separating them from the edge of the water and ‘banks/beaches’. meaning waterfronts that are maintained as an open space. D. ‘set back buildings’.2.2 Port and Waterfront Revitalization
In order to be able to discuss waterfront revitalization it is necessary to explain what I mean by ‘waterfront’ and by the term ‘revitalization’.e. which are separated by a road and the embankment from the water`s edge. J. for my purposes a “waterfront project” may also include buildings. it refers to new uses of old port areas and waterfronts. meaning buildings right at the edge of the water.e. meaning constructions rising straight from the water. (1993).53 The term ‘revitalization of ports and waterfronts’ is used to describe different processes and planning strategies: From the point of view of the port developers it means the internal development of the port.52 In everyday life the word vitality is a synonym to liveliness. in order to reintegrate abandoned sites into the urban structure. From the perspective of urban planning. recreational uses and housing. (2001a). i. the reorganization and relocation of the activities within the port area./Rigby. meaning buildings that are located close to the water.54
Owen. my research area !"psala represents the third type of waterfront: set back buildings. (1994). which are not directly located on the water. it will also be defined below. p. 10 53 Gudemann (1995). p. Owen categorized “waterfronts” into four types: ‘water edge’. 51 Within this categorization. Since ‘gentrification’ likewise forms one of the basic concepts of this thesis. D. 16
. The aim is to develop these places into lively and active parts of the city. fresh spirit or activity. which is the focal point of this paper.128 54 Schubert. the change from port economy related uses to services. i. ‘perforated water edge’. p.
p. (2004). or the reuse and redevelopment of existing premises. 27 57 Heineberg. gentrification is a rather new phenomenon. and to the historic value of the built heritage of the island. The island of !"psala is one of the first places in the city where gentrification processes can be observed. the issue of port and waterfront revitalization deals with a complex field of new uses in water-related sites on the interface of port and city. D. p.55 As can be seen from above. (2001a). regeneration and redevelopment will be used as synonyms. or landlords harass their tenants into moving”58. who want to play a role in the development of the respective areas. houses are sold. p. It also reflects the different interests of various actors in the city.57 The original tenants have to move out. 219 59 Mayhew. 19. K. p. since “leases fall in.Revitalization can either mean the cleaning of old sites and construction of new premises.2006
. This is due to the favourable location of the site close to the city centre and next to the waterfront. (2001). p. 219 60 Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs. 18 58 Mayhew. (2004).12.59 In the case of Riga.56 In this paper revitalization. In many cases this development results in a change of the real estate structure from renting to ownership. often buildings with heritage value in central locations.60
Kunzmann. Gentrification refers to the renewal and rehabilitation of depressed neighbourhoods. by more affluent people moving to this area. 201-202 Schubert. S. (2004). H. S. R.
2. The reasons and problems of revitalizing port and waterfront areas are similar in many harbour cities. (2001b). offer immense opportunities for new uses like housing. ranging from prestigious large-scale projects in world cities to redevelopment efforts in medium-sized and smaller harbour cities – such as several cities in the Baltic Sea Region.64 Seaports have always had a key role in the economic and cultural life of a harbour city. mostly located close to the city centre. D. (2001c). p. but the aims. water and land. tourism or recreation.or unused port and waterfront areas.1 Redevelopments along the water`s edge – reasons and opportunities
Only a few decades ago.2. one of the most prominent projects being the Baltimore Inner Harbour. financing and scale of the projects are very different. D. p.63 The city of Riga has reacted rather late to the challenge of under. as well as historical heritage and present-day life. 3
. (2004). But recently. K. 11 63 Schubert. however. 62 Today. 11-14 64 Schubert. 7-8 65 Meyer. D. which for a long time was one of the biggest ports in the Russian Empire and an important centre for river trade on the river Daugava. the unique potential of these places was recognized and a special interest in them emerged. (1992). D. Waterfront redevelopment became a widespread phenomenon in North America in the 1970s. offices. planning systems. The new uses could help to reintegrate the old ports and waterfronts into the city. B. Latvian investors have realized that these areas. p.65 In my opinion the redevelopment of waterfronts and old port areas offers the opportunity to reintegrate port and city. This was also the case in Riga. (2001b). p./Pinder. p.61 Starting in the 1960s. there are numerous examples of revitalization projects all over the world. 7 Hoyle.
Schubert. And it can help to bring back to the city some of the maritime flair it once had. derelict port zones and waterfront areas dominated the appearance of many harbour cities. and spread to European cities in the 1980s.
the waterfront area and the water itself. It is questionable. Neglected port areas and waterfronts offer huge possibilities to reorganize the relation between the city centre. These factors will be presented below. M. It must be noted. until their potential was rediscovered and revitalization projects were started. which previously presented barriers for urban development. that theoretical concepts for waterfront redevelopment rely heavily on the experiences made in Western European and North American cities. 829
. with multi-purpose terminals and quayside warehouses were not needed any longer. R. p. in my opinion the following factors give some very general tendencies for successful waterfront redevelopment. however. away from the city. and a subsequent change in the relationship between city and port.67 All the same. because it needed more space and deeper waters.2 Factors of successful waterfront revitalization
The redevelopment of derelict port and waterfront areas is a global phenomenon. The traditional ports close to the city centres. (2001). 5 Feldman. Scholars have thus tried to develop theoretical models. The waterfront zones. identifying the factors and aims of successful waterfront redevelopment.66
2. can now be used to reconnect the city to
Marshall. Containerization and computerization in sea trade had the effect that often the port had to move seawards. which makes them to a certain extent also relevant for the Eastern European context. p. whether they can completely be transferred to Eastern European or Baltic cases. (2000).2. Often these areas became abandoned and neglected no-go places.The reason for the need of transformations of ports and waterfronts is the worldwide structural change of sea trade and the related port economy. Theoretical models for waterfront redevelopment in Eastern Europe do not exist.
g. Since in the perception of many people the image of port zones changed during the last decades from no-go places towards a rather romantic picture. The reason is that the area is not dependent on events. p. seasons or times of the day. a mixture of restoration and new construction. services. by creating viewpoints to enjoy the urban landscape and by preserving certain elements in the area. 46 70 Schubert. 28-29
.69 Abandoned port and waterfront areas usually have many relicts from their maritime and industrial past. which refer to its past. D. but also in the relationship between the area and the rest of the city. This can be done by establishing appropriate activities on the piers and the routes along the waterside. culture and recreation). which makes them attractive for tourists and visitors.68 To make the area interesting it is essential to highlight its unique character. One dominating function or the dual term ‘commerce and entertainment’ might cause the danger of lowering the quality of the area. p.the water. The mix of functions refers to the different uses of urban space (like residential. the highlighting of the maritime heritage of port and waterfront areas adds to their attractiveness. Thus. D. it should be highlighted as a special value. making it more stable. and a mixture of residents with different incomes are regarded as factors for sustainable redevelopment. p. commercial. p. Port and waterfront areas open up possibilities for new uses. 24-25 Bruttomesso. R. mobility.70 Since the water is one of the main factors in these areas. Their unique location offers the opportunity to connect the (sometimes even protected) architectural heritage of the area with new uses. (2001a). since there are permanent residents living in there. D. (2001). by falling abandoned at certain times of the day or by presenting an artificial atmosphere. In many cases redeveloped waterfront zones also include cultural and leisure activities. 29-30 71 Schubert. Several different functions and activities should be assigned to the area.71 The functions and activities play a big role not only in the regeneration itself. In order to prevent the dangers
Schubert. (2001a). e. (2001a). a mixture of different functions.
however. The routes in the area should encourage interaction between the different functions and activities rather than separating them. (2001). 414
. which help to create a typical urban mix of public and private. Thus. a certain number of activities should be connected to the original uses of the area. that usually it is not possible to completely compensate the loss of jobs in the port-related industries by jobs in the service sector. such as hotels and entertainment venues. p. (2001a). ideally resulting in a sound mixture of appropriate productive activities and a certain amount of residence and associated activities. B. D.mentioned above. spaces and actors. which are typical for waterfront areas.74 Regeneration of waterfronts usually takes place within a complicated net of different actors. should be mixed with privately managed activities. (2000). (2001). 23-24 75 Hoyle. such as government offices and museums. p.75 Port authorities often have a
Bruttomesso. This refers to functions. it is possible that the area obtains the character of being a lively connection zone between city and water and at the same time being a central area. The different actors at a functionally and spatially mixed waterfront usually have different systems to manage these zones. Taking these measures into account. the functions should be carefully balanced. which is picturesque but artificial. which is closely linked to the heart of the city. p. R. the regeneration process in these areas should aim to create new jobs and to reintegrate the local inhabitants into the labour market.73 The structural change in ports and waterfront areas resulted in many cities in high unemployment. Also. R. roads and parks should be joined by private spaces like gardens and clubs. p. Traditional public spaces like squares. so that the area does not become a zone exclusively for visitors. keeping alive the memory of the past and contributing to the identity of the place.72 The co-presence of public and private usually makes waterfront zones more interesting. Functions and activities from the public domain. different interests and different property ownership. 43 Bruttomesso. It must be noted. 44 74 Schubert.
the regeneration is almost completely left to the investors and market forces. Also. In many regeneration projects one focus was to make the waterfront a pedestrian zone by restricting vehicle traffic. p. which might make cooperation with them difficult. so that the waterfront becomes an active part of the city. D. In many countries. (2001). pleasant and safe access for pedestrians. which is dictated by the city budget. p. A crucial issue is easy. R.78 In order to ensure the quality of the area. esplanades along the water and the establishment of ferry connections can help to revitalize the waterfronts. (2001a). All this makes these areas very difficult to access.76 One condition for successful waterfront regeneration is to open up previously inaccessible areas for the public. 27 Bruttomesso. in many cases private properties and industries are located directly on the water. Public access possibilities. however limit the mobility
Schubert. integrated and participatory mode of planning.special status in the city. However. This resulted in the fact that many waterfronts have become one of the main pedestrian areas in the city. Access of private vehicles was limited. Such a strategy may not. the overall development needs of the city and the needs of the local residents. Another possible conflict is the gap between the interests of the investors. 45 78 Schubert. Sustainable and socially sound urban development policy is often in contradiction to the political reality in the city.77 It is a worldwide phenomenon that waterfronts often are cut off from the rest of the city by barriers and transport corridors. the restructuring of the waterfront also offers the opportunity to use a new. the quantity of vehicles was regulated and routes within the area were accurately defined. (2001a). These factors make integrated strategies for waterfront redevelopment almost impossible and encourage the emergence of uncoordinated independent projects. the measures of the city to regulate development and necessity of short-term success within an election period. D. 26
. p. which can be used by inhabitants and visitors. it must be guaranteed that it is easily accessible.
R. which is usable by residents and visitors. Thus. As urban development in Eastern European cities is usually dominated by private actors and driven by the market. R. This has many advantages. 46 81 Interview with P%teris Bl&ms.81
Bruttomesso. The possibilities that it offers for various uses – today mostly linked to leisure activities – add a certain value to the area.80 An issue that is extremely important in the post-socialist context is the accumulation and circulation of capital.12. who realised the potential of these areas to generate profit.79 The unique location of waterfronts offers the possibility to connect them to other parts of the city by waterborne transport. (2001). 45-46 Bruttomesso. including the land areas. In contrast. Since land has been understood as a value again. profit is usually the major concern in development projects. the development of effective public transport connections is extremely important. p. Clean water means an extension of the open area.2006
. Therefore the possibilities to establish waterborne transport should be fully exploited and the public should be encouraged to rediscover the water as a means of transport. p. waterfronts have developed into an important target for private developers.of residents and visitors. Successful waterfront regeneration is also dependent on the quality of the water. 14. unsatisfactory water quality lowers the quality of the entire waterfront zone. as it takes away some pressure from the streets in the city and it presents a pleasant kind of transport. (2001).
A. 267-268 85 Pope. p. It was the main reason for the founding of the city at this location. A. away from the city centre and a railway connection was established.2006 87 Pope. this connection was gradually lost. p.82 Where the Riga River meets the river Daugava. Egils (1998). One reason was that the port lost much of its importance due to strategic and political mistakes and its unfavourable location in the bay of Riga. On !"psala.84 A pontoon bridge on the river Daugava became an important nodal point between sea trade and river trade. and throughout the city history the port has played a crucial role for urban development. blocking much of the seaborne traffic from the central parts of the city.85 Since the end of the 19th century. p. 269 88 Interview with P%teris Bl&ms.83 In the 19th century it developed into the biggest export port of the Russian Empire. The biggest impact in this context had the construction of the cable-bridge Van)u tilts between central Riga and !"psala in 1981. which is too low to let sailing yachts or bigger motor ships pass. (2000). 14. A. (2005). 9 Harder-Gersdorff. 88 Buildings for port related activities were abandoned. since an important part of the city life took place along the quays. a port existed even before the city of Riga was founded in 1201. City and river were closely connected.2006
. and also the fishing business that had dominated the island for centuries lost its
Kocers.86 In 1872. The remaining port activities were located closer to the river mouth. (2000). the first stationary bridge was built. (2000). The place has always been an important gateway between East and West. 12. 265 86 Interview with Jonas Büchel.87 More bridges followed. warehouses and wharfs lost their function and disappeared.12. p. 261 84 Pope. Riga has a unique location on the bank of an important river and at the seaside. p. E. some historians even claim that Riga had the biggest port worldwide for the export of timber.3 Waterfront redevelopment in Riga
In comparison to the other capitals in the Baltic Sea Region context. however.12.
major streets were built along the banks of the river Daugava. http://www. R. because in Soviet times planners had different priorities than waterfronts and in the underused port areas some activities were (and are) still going on. who started to redevelop a historical area on !"psala. there are more than 400 kilometers of coastline within the city borders91. Comparing to Western European cities.12. thus opening up new possibilities for revitalisation projects.importance.12. 15.2006 91 Interview with Gvido Princis.93 Thus. Novembra Krastmala between the old town and the river. (2006). the borders of the port were officially changed. such as one of the last remaining dockland areas in Europe.lv (17. 89 In Soviet times.90 Today. p.12.94 His projects form the focus of my case study. The maritime atmosphere that had once dominated Riga was completely lost. Today. The port areas – used or unused – were no longer publicly accessible. 19. 12. The most discussed ones in the central parts of the city will be presented below. 14.12. 7 93 Interview with Edgars S&na.2006 94 SIA MG.2007)
. All this had the effect of disintegrating city and water.05.2006 Interview with Jonas Büchel. et al. In 2005.mg.or underused areas with a unique potential for redevelopment. this reevaluation of waterfront areas has occurred rather late. among them un.
Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs. there are dozens of different initiatives concerning waterfront redevelopment in the city.2006 92 Koolhaas.92 Only recently the city council and private investors have rediscovered the value of the waterfront and developed plans of how to use its enormous potential. the most important one being 11. only in the mid-1990s an initial interest in one of these areas emerged by the private developer M#ris Gailis.
96 The wooden fishermen`s houses still exist today.12.98 Already in those days a few officials of the Soviet regime discovered the island and built their villas there. It is unsure. p. p. the original social structure of the island was
R"gas Dome (2005a). which usually were not connected to the electricity. p. the character of the island started to change drastically. when *agaru island.). heating or canalisation system of the rest of the city. A. (2001). Burk#nu island and some smaller islands grew together. which made the island grow gradually.95 Until the 1960s the island remained a rather rural place with a fishermen`s village and many greeneries. There were built many new structures in Soviet style.p. p. Now the entire ensemble is protected as a historical monument of national significance. where the name !"psala exactly derives from. 3 +rgalis. It was created only in the 18th century. but also some small wharfs operated on the island. such as housing blocks. who lived on the island. Only in the beginning of the 20th century this name was first mentioned in official documents. The buildings of the gypsum factory are from the end of the 19th century.2006
. many fishermen moved away and the wharves and storage houses on the island lost their function. there are stories told that !"psala was named after a fisherman called !"pa.99 At the same time the fishing business lost its importance.1 Introduction to the case study area
!"psala is a very young island. 12. Criminality was on the rise. 5 99 Interview with Jonas Büchel. 1 98 R"gas Dome (2005a). In the east of the island there was built a dam and sand was accumulated.3. The dominant businesses were fishing and rafting. Since then. Rather weak social groups with a very low income and a low standard of education moved into the old houses on the island. 94 97 Zaigas Gailes Birojs (2001 n. the campus of the Riga Technical University and an exhibition hall. However.97 In the 1970s.
101 Today. Reasons for the extremely rising popularity of this place are the close location to the city centre.300 students in the dormitories on the campus of the Riga Technical University.100 In the mid-1990s. The direct neighbourhood of rich and poor.12. the excellent view from many locations and the historical setting. p. The original residents are forced to leave the area because of rising rents and !"psala is again undergoing a dramatic change regarding its population and social structure. which has a territory of 110. gives the area a very special atmosphere.102 The main territorial complexes on the island are the RTU campus with its dormitories. including 1. Unfortunately there are no separate population statistics for !"psala. 3
. restored buildings and buildings in decay. the press building Preses Nams. which makes statements about the residents there rather difficult. 14.already in decay. the high-rise building of the Hanza bank.12. restoring the old fishermen`s houses and the gypsum factory and attracting the financial elite of the country to the island. 19.2006 Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs. Some descendants of the fishermen. however. It is in the development from one of the poorest to one of the most exclusive and most expensive areas in the city.2006 102 R"gas Dome (2005a). Since then. 2. If the developments continue as they do now. the private developer M#ris Gailis and his company MG started large-scale real estate projects in the historical part of !"psala and the adjacent areas. and still there are some families who have been living on the island for several generations. processes like gentrification and segregation are taking place to a large extent. public swimming pool and the largest exhibition hall of the Baltic States. However. it will be only a matter of time until the last original residents have left and the island will be a completely exclusive place.1 ha.200 inhabitants live on the island. remained on !"psala. currently there are still some unrenovated places housing original residents with a very low income and social status. the shopping mall Olympia and a huge shop of construction materials in the north of
Interview with P%teris Bl&ms.
special rules and regulations apply to it. It consists of three main documents: •
Riga long-term development strategy until 2025
R"gas Dome (2005a). Recently built complexes like Hanza bank and Olympia added on the basis of own observations. 3 107 Wikipedia.2007) 108 Interview with P%teris Bl&ms. concerning the maximum height of buildings. p. 7 106 R"gas Dome (2005a).108
3.2 Legal framework for waterfront redevelopment projects in Riga
The Riga development plan forms the administrative context for waterfront redevelopment in the city.g. p. 14. Oglu iela. e. The majority of these buildings are located between !"psalas iela.06.104 In terms of size and population this area is not the dominant structure on !"psala. 4.12.106 The buffer zone functions as a protection belt around the historical UNESCO area. Riga. Balasta Dambis.wikipedia.!"psala. http://en. p. which even threatened the city council with removing Riga from the list of world heritage sites.105 Since 1997 the entire island is part of the UNESCO buffer zone around the world heritage Jugendstil centre of Riga. p. 104 R"gas Dome (2005b). it has repeatedly got into conflict with the UNESCO board.66 ha and comprises more than 30 wooden buildings. Lo'u iela and the inner border of Zunda (the channel between !"psala and Pardaugava).103 The protected historical part covers an area of 23. Since the city council nevertheless promotes high-rise constructions in this area. 1 105 R"gas Dome (2005a). Enkura iela.107 Currently there is again a conflict between the architects of the city council and the UNESCO officials concerning the plans for a new commercial centre in the south of !"psala and on Kl"versala. but it has an important meaning as the historical heart of the island.2006
. Therefore.org/wiki/Riga (03.
which is most important for urban planning in Riga. In this document it is defined. the main development targets and planning guidelines as well as a model to supervise the implementation of the plans. which zones in the city may be used for which functions. which are essential in the context of waterfront redevelopment: For the different areas in the city there exist detailed plans.110 The Riga spatial plan 2006-2018 presents the land use policy of the city. Since all the waterfront projects mentioned in this paper are located within the buffer zone of the UNESCO world heritage area.112 It shall be analysed later in this chapter. Riga City Council (2005c) 112 R"gas Dome (2005a) 113 CDD. Thus. the infrastructure and planned developments. Furthermore it describes the interests of the city. It formulates tasks. and they have to follow certain regulations which are defined
CDD. Riga City Council (2005b) CDD.109 The development programme 2006-2012 concretizes the development priorities. it serves as an umbrella document for both the development programme and the spatial plan. Such a plan also exists for !"psala.111 In addition to that there are several other official documents. It is the only of the main documents.• •
Riga development programme 2006-2012 Riga spatial plan 2006-2018
The long-term development strategy presents the overall visions for future development of the city. Riga City Council (2006b)
. which further concretize the zoning for this neighbourhood. which are defined in the long-term strategy. Riga City Council (2005a) 111 CDD. the specially designed planning document for the historical centre of Riga (“Planning of the Riga Historical Centre and its Protection Zone Territory”113) applies to them. which is legally binding and according to experts it is also the one. projects and programmes in order to promote the social and economical development of the city of Riga.
p. ‘socially supported and well-cared’. ‘family-oriented’.in the document “Building Regulations for Riga Historical Centre and its Protection Zones”114. The vision for the society is that it is ‘well-provided’. the city shall be ‘comfortably and easily accessible’. since their implementation is problematic and the few existing binding rules are possible to by-pass. Riga City Council (2006a) CDD. ‘urban environment’ and ‘city administration’. as well as the theoretical restrictions that the building regulations pose on the projects. ‘healthy and active’. Concerning the urban environment.1 Long-term development strategy until 2025
The long-term development strategy is themed: “Riga – opportunity for everyone”. Riga City Council (2005b). partner-like and with a high added value. ‘safe’. Therefore the status of waterfront projects in the respective plans. so that Riga becomes internationally competitive and might take a connecting function between East and West in economic terms. shall be analysed below. All this shall contribute to an efficiently managed city.
3. nevertheless they form the administrative and legal context for waterfront redevelopments in Riga. ‘clean’ and ‘green’ and provide the inhabitants with ‘quality housing’. 23
. ‘society’ and ‘urban environment’. It defines main goals concerning the ‘social and economic sphere’.115
CDD. The urban economy in Riga shall ideally be versatile and growing. corresponding to the three development pillars that the city defined: ‘economy’. ‘informed’ and ‘mentally rich’. Even though later in this paper we will see that in reality these plans and regulations are only of a very limited value.2. in which the inhabitants like to live.
116 Therefore special attention should be paid to these areas.Waterfront issues are explicitly mentioned in the long-term development strategy. entertainment and sport in Riga. It is. 28 118 CDD. however.2 Development Programme 2006-2012
The development programme gives an overview on the current situation in terms of population. Inefficiently used waterfronts are identified as one of the weaknesses in the urban environment of the city. infrastructure. which currently often are run-down territories. social services. housing. healthcare. renovating and using the cultural heritage of the city. environment. Furthermore it presents the resources of the municipality and the city council. before it comes to the development perspective of the city with its opportunities and problems. 22 CDD. Riga City Council (2005b). Another one is the promotion of water territories for various kinds of recreation. but also focusing on public space. altogether 17. culture. Their big development potential should be used to promote “Riga`s economical development as well as improvement of the urban environment and increasing peoples` satisfaction with it”. while a third one stresses the importance of preserving.2. But
CDD. education. Waterfront redevelopment is not explicitly mentioned in this document. p. 52-53
. Riga City Council (2005b). It also deals with the implementation and the monitoring of the development programme.6%. economy. stated that water areas make a considerable share of the city´s territory. p. p.118
3. tourism. even forms one of the 14 basic concepts of spatial planning in Riga.117 Ensuring the development and accessibility of waterfronts in order to establish a high-quality living and business environment. Riga City Council (2005b).
Riga City Council (2005a). Preservation and development of historical spatial structures and
CDD. goals and visions for the city of Riga. but also all the other topics identified in the long-term strategy appear in this document. p. the spatial plan presents the developments in Riga in the international. which supplements the spatial plan for 2006-2018.121 The development of waterfronts only appears in the recapitulation of the basic concepts of spatial planning in Riga. which originate from the document on the long-term development strategy. they are not efficiently used in Riga.unlike in other cities in the Baltic Sea Region.120
3. Riga City Council (2005c).4 Planning of the Riga Historical Centre and its Protection Zone Territory
This document is a special plan for the preservation and development of the historical environment in the centre of Riga. p. 156 121 CDD. development of by-water territories should be enforced.2. 5 CDD.3 Riga Spatial Plan 2006-2018
After outlining the development preconditions.122 Apart from this repetition there are no references to waterfronts at all in the entire document. Riga City Council (2005a).2. national and regional context and deals then with the policies of the city council concerning the current fields of development. Issues that seem to be of special importance. p. since they have been dealt with most extensively are environment and transport. 24
. 2-3 122 CDD. such as Stockholm and Helsinki. Riga City Council (2005c). p.119 Thus. It is a binding political document.
p. 26 CDD.public spaces in the city – including streets. saying that the waterfronts in the historical protection zone including !"psala. it focuses mainly on development possibilities for the embankment of the river Daugava along the old town. water bodies and embankments. p. Another focal point mentioned in this subchapter is the embankments of certain city canals. It was especially designed for the UNESCO world heritage area and its buffer zone in order to fulfil the criteria set by the UNESCO. 81-84 125 CDD. parks and waterfronts – is one of the main development objectives in the document. Riga City Council (2006b). Andrejsala and Exportosta should be arranged as plantation territories. Riga City Council (2006b).5 Building regulations in the historical centre and the buffer zone
These binding regulations shall regulate the preservation.2. squares. boulevards. Since the island of !"psala is located in the UNESCO buffer zone. are mentioned in various chapters in this document. The areas of the projects. renovation and use of cultural heritage. commercial and industrial buildings of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century
CDD. renovation and construction within the historical centre of Riga and the adjacent protected territories. However. p.125 Different regulations exist for different areas.123 Concerning the development of public open space there is a complete subchapter about historical watercourses.
3. including the industrial heritage of the city. the regulations for the historical part of the island are as followed (extract): • The spatial character of the cultural heritage environment comprising residential. suggesting making it a pedestrian area with (maritime) recreation facilities. which are mainly dealt with in this paper. Riga City Council (2006a). which should be developed into an embankment park. 7
.124 The preservation. Andrejosta. are only marginally tackled in the document.
Special reference is made to the historical part of !"psala including the wooden houses and the factory buildings.as well as the character of streets and squares of shall be preserved • • • • • • Principles of house displacement and of spatial planning shall be preserved Views from the streets into inner yard areas shall be preserved Stone bank protection of the river Daugava shall be preserved Street surfacing of block-stone and cobble-stone pavement shall be preserved The banked side of CD dam shall be developed as public outdoors space Only certain fence types and fence heights are allowed126
The building heights for the !"psala area are defined on the map “Basic Provisions for Building in the RHC and its Protection Zone”. an analysis of the spatial structure of the island. 10 128 R"gas Dome (2005a).128 The detailed plan acknowledges the importance of !"psala for the rest of Riga. stating that the island is an important historical landscape and one of the most visible areas in the
CDD. Riga City Council (2006a). Riga City Council (2006a). p.127
3.2. According to law No. the height should not exceed 24 meters. this area is listed as a protected historical ensemble of national significance. 3-4
. Thus. If the maximum number of storeys for a plot is not indicated on this map. 1284 by the Cultural Ministry of Latvia from 1998. p. special regulations apply to it and to a protection zone of 100 meters around it. p. 56 CDD. which are the main focus of this thesis.6 Detailed Plan !#psala
The detailed plan contains a description of !"psala in relation to the development programme of Riga. the current situation and planned developments in the field of transport and a short presentation of the real estate situation on the island.
p. 1-7 131 R"gas Dome (2005b). low residential buildings. p. It is mainly for lowrise residential use. While in some areas the commercial space may be built up with an extremely high density and the maximum number of floors ranging from one to three in D3 to up to 40 in D8. 3-4
. 3-6. where on the island these functions are located and which building regulations apply to them. p.129 Functionally.130 The zoning map shows. which have been developed since the 1970s. commercial and public functions as well as a small area with greeneries and space. a belt of ten meters width along the shoreline). They have various uses. and the historical gypsum factory where one part has been restored while the other part is currently under restoration.131 Spatially. The historical area is located in the middle part of the island. please see the extract of the zoning map (Appendix 1).g. p. This is due to its location on the river Daugava almost opposite the old town of Riga. which is not allowed to be used (e.entire city. depending on the location. !"psala can be divided into the protected historical part and an area of newer constructions. mixed-use areas with residential. shopping and hotel complexes and the RTU campus. Therefore. !"psala can be divided into several parts: commercial territories and high-rise buildings. public buildings. with high-rise commercial and residential centres with high density on each end of the island and the low historical area with a lower density in its middle-part. For a visual impression of the zoning on the island. 5 R"gas Dome (2005b). The newer areas are mostly located in the northern and southern parts of !"psala. including Soviet residential blocks.132
R"gas Dome (2005a). the historical residential area and the mixed-use area may not have more than three or four floors. special attention should be paid to the development of the silhouette of !"psala. The plan suggests a silhouette reminding of a fan. 132 R"gas Dome (2005a). The historical area mainly consists of old fishermen houses. which to a great extent have been restored already.
Since this connection attracts also a lot of east-west transit traffic.
R"gas Dome (2005a). which is relevant for my focal area.133 Currently there are four bridges on the island. p. 14-15
. three of them are minor bridges connecting !"psala and Pardaugava. However. the historical part of the island. Along the shoreline of the channel Zunda the city council reserved a territory for another street.2 to 2. As a general principle for the developments on !"psala it is formulated in the detailed plan.There are three forms of traffic affecting the island: ‘traffic within the island’. while only one bridge – Van)u tilts – forms the only connection between !"psala and central Riga. are generally called).5 times higher than today. 8-11 135 R"gas Dome (2005a).e. maybe resulting in the fact that the whole island becomes a place for transit traffic. p.135 More information from the detailed plan. which within ten years are assumed to be 2. it would also mean increased traffic on !"psala in the north-south direction. Concerning the protected historical ensemble it is regarded as important to conserve the historical building substance as much as possible. will be given in the context of the presentation of this area within the case study. 8 R"gas Dome (2005a). i. it causes a lot of transport problems on southern !"psala.134 However. that the existing buildings should be conserved wherever possible. also in the northern part of the island. connecting central Riga with Pardaugava (as the parts of the city. ‘traffic connecting !"psala with other parts of Riga’ and ‘transit traffic between the left and the right bank of the river’. which are located on the left bank of the river Daugava. The detailed plan states that there are several more connections planned in the future: one bridge or tunnel – called Hanza crossing – across the Daugava connecting central Riga with the northern part of !"psala and at least one more bridge across the channel Zunda between !"psala and Pardaugava. to minimise the affects of traffic – if necessary by restrictions in form of one way streets or denied access – and to ensure the accessibility of the waterfront on the banks of the river Daugava and the channel Zunda for bikers and pedestrians. These developments shall solve the traffic problems. p.
17. This shows that even though the city has identified those areas as potential development zones. In the most relevant plan for urban planning in Riga. which provide a legal basis to regulate the developments.12. who state that the implementation of the visions of the city council is usually left for private investors and the market136. the more concrete the plan. the less the issue is tackled.3.12. he will build it. However.7 Evaluation of the development plans
From the fact that in the three main development plans of the city of Riga waterfront redevelopment is discussed most extensively in the long term development strategy and almost not at all in the spatial plan one can in my opinion draw conclusions about the official status of waterfront redevelopment in Riga: It becomes clear that the Urban Planning Department has realised the challenge of derelict waterfront areas and it also has a very general vision about how to develop and use these areas.2. the spatial plan. it has no concrete strategy of how to develop them.2006 Interview with Jonas Büchel. but the actual implementation is mostly left to private actors and the market. 15.2006.11.137 There are few laws (such as the building regulations). 11. This impression goes well in line with the evaluation of urban planning in Riga by planning experts and even by representatives of the city council.”138 These limits of urban planning might be a
Interview with Jonas Büchel.2006
. As one urban planner puts it: “If an investor really wants to build something. as can be seen in the long term development strategy. The city council hardly has any measures to regulate or supervise the developments. but investors usually find a way to avoid those laws and carry out their projects anyway. Interview with Gvido Princis. The development documents rather formulate a “wish-list” of the city concerning the direction of urban development.2006 138 Interview with Inese Baranovska and Mario Zetzsche.12. waterfront redevelopment is hardly mentioned. 11.
2006 141 Nawratek. This impression is even supported by Gvido Princis from the Riga city council. which the city is not able and in some cases also not willing to control. Indeed they can express their demands and their opinions about the plans in official procedures.
Feldman. Therefore in my opinion it would be necessary to create a formal procedure of public participation. but rather single independent and private projects.rigaplans. (2000). Or as a Polish architect living in Riga claims: “RDP [Riga Development Plan] 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”141.06. but the authorities do not have to take these opinions into consideration. 15. M.12.. The missing regulation instruments result in the fact. since Merje Feldman noticed a similar situation in her study about Tallinn. and since the few binding regulations in practice are possible to by-pass. I think that the development plans are only of extremely limited value.140 The result of these developments is that the city lacks a clear structure. 833 Interview with Gvido Princis. that in reality there is no overall concept for development.net/en/ (14. Another issue that I see critical is that the inhabitants of Riga have no real possibility to influence the urban development as it is formulated in the plans. http://www. which makes it also hard to predict its future developments.typical feature of planning in the Baltic States.139 I regard development plans as the main tool to regulate urban development. But a tool only works if it is effectively implemented.2007)
. not just consultation. K. Since the city lacks the instruments for its implementation. p. who confirms that the city does not have an overall vision for its waterfronts and that the urban development is almost exclusively driven by the market.
Complete objectivity. the interviewees and their background were the following: Concerning the !"psala case: • M#ris Gailis. and to get a deeper insight into the developments in the historical part of !"psala. The empirical research consisted of two different parts: narrative interviews with key persons involved in current waterfront projects – namely the ones on !"psala. is in my opinion not possible. so that the results of the research are as objective as possible. This mixture of interview partners with different backgrounds should ensure that different interests and perspectives are taken into account. In concrete terms. the Riga Port City project on Andrejsala and the Jaunie „Tr"s br#. Most of the findings presented in this chapter are based on fieldwork carried out in Riga between October 2006 and January 2007.i” project in three central waterfront locations – on the one hand. and questionnaires with residents from my focal area on the other hand. the developer of the gypsum factory and the wooden houses as well as some other residential projects on !"psala. who after
. however. as also the local experts come from a certain background and give their very personal view on the developments in Riga. The interview partners were carefully chosen and consisted of actors actively involved in the developments.4 Case Study !"psala
The following pages present and analyse the case of the restoration projects in the protected historical zone on the island of !"psala. He is the former prime minister of Latvia. but also (more) independent local experts and a representative of the Urban Planning Department of the Riga City Council. The interviews were carried out in order to get an overview on urban planning in Riga in general and the current waterfront projects.
06. also a representative of the state agency J3B. community participation and socially sound urban planning.06. http://www.php?sadala=5 (01.withdrawal from politics started a real estate company called MG.lv/ (01.j3b. http://www.lv/index.144 (email interview) Concerning other redevelopment projects: • Inese Baranovska and Mario Zetzsche. the Concert Hall and the National Library.lv/index.05.jau.145 • • Astr"da Rogule.lv/ (01. the architect. As M#ris Gailis´ wife and a well-known Latvian architect she is responsible for the actual restoration process both at the gypsum factory and for the wooden houses.142 • Zaiga Gaile.2007) 147 JAU. the Austrian investor who is the strategic partner of MG in the !"psala projects.2007)
.146 Aigars Ku)-is. which is now active in the real estate development of the historical part of !"psala. at that time consultant at the German political foundation Friedrich-EbertStiftung.com/ (01.i” (New Three Brothers – J3B).11. 14. representative of Jaunr"gas att"st"bas uz. http://www.06.2006 144 PMT.lv (17. http://www. responsible for the CAM.2007) 148 Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. the development company of the Riga Port City project on Andrejsala.j3b. representatives of the state agency Jaunie „Tr"s br#.148
SIA MG.2007) 145 J3B. http://www.2007) 146 J3B. http://www.06.147 (email interview) Local experts: • Jonas Büchel. Since she and her husband live themselves in one the restored wooden houses right at the waterfront.fes-baltic.pmteuropa.gov. focuses on sustainable restoration of residential buildings.%mums (New Development Agency – JAU).mg.php?sadala=5 (01.gov. they also have a personal interest in developing the area. which is responsible for the planning and implementation of the three cultural projects on the waterfront: the Contemporary Art Museum (CAM).143 • Edgar Schieder. representative of Project Management Team (PMT).06.2007) Interview with Zaiga Gaile.
06.asp#struktura (01. because they belong to the wealthiest people of the country and were not willing to receive any visitors.152 In order to get an impression of the opinions of the residents in the historical part of !"psala. lecturer in the Department of Geography at the University of Latvia. with four residents of the gypsum factory and with four residents of the new town houses built by M#ris Gailis. architect and deputy director of the Urban Planning Department of the Riga City Council.2007) 152 Freeport of Riga Authority. I spoke with 25 original residents. http://www.lv/eng/parvalde. which are situated in the direct neighbourhood of the gypsum factory and some wooden houses. one for the original residents of the island and one for the new residents.149
Andis Kubla'ovs. Additionally.2006 University of Latvia. There were two different questionnaires designed. self-dependent architect and conservation specialist.lv/working%5Ftime/ (01.06.html (01. 14. head of the Strategic Planning Department at the Freeport of Riga Authority. http://www. focuses on the sustainable restoration of the wooden architecture in Riga.•
P%teris Bl&ms.lu. Formerly he worked at the Urban Planning Department of the Riga City Council. where he was one of the people responsible for the creation of the new development programme.rdpad.lv/fakultates/gzzf/geografija/cilveks.06. The closed questions were analysed using SPSS. Anita Pluce. Unfortunately it was not possible to get any opinions of residents of the reconstructed wooden houses. a Latvian translator with a good command of Russian. 33 questionnaires with both open and closed questions were filled in.2007) 151 R"gas Dome. http://www. The questionnaires were designed in Latvian. English and Russian. especially focusing on urban planning.
Interview with P%teris Bl&ms.rigasbrivosta.150
City Council: • Gvido Princis.12.151 Port Authorities: • Edgars S&na.2007)
. while the open questions were categorised and summarised.
4. while others are in rather peripheral areas of the city. However. p. Some are very centrally located. Waterfront redevelopment in Riga must rather be described as a number of small. The regeneration of the architectural heritage of waterfront locations is carried out in some places like on !"psala or the Riga Port City project. Most of them consist of completely new developments. independent projects by private developers.
Interview with Gvido Princis.2006 155 Riga City Development Department (2006).155 This chapter presents a selection of the main projects in the central part of Riga.154 There are projects on both banks of the river Daugava.1 !"psala in the context of current waterfront projects in Riga
The need to redevelop waterfront areas in order to reintegrate them into the city is formulated in the major planning documents. 153 The only exception is the state initiative J3B.2006 Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs. 1-19
. and – as some say – the interest to control them. the city council is neither directly involved in the revitalisation projects nor does it have the measures. This makes the Riga waterfront a scattered mosaic of different projects. which are sometimes contradicting each other. as can be seen above.12.was present during the entire research on the island in order to ensure a successful communication between the residents and me. which will be presented later in this chapter. actors. 15. 19. interests and visions.12. but is not yet a very common practice. an overall vision of the city council for the waterfront is missing. Even though it claims the need for redevelopment.
. primarily for real estate development. http://www.157 Since it started only a few years after the regaining of independence in 1991. In the mid-1990s. which today is at least partly finished.06. it is the only waterfront initiative in Riga.
Own illustration based on Google Maps.lv (17.mg. he started the construction of 41 townhouses in central !"psala.1. 5: LOCATION OF THE MAIN WATERFRONT PROJECTS IN CENTRAL RIGA156
4. while all the other initiatives are still in the planning stage.de/ (18. Currently the second part of the gypsum factory is under construction and the restoration of even more wooden houses is planned. analysed and evaluated.05. The next steps were the restoration of a part of the B%ma gypsum factory.2007) SIA MG.1 !#psala
The first waterfront related initiative in Riga was the projects carried out by the private developer M#ris Gailis on !"psala.google. On !"psala. some results of the regeneration process can already be seen. and the restoration of a number of historical wooden fishermen`s dwellings.
. offices. 07. who plans to preserve the industrial heritage within a modern glass cocoon.2006 Email interview with Aigars Ku)-is.159 However. U. 40 162 Biedri. even though it is not a protected building. Additionally.158 The redevelopment of the former port territories aims to establish a multifunctional and high-quality urban area as a vivid part of the city centre. They are mostly financed by private money./Liepi.2006 160 Email interview with Aigars Ku)-is.).2006 161 Tirons. Eksportosta and the adjacent territories.161 The building. The target groups for the housing shall be well-situated professionals or pensioners interested in fashioned lifestyle and water-related activities. the most important “anchoring” function of the area will be culture: the most important object in the area will be the CAM and creative businesses and education connected to it.12. A. All in all the area covers 123 ha. JAU wants to show evidence of the history of the site in order to establish a place with a unique character. different kinds of businesses.160 The museum will be placed in an old electric power plant.162 Other former industrial buildings shall be renovated and used for new functions as well. (2006).1. which will be reconstructed by the internationally renowned architect Rem Koolhaas. The planned focus is on mixed-use. By this.). 07.12. including the historical Krasta railway station and the so-called grain elevator. a private development company founded by Riga Freeport Authority and the Norwegian enterprise Port Pro AS in 2001. (2002).12. which dates from 1905. p.2 Riga Port City
Riga Port City is a development project comprising the former area of the port of Riga on the right bank of the river Daugava – Andrejsala. p. the dominant functions being housing. which receives some state funding. E.4. apart from the CAM. retail and services like kindergartens. The developments are carried out by JAU. presents a fine example of industrial architecture. 07. some other cultural highlights like a small energy museum are
Email interview with Aigars Ku)-is.
12.2006 Koolhaas.164 Whether the planned heights of the new constructions will cause conflicts with the UNESCO. remains to be seen.2006 166 Interview with Jonas Büchel. Exportosta. Therefore the concept includes. Ltd.. The next stage of the project will be the development of the first area.165 JAU claims that they pay attention to a slow and sustainable transformation of the area. the landscape architectural office Inside Outside. inviting different groups of artists to the area.11. and the Latvian engineering company Grupa 93. the majority of the planned developments within the Riga Port City project will be new constructions. including the construction of the CAM.163 The transformation of the area will be carried out gradually: currently the developers are still in the planning stage. They shall be gradually withdrawn and then the redevelopment of the entire area shall be completed within the next 25 years. Still. (2006). 17. Information of the inhabitants of Riga and feedback play a crucial role in the planning process. They just have to pay for public
Email interview with Aigars Ku)-is. OMA.12. R. possibly due to the big influence of Rem Koolhaas on the entire project. that people like to use during all times of the day. The concept is currently under assessment. 12. 07. since the project area is located in the UNESCO buffer zone. that the main exhibition of the CAM will be for free and that there will be activities day and night. et al. Andrejsala. Ove Arup & Partners.2006 167 Interview with Astr"da Rogule. p.12.166 The planners want to develop a lively area. port activities are still going on. In the bigger part of the project territory. A master plan for the development of the area has just been worked out by Rem Koolhaas and his architectural office. 57 165 Email interview with Aigars Ku)-is. which shall be accessible for all kinds of visitors and inhabitants around the clock – and area.2006
. which takes into account the needs and wishes of the future society.planned. 07.167 A unique feature of this initiative is that JAU already now opened a part of Andrejsala for the public.
aivp.169 Since the project is still in the planning stage it is hard to have a qualified opinion about it. The planning concept however – slow and balanced development involving the inhabitants and finding new uses for the industrial heritage of the territory – seems promising to me.
4.1. 07.11. the frequent concerts. 17.171 The projects formally started with an international workshop of architects who decided on the best locations for the three projects. the new Concert Hall and the CAM.168 The agreement with the artists runs out in May 2008 but might be prolonged.2007) 171 Bryzgel. (2006). otherwise they may use the old port buildings for free.facilities.2006 Email interview with Aigars Ku)-is. Afterwards.2006 170 IACP.html (03.3 Cultural projects by J3B
The state agency J3B was created in April 2005 as an umbrella organisation.170 While the museum will be housed in an already existing building. 21
. which is responsible for the development of three major cultural projects along the waterfront: the National Library. while Rem Koolhaas was invited to
Interview with Inese Baranovska and Mario Zetzsche.org/article1593_english.06. http://www. This was a clever marketing strategy to place this former closed area on the mental map of the Rigans: today. under the condition. the National Library and the Concert Hall are completely new constructions which will be placed on the left bank of the river Daugava.12. A. the last one in cooperation with JAU. exhibitions and festivals attract a lot of (mostly young) people to the area and Andrejsala is very well known among the inhabitants of the city. there were design competitions organised for the National Library and the Concert Hall. that they regularly organise cultural events for the public in this area. It also results in a positive public attitude towards the planned developments of the Riga Port City. p.
but also develop the adjacent areas as attractive public spaces.2006 176 Bryzgel. 21
.make a proposal for the CAM.11. it is also hoped that they will contribute to upgrade Pardaugava (as the parts of the city lying on the left side of the river are called) in comparison to central Riga on the right bank.2006 175 Interview with Inese Baranovska and Mario Zetzsche. they shall be used by all kinds of people. 17.172 The results of the competition were eye-catching pieces of architecture: the National Library resembles a mountain in the middle of the city and is also called “Castle of Light”. so that the places will not fall abandoned in the evenings. that the architects not only design the buildings. which makes an evaluation today very difficult.175 According to a survey by the research centre Latvijas Fakti. 21 174 Interview with Inese Baranovska and Mario Zetzsche. A. 71% the Concert Hall and 62% the CAM. The experts I talked to. all buildings will also include conference halls. Since two of the projects are located on the left bank of the river Daugava.2006 Bryzgel. (2006). Even though all projects are located within the UNESCO buffer zone. If they can be realised the way
Interview with Inese Baranovska and Mario Zetzsche. p. In addition to their primary functions.174 In the design competitions it was considered important.11. p. cafés and shops. since traditionally the public interest towards cultural projects is rather low. (2006). however. The UNESCO even officially supports the National Library project. restaurants. 17.173 Thus.176 All projects are still in the planning stage and will not be completed before 2010. agreed that all buildings are of crucial significance for the Riga waterfront. 17. A. that parts of the buildings will be accessible for the public for almost 24 hours a day. there are currently no conflicts between the plans and the UNESCO regulations. These numbers are widely regarded as extremely positive. 78% of the population support the building of the National Library.11. so that it seems to be floating on the river Daugava. meeting spaces. not only by museum-goers or the concert audience. The Concert Hall will be built on a dam. The concepts include.
15. because they fear that the constructions lead to increased traffic problems which might have negative impacts on their restoration area. 183 The planned developments cause a conflict with the UNESCO. whether a city as Riga.2006. 14. Interview with Zaiga Gaile. since the plans do not respect the height limits set by the UNESCO.they are planned.11.12.182 They question also. but several investors. 15. they will provide the waterfront with interesting architectural highlights.12.2006 Interview with Gvido Princis.2006 183 Interview with Zaiga Gaile.11.177
4. 14. that the new commercial centre helps to give more value to the Pardaugava waterfront181.11. 4 180 Interview with Gvido Princis.12.2006 182 Interview with M#ris Gailis. Currently there is only the press building “Preses Nams” and the building of the Hanza bank.2006 184 Interview with P%teris Bl&ms. it is hard to predict how the area will look like in the future. p. which make the riverfront as a whole more attractive. which even suffers from a decreasing population. How this conflict will be solved.22.214.171.124 Since the planning is not in the hand of one. 22. but soon there will be more developments.180 The opinions towards this area are ambivalent: While some of my interview partners see the chance. is still open.184
Interview with Jonas Büchel. 11.4 New commercial centre on Kl#versala and !#psala
Various private investors plan a new commercial centre with high-rise buildings on Kl"versala and the southern part of !"psala. the actors involved in the restoration projects on !"psala – namely M#ris Gailis and Zaiga Gaile – are against the plans.2006 181 Interview with Jonas Büchel. 14.178 This is also mentioned in the detailed plan of !"psala. really needs highrise buildings on such a large scale.2006 179 R"gas Dome (2005b). 12. which defines some areas for commercial developments with up to 40 floors.2006
This makes it a quite dangerous place.4. Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs. that only if the street is put underground the potential of the waterfront could be fully used.2006 188 Interview with Jonas Büchel. the quay could be used as a marina for small boats and tourist cruises or water taxis.188 A second group is against the tunnel.12. cafés and some entertainment like festivals or waterfront concerts in order to make it a lively part of the city centre.2006. They claim. 19. that the geological structures in Riga are not suitable for building a tunnel on the bank of the river. Directly along the water a promenade was built. 12.5 Waterfront along the old town
A widely discussed issue in Riga is the missing connection between the old town and the riverfront. Interview with Jonas Büchel.2006. since there are hardly any traffic lights.2006
.12.189 Instead. 19. 19.2006 189 Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs. which neither inhabitants nor visitors like to use.1.12. They argue.2006 Interview with P%teris Bl&ms.186 The area should be exclusively for bikers and pedestrians and provide the visitors with a selection of restaurants.2006 190 Interview with Gvido Princis. 12. whether anything will happen in
Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs.12.12. so that it gets less attractive for cars. but right next to it there is 11. 15.12. 14.187 Also. 19. establishing a toll zone in the entire historical centre of Riga and an improved public transport with a park-and-ride system and public transport lanes. Furthermore the project would be too expensive and time-consuming. they favour a combined solution of building back the street. The street is almost impossible to cross.190 The discussion is still going on and it is not sure. Novembra Krastmala – one of the major streets of the city with heavy traffic – which blocks the old town from the river.2006 187 Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs.12.12.185 Currently several ideas of how to reconnect the old town to the water are discussed: One group of people claims that the only way to solve the traffic problem in this area is the construction of a tunnel or semi-tunnel along the river between the railway bridge and Van)u tilts.
but the need to transform the waterfront along the old town is very clear. Comparing all these different projects.this area in the near future. the detached houses on !"psala give the place a rather suburban character. The restoration aspect and also the location of the !"psala projects in the protected historical zone of the island contribute to the fact that the scale of these projects is very different to other waterfront initiatives. which often rely on eye-catching architecture of huge dimensions. At least theoretically conservation and preservation play an important role in the projects on !"psala. !"psala is also the only project that concentrates almost exclusively on housing (except for the restaurant). starting from the restoration of the gypsum factory and the wooden fishermen`s houses to the building of new row-houses. schools and sports facilities. only his activities in the protected historical part of !"psala are relevant: the gypsum factory project and the restoration of the wooden houses. so that the results of the developments can at least partly be seen already. but it is also the only project that primarily focuses on the restoration of already existing buildings with a historical value. In contrast to the big apartment blocks planned in other projects. How these principles have been put into practice can be seen later in this case study. the !"psala case is unique for Riga is several ways: Not only is it the only project that exceeded the planning stage. the so called town-houses. For this thesis.191
4. The factor that makes the gypsum factory
Interview with M#ris Gailis. 22.11. however. even though the developer currently tries to add some service and entertainment functions.2 The main regeneration projects on !"psala
M#ris Gailis and his company MG are active in several projects on !"psala.2006
p. which was torn down again some years later. Both buildings were well preserved and in a relatively good condition when the restoration process started. p.and those wooden houses.). http://maps. is their idyllic setting and the prime view towards the old town of Riga. In 1908 the building that is now called “Liela M#ja” – Big House – was constructed and in 1914 the last production building (in the project called “Holandie)u M#ja” – Dutch House) was built.
FIG. During the Soviet occupation the factory came into possession of the
Own illustration based on Google Maps.06.193 The factory worked as a production place for gypsum until World War II. Some of the factory buildings were in quite a poor condition. that are located directly at the shoreline. The buildings were built in different periods and designed in different styles.de/ (18. 6: LOCATION OF THE PROTECTED HISTORICAL AREA AND THE GYPSUM FACTORY PROJECT ON !$PSALA192
In 1882 the building of the B%ma gypsum factory started between the fishermen`s houses on !"psala.google. unique. The first building was a big wooden barn. 2
. when the reconstruction process started. In 1897 there followed a living house for the workers (in the project called “Veca M#ja” – Old House) and in 1899 the factory chimney of 32 meters height in the yard of the factory.2007) Zaigas Gailes Birojs (2001 n.
Nevertheless the main management responsibilities were
Zaigas Gailes Birojs (2001 n.p.196 Only then the concrete planning for the restoration could start.). 22. 14.11.195 In the end of the 1990s.2006. while the architectural work was carried out by Zaiga Gailes architectural office Zaigas Gailes Birojs. M#ris Gailis with his company MG was the only responsible developer.2006
. Later. even though many buildings were in a bad condition. p.2006 196 Interview with M#ris Gailis.p. 197 Zaigas Gailes Birojs (2001 n. p.11.Soviet army and worked as a laundry for the army. the army left and the buildings were abandoned. M#ris Gailis and his wife Zaiga developed the idea to restore the empty factory buildings in order to give them a new function: as quality and luxury apartments for people with a high income. so he developed a project partnership with the Austrian real estate company PMT. the restoration work was done by the company Tradima and the actual construction work was in the hands of the construction company Re & Re. 1 Interview with M#ris Gailis. which was willing to invest into the project. the architect noted that the factory buildings are a valuable monument in terms of cultural history.11. Only when the buildings are privatised. In her mission statement. who wants to privatise has to rent the respective buildings for at least one year. They make a fine example of the regional brick architecture and are an important landmark for the panorama of the left bank of the river Daugava. the privatisation procedure of army property works like this: First. landscape and architecture. Then he or she has to apply to the Ministry of Defence in order to get the right to privatise the buildings. The other part remained empty. the person. 3 198 Interview with Zaiga Gaile. a complicated and time-consuming process which was only finished in 2001. also the land can be privatised after the same procedure. M#ris Gailis as the real estate developer started to privatise first the buildings and later the land.194 In 1991. who started a production of hockey sticks there. the value of the buildings is evaluated and the buildings can be bought for this prize. even though they are not officially listed as protected buildings. Therefore their special character should be preserved as far as possible. 22. In Latvia.198 Quite soon M#ris Gailis realised that he could not finance the entire project.). 197 Initially. approximately two thirds of the factory was privatised by a businessman from Belarus. After approval.
g.2007 201 SIA MG. 10. A fact that has been heavily criticised
Email interview with Edgar Schieder. “Holandie)u M#ja” reminding of a Dutch building style and “Ang. e.2007. 7: MAP AND MODEL SHOWING THE DIFFERENT BUILDINGS OF THE FIRST PHASE OF THE GYPSUM FACTORY
The “Koted/as” – row-houses along the waterfront – are the only part of the project that was completely new constructions.
FIG. the partners could finance 60% of the costs. that both parties contribute 50% of the finances for the gypsum factory project: MG contributes the value of the property. “Veca M#ja” (Old House).still with M#ris Gailis. The contract between the Latvian affiliate company of PMT. both parties own 50% of the project. 200 Email interview with Edgar Schieder.u M#ja” reminding of an English building style. the rest was taken as a loan in cooperation with the Hanza bank. but to a minor extent also for offices – consisting of five different buildings: “Liela M#ja” (Big House). SIA PMT Balticum and SIA MG says. 3-5
. “Ang.01.01. in which also a restaurant was planned. Thus. the empty part of the factory was restored as an apartment complex – mainly for living. Some buildings have been changed to make them more comfortable for living.200 Thus. p. “Holandie)u M#ja” (Dutch House) and “Koted/as” (Cottages). The different houses have been designed in different styles. while PMT Balticum contributes the same value in form of money. by adding bigger windows. depending on their shape and condition.u M#ja” (English House). 10. All the other buildings were restored or reconstructed.199 Together. but MG is responsible for the management.
11.2006.202 This happened for instance with the building A – “Liela M#ja” (Fig. The architect even found a useful new function for it: today the chimney serves as ventilation for the underground parking. 14. Also in the interior.11. saunas. 14. fireplaces and even built-in wardrobes. Special attention was paid to the preservation and renovation of the chimney.203 However. just to rebuild them again in the same shape – not because they were in such a bad condition (as the architect claims). ranging from studios of 60 square meters to apartments of 200 square meters. which were sold to clients from Latvia and abroad. 14.2006 206 SIA MG. which now houses the restaurant.204 Due to the location of the factory in the UNESCO buffer zone the architect had to get official permissions for every step of the restoration work. Interview with Jonas Büchel.by experts is. many original parts were preserved. only parts of the gypsum factory are original. the general outer appearance of the buildings should keep the original look as much as possible.12. All buildings have access to the inner yard. such as the wooden ceilings or brick walls. that parts of the buildings have been demolished.11.206
Interview with P%teris Bl&ms. 14. because it was realised to be an important historical landmark for the area. 13
. The aim was to create high quality living and office space in loftstyle. 12. The result was a complex of 34 apartments of different shapes and sizes.2006 204 Interview with Zaiga Gaile.205 After three years of construction the project was finished in late 2004. p. bathrooms. The concept of the restoration was to design complete apartments including all interior like kitchens. Thus. 7). Most apartments stretch over two or three levels.12. which is designed as a historical factory yard with a well in the centre and the old chimney in one corner.2006 Interview with Zaiga Gaile. but because some space was needed for underground parking and therefore it was cheaper to tear them down and build them up again after the parking space had been constructed. which is unique in Latvia.2006 205 Interview with Zaiga Gaile.
11. Within three years it increased to more than the double amount: recently a flat was sold for 4700 0 per square meter. and he tries to bring back some maritime character to the place by building a terrace floating on the river Daugava. slide 49 209 Interview with M#ris Gailis. The original price was approximately 2000 0 per square meter. who bought it as an investment.p.11. 10.): Power Point Presentation “Prezentacija Kipsala_2. between the restaurant and the old town.210 The overall aim of the restoration project was to provide high-income clients with a luxury and high quality place to live close to the water and close to the city centre.FIG. 22.p. and by establishing a boat-service with the antique motorboat “Ingrida”. slide 50 Zaigas Gailes Birojs (2005 n. dating from the 1930s.ppt”. The restaurant still belongs to M#ris Gailis.): Power Point Presentation “Prezentacija Kipsala_2.01. 8: RESTAURANT CORNER OF THE GYPSUM FACTORY BEFORE (2000)207 AND AFTER THE RESTORATION (2004)208
There turned out to be two types of clients: one group who bought the apartment as their primary place of residence and others.2006 211 Email interview with Edgar Schieder. 22. a shop for maritime items and a restaurant on the corner of the factory with the best view towards the old town. 209 In connection with the gypsum factory project M#ris Gailis developed a small marina for private yachts in front of the factory buildings.ppt”.2007
.2006 210 Interview with M#ris Gailis.211 All involved parties expressed their satisfaction with the outcome of the project and argued that
Zaigas Gailes Birojs (2005 n.
2006.214 Recently. that some details in the concept do not seem to be correct. 14.12. Interview with M#ris Gailis.2006 215 Interview with M#ris Gailis. that the developer and the architect managed to create a piece of interesting architecture respecting to a great extent the original look of the historical buildings. The main building in this part is the old factory workshop.11.11. 22.213 On the other hand it is criticised.212 By independent experts the evaluation of the project is rather ambivalent.216 This practice is again very much criticised by the conservation expert P%teris Bl&ms. 12.12.2006. but in the course of the project it will be built anew in the original style. 14.2006
. 22. but it was decided to tear it down in order to make the construction of the underground parking space cheaper.the aim had been completely achieved. 12. On the one hand it is admitted. Interview with P%teris Bl&ms.11.2006.2006 216 Interview with Zaiga Gaile.2006 214 Interview with Jonas Büchel. According to the architect it was in such a bad condition that it had to be demolished.215 The project is currently underway and will probably be completed in 2008. which lives separately from the rest of the neighbourhood. who argues that the structure of the building was still in a good condition. Since this part had already been privatised for the production of hockey sticks. but MG and Zaigas Gailes Birojs could start with the restoration process right away. 14. the biggest covering up to 400 square meters and having private elevators. and that the project creates some kind of a gated community.11. there shall be less apartments. that the new construction of historical architecture is bad architectural practice. 10. in a location. This time it is planned to be even more luxury than the first project: Even though the area is bigger than in the first project. M#ris Gailis managed to convince the owner of the second part of the factory to sell his property in order to realise a similar real estate project also in this part.2007 213 Interview with Jonas Büchel.01. Email interview with Edgar Schieder. which is perfectly suitable for high quality apartments. there was no long bureaucratic procedure this time.
Interview with Zaiga Gaile.12.
but they may be reconstructed. 14. p. The row-houses along the waterfront shall accommodate the most spacious apartments. They are the relicts of the old fishermen`s village./Atavs. certain building regulations have to be taken into account when dealing with those houses: the buildings are not allowed to be demolished. All in all there are going to be 31 apartments and offices. The yard of this complex is going to be designed in contrast to the first factory yard. 14.g. In order to ensure a low density in the protected area. while number 14 is currently under reconstruction and more wooden buildings are planned to be
Interview with P%teris Bl&ms.2006 Interview with Zaiga Gaile. but also in brick style. In the right part of the complex there are some service facilities like a gym.218 What the outcome of this project will look like still remains to be seen. I. while there will be smaller studio-style apartments in the second row. 1
.2006 219 R"gas Dome (2005b). wooden window frames instead of plastic ones).220 Until today 13 houses have already been restored.217 The other buildings will be completely new. Thus. when MG and Zaigas Gailes Birojs started to buy and restore some of the wooden houses in 2004. the historical borders of the land plots may not be changed and not more than 30% of the land plot area may be used for building. Z. I. Even though the area is not very big. (2005). providing that the historical facade is preserved and traditional materials are used (e. the oldest one being from about 1820. which dominated the island until the late 1960s.219 These regulations and the location of the area in the UNESCO buffer zone had to be taken into account. The wooden houses in the protected historical area of !"psala date from 120 to almost 200 years ago. as green space.just as in the first gypsum factory project.11. it presents the historical heart of the island and therefore the entire ensemble is protected as a state monument of national significance. p. 5 220 Gaile. a spa and a hairdresser planned./Cibule.12.
225 In the reconstruction process the first step was to connect the houses to gas and electricity and to the canalisation system and the telephone net. however. a third one is under construction.01. 19.12. 10.224 Not only buildings from !"psala are restored. this is a win-win situation: The previous owner of the wooden house would not be allowed to demolish the house in the UNESCO area in order to use the plot for new constructions.2006 Based on my own research on !"psala.11. PMT Balticum SIA holds 90% of the so called “Red House”. Through this cooperation. receives a compensation of the previous owner and builds the house up again on !"psala. is involved as a partner and investor via the company SIA Ziemelzunds Ltd. According to him. 22. but the developer also removes wooden houses from the UNESCO historical centre of Riga in order to build them up again on empty lots on !"psala.2007 224 Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs.222 which clearly shows his ambitions to transform the entire historical ensemble into a renovated high quality area for tenants with high incomes. The state inspection of monuments agrees. November/December 2006 223 Email interview with Edgar Schieder. the Latvian affiliate company of the Austrian PMT. to translocate the building. 22. of which 90% are owned by PMT and 10% are owned by M#ris Gailis.11. as well as 90% of the so called “Kangaroo House”. The principle of the reconstruction formulated by the architect was to preserve the facades.reconstructed in the near future. In two of the already completed restoration projects PMT Balticum SIA. which is rented out to the Austrian state and hosts the Austrian embassy in Latvia. among them some very high politicians.2006
. so that the historical
Interview with M#ris Gailis.2006 225 Interview with M#ris Gailis.223 The other projects were exclusively carried out by MG and Zaigas Gailes Birojs and usually sold after completion.221 According to some owners of old wooden houses. Therefore M#ris Gailis is able to remove it from the city centre. Today they are the homes of some of the richest people in the country. M#ris Gailis regularly asks them to sell their property to him. which is rented out to the Portuguese state and hosts the Portuguese embassy in Latvia. Until now this has happened with two houses.
I. 4-19 231 Interview with Zaiga Gaile. 9: A MBASSADOR`S RESIDENCE “RED HOUSE” BEFORE (2001)227 AND AFTER THE RESTORATION (2005)228
The general concept aimed at providing the tenants with all possible amenities. however. I. (2005).ppt”. balconies or terraces were also added.231
Gaile. which originally had about six apartments on each floor and shared toilets and bathrooms in the staircase./Atavs. These extensions house. was turned into seven apartments and three offices.11. but there were also modern extensions added to the houses in order to get more space for living.look of the buildings was not disturbed when looking at them from the street.226 This is also due to the building regulations mentioned above.11.p. were in some cases quite radically changed. some extra windows. 229 Most of the houses.): “_Baznicas ielas maja_1. (2005).jpg” 229 Interview with Zaiga Gaile. swimming pools and saunas. The side and the back of the buildings.p. for instance. 1 Zaigas Gailes Birojs (2005 n. were transformed into a one-family-house. I./Cibule. according to the architect the original structures of the rooms were kept as far as possible. slide 22 228 Zaigas Gailes Birojs (2005 n.2006
. To make the rooms brighter.2006 230 Gaile. Z.): Power Point Presentation “Prezentacija Kipsala_2./Cibule./Atavs.230 However. I. This 3-storey-building. which were originally built for several families. An exception is the biggest building that has already been reconstructed – a wooden Jugendstil house called “Laubes M#ja”. p. Z. 14. Therefore there was not only an underground parking space constructed for all buildings.
FIG. 14. p.
So. Now only parts of the buildings have remained original. the work of the architect is neither a balanced modernisation of the area adding modern architecture nor a completely correct conservation.2006 234 Interview with Jonas Büchel. I.234 Another point of criticism was that the modern additions to the old buildings are too conservative to be called real “modern” architecture.12. instead of using historically correct buildings materials like cobbled stones. Fences were built up. which makes the combination of old and new rather boring. who saved altogether 36 Jews during World War II. 1 Interview with P%teris Bl&ms. Z. I. the historical reconstruction was not correct: For instance.12. According to P%teris Bl&ms this was done. modern apartment with all amenities. hiding them in a shed in the garden of his house on !"psala. 12. The architectural condition of most houses was quite good.235 Another project by M#ris Gailis and Zaiga Gaile is the construction of a memorial museum in the historical part of the island in the honour of *anis Lipke. the evaluation of the reconstructions by independent experts is rather negative: They argue that. so it would have been better to renovate the original houses instead of taking them apart and reconstructing them partly using new materials.2006 235 Interview with Jonas Büchel./Atavs. even though traditionally there had never been fences in the area. reconstructing historical buildings using partly new constructions and materials is bad architectural practice.The architect and the developer claim that they paid special attention to the history of the buildings and carried out the reconstruction process in a balanced and sustainable way.2006
.12./Cibule. 12. according to Jonas Büchel. (2005). that concerning some details. as in the case of the gypsum factory.233 It was also noticed. but at the same time wanted to live in a new. 14. The museum on the former site of the shed on Maza Balasta iela 8 is going to be designed by
Gaile. p. concrete was used to cover parking lots and yards. because the houses should be sold to wealthy residents who were interested in the historical look of the buildings.232 In contrast.
they give a very rough impression about the social and financial status of new residents and their opinions about the area. as well as to attract tourists and visitors to the area. 25 original residents and eight new residents (four living in the gypsum factory and four living in adjacent town-houses). Nevertheless. 33 people participated in the research. he and his wife took the initiative for this museum in order to add some additional value to the island – to have a cultural attraction in addition to the living houses. V.237
4. so the results rather indicate general tendencies than actual. since it was my primary interest to find out. Especially the number of new residents who participated in the survey is quite small. It was interesting for me to hear that they did not initiate the museum.236 According to M#ris Gailis. The scale of this survey is not very big.11.
Jansons. universal conclusions.Zaiga Gaile. Thus. p. but only because a museum about the holocaust sells well. because they are personally interested in Jewish history or because they regard it as important to tell *anis Lipke`s story. (2006).3 Results of the empirical research in the case study area
Together with my Latvian translator Anita Pluce I spent several days on !"psala in order to collect opinions of old and new residents of the project area. The focus was placed on the original residents of the neighbourhood. which impact the redevelopment projects by M#ris Gailis have on these people and what they think about the changes within the area. so the results from this group must be interpreted as individual examples instead of general conclusions. The museum is going to be inaugurated in 2008. they hope to make the island even more attractive for residents. 20-26 Interview with M#ris Gailis.2006
an aspect that strongly correlates with their level of income. Among the original residents. i. This corresponds well to the information given by Zaiga Gaile. In the case of the new residents. and only one respondent had a rent agreement. such as a free room in return for some caretaking work in house and garden. since all but one pensioner stated that they must live on less than 100 LVL per month: This reveals that the lowest income group consisted almost exclusively of pensioners.About two thirds of the original residents were Latvians.239 In the survey. Among the new residents. (1999). This makes the original residents typical representatives of the so called “losers” of the transformation societies in Eastern Europe that have been identified in chapter 2 of this thesis: elderly people. we spoke with three foreigners from Great Britain and the USA and five Latvians. Another interesting aspect is the difference in the level of education between old and new residents: More than two thirds of the original residents have either a basic or a secondary education.2006 Sailer-Fliege. six respondents out of eight have a higher education.238 One striking yet obvious feature is the big difference in the incomes between old and new residents: Almost half of the interviewed original residents stated that their actual income is less than 100 LVL per month. In contrast. less than 142 Euros.11. half of the interviewed new residents did not reply to this question. p. These results show on the one
Interview with Zaiga Gaile. U. while two respondents earn between 251 and 500 LVL (in part-time jobs) and two earn more than 1000 LVL (more than 1420 Euros) per month after deductions. while 28% of the respondents were Russians. most of the interviewed new residents lived in private apartments. 11
. In contrast. and only 16% have a higher education at university level. in contrast. who mentioned that the restored buildings are popular among affluent foreigners. the type of housing is very mixed: 44% of the respondents rent an apartment. 14.e. almost half of the original residents were pensioners. 48% own a private apartment and the rest of the people have other accommodation agreements. unskilled workers and state employees.
The main reason. even though the standard of living had not improved. all interviewed new residents stated that they have only little or no contact to the original residents and vice versa. because there is not so much interaction between the residents any longer. Two owners of unrenovated historical houses mentioned that they want to wait for a good opportunity to sell their property for a high price. Also all new residents think that the gypsum factory project has an influence on the area. p. that the privatization process has started to spread among the unrenovated buildings in the historical zone of !"psala. but now more wealthy people live in the area and prices are on the rise. if they can afford it. why the new residents chose to move to the area is the beautiful. Indeed. the original residents pay about 47 LVL rent per month and roughly the same amount for utilities. S. central and quiet location of the historical area on !"psala. For the people
. Almost one quarter of the respondents have experienced a rent increase within the last year. but they see this influence exclusively positive: according to them the projects accelerate the positive development of !"psala and make the area more beautiful. 88% of the interviewed original residents mentioned that the neighbourhood has considerably changed during the past five years especially that many new residents moved to the area while old neighbours left and that the look of the historical buildings has changed a lot.hand. 36% of the original residents have lived in the neighbourhood for more than 40 years and 80% of the original residents wish to continue to live there also in the future. Also. They mentioned both positive and negative influences: The buildings look better and thus the project makes the area more beautiful.240 On the average. (2004). But on the other hand they also show that the restored apartments are almost exclusively private – a change of the ownership structure from renting to owning is a typical phenomenon of the gentrification process. it was said that the area is becoming less friendly. Concerning the project area. All respondents who knew the gypsum factory project were of the opinion that it has a big influence on the neighbourhood.
None of them were invited to participate in the planning process either. In the future there will be more services for the people on !"psala. Seven out of eight interviewed new residents of the area mentioned that the developer has informed them about the second phase of the restoration of the gypsum factory. The original residents have a rather ambivalent vision for the future of the area: They see it as a place that will be exclusively for the rich. With regard to the planning process. into account in his planning. The vision of the new residents for the future of their neighbourhood on !"psala is generally positive: they said that it will be a nice residential area with renovated houses and maybe also a commercial centre.241
Based on my own research on !"psala. November/December 2006
. none of the original residents have been informed about the restoration plans of the developer. three others wished that the area should be as it had been in former times. These issues give evidence about the fact that segregation and gentrification are actually happening on !"psala at the moment. such as schools and restaurants. They seem rather active in using the restaurant of the gypsum factory (six respondents go there about once a month or more frequently). but they were not invited to participate in the planning process. While three people explicitly mentioned that they evaluate the development of the area as positive. while only 12% of the original residents use it occasionally. This result shows that the developer is not interested in taking the wishes or needs of the residents. even though 32% of the respondents explicitly stated that they would like to get more involved in the development of the neighbourhood. especially the original inhabitants of the area. especially when the restoration projects will be finished.living in the gypsum factory the fact that their apartments are located in a restored industrial building and the direct location on the waterfront were important reasons why they chose to move to !"psala. and also the conditions of the roads on the island will improve.
246 This prestigious project makes more and more people realise the interesting aspects of industrial architecture. From a rundown area the protected historical zone is turned into a high-quality and high profile residential area that attracts wealthy foreigners and the wealthiest people of the country.12. more and more people in Riga appreciate the historical wooden architecture. even though the wooden architecture in the centre of Riga even is included in the UNESCO world heritage. With their reconstruction efforts the developers helped to direct public attention to the wooden heritage on !"psala.243 The new residents of the area and visitors with a certain income like to use the area because of its central location close to the water with a prime view towards the old town.2006 244 Based on my own research on !"psala. Thus. 19.242 The waterfront is dominated by aesthetically reconstructed historical buildings. because traditionally wooden houses and industrial heritage do not have a very high status throughout the city. 14.12. 14.4. today the restoration of industrial buildings
Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs.11.2006
.2006 Interview with Zaiga Gaile. Already now it is the most expensive place in the city. like a restaurant terrace and a marina are placed on the shore.245 The same goes for the industrial architecture of the gypsum factory: It was the first project of transforming factory buildings into loft style apartments in Latvia.11. The developer succeeded to add new value to the waterfront in !"psala and to establish a closer connection between the island and the water.244 The developers claim that they pay special attention to a balanced conservation and restoration of the historical heritage of !"psala. Some water-related activities.4 Evaluation of the restoration projects
In my opinion both positive and negative aspects can be identified.2006 246 Interview with Zaiga Gaile. This ambition certainly exists and must be seen very positive. which previously had been very much neglected. November/December 2006 245 Interview with P%teris Bl&ms. Today. when evaluating the restoration projects on !"psala. 14.
Ventspils and Liep#ja.253 Thus.2006 251 Interview with P%teris Bl&ms.248 From the conservation point of view. 12. thus they demolished parts of the buildings in order to build them up again with new materials. these developments go in line with a general trend in Latvia for “Historismus”. One reason for this practice was probably that the restoration was not carried out for the original inhabitants of the buildings. as long as it is only done in exceptional cases. the way the historical buildings were reconstructed must be questioned: For the actors the original look of the buildings was more important than the original itself.2006 254 Interview with Jonas Büchel.250 Also. 12. in the case of the protected houses it is interesting to see that the state inspection of monuments did not interfere.12.2006 252 Interview with Jonas Büchel. 249 This bears the risk that the buildings lose their authenticity and develop into artificial facades. both in Riga.2006 249 Interview with P%teris Bl&ms. 14.12. this method does not disturb the authenticity of the place as long as it does not dominate the area so much. 254 The restoration projects on !"psala can thus only be seen as a first step into
Interview with Zaiga Gaile. However.12.12.12. 12. meaning that special attention is paid for the facades.2006 Interview with P%teris Bl&ms. and not for what is behind. that it turns into a kind of museum village.2006
. 14.12.2006 250 Interview with Jonas Büchel. but in the original style. but for a wealthy target group who was interested in other values than a balanced conservation.11. this practice is very questionable.251 The practice of removing wooden houses from the UNESCO centre in order to restore them and build them up again on empty lots in !"psala is generally not regarded as problematic. that a balanced renovation of the original materials would have been enough. 14.2006 253 Interview with P%teris Bl&ms.12. 14.252 According to conservationist P%teris Bl&ms the practice of relocating wooden buildings has a long tradition in Latvia.247 However.for living purposes becomes more and more fashionable in Latvia and several projects are currently in the making. or – as Jonas Büchel puts it – into kitsch. 14. since usually the buildings were in such a good condition.
257 Interesting features like the traditional wind indicators on some buildings add to the maritime atmosphere of the place. he can raise the prices for the apartments in the adjacent waterfront locations. Right next to it he developed a marina for private yachts and motorboats.
Interview with P%teris Bl&ms. that it adds some special value to the area. 22.11. as the great interest of wealthy residents in the area shows. 12.the right direction. “Ingrida”. Newer projects in Riga like the restoration of the wooden houses on Kalnciema iela in Pardaugava have learned from the mistakes on !"psala: Instead of restoring the houses for new target groups. 14. but a balanced restoration requires more. by having the marina. 14.2006 Interview with Jonas Büchel.2006 259 Interview with M#ris Gailis. M#ris Gailis puts a lot of effort in establishing stronger connections between the island and the river Daugava.2006 257 Interview with M#ris Gailis.255 Water-related features play a big role in the waterfront projects on !"psala.11.258 The maritime and industrial history of !"psala is actively used by the developer in his marketing strategy – with success.259 This practice is another way to commercialize history and in my eyes a typical case that shows how the pre-Soviet past is used to make profit.11. which is owned by M#ris Gailis.256 Recently. serves its guests on a floating terrace on the river. the actors provide the original tenants with the know-how and the financial support to carry out the necessary renovations by themselves. 22. the embankments of the river along Balasta Dambis were renewed on his own initiative.2006 258 Interview with Zaiga Gaile. Here is the berth of his historical motorboat from the 1930s. but he understood.2006
. In summer the restaurant in the gypsum factory. So.12. According to him he does not make any money with the marina itself. which can be booked by the guests of the restaurant. This makes the place much more authentic than the !"psala historical area.12. Historical wooden and industrial architecture have become appreciated values.
11. also today it is possible to swim in the river Daugava. when the new bridge between !"psala and Pardaugava will be completed.2006
.262 The waterfront area on !"psala would be ideal for waterborne transport to and from the city.12. who liked to come here for swimming. The service is primarily intended for the guests of the restaurant and the original residents from !"psala could never afford it.2006 R"gas Dome (2005a). but the only bus route starts on Kr. 19. which makes it quite uncomfortable for pedestrians to get around. Within the area there is no connection at all. but so far. but there is not much parking space. however. p. Since often there are no pavements and some streets do not have a surface at all.261 Bikers can easily get to the island. the restoration projects on !"psala are primarily intended for residential uses. p. 8-13 263 Interview with M#ris Gailis. even though usually there is no heavy traffic. which shall be developed into mixed-use areas. which makes biking not very comfortable. 260 The easiest way to get to the protected historical area is by car.
Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs. The only kind of waterborne transport is provided by M#ris Gailis. public connections of this kind do not exist. 22.264 In contrast to other planned waterfront projects in Riga. The area is poorly connected to the city centre by public transport. it can get very muddy at times. The detailed plan says.Even though the project area is located very close to the city centre. 9 262 R"gas Dome (2005a). According to M#ris Gailis.2006 264 Interview with M#ris Gailis. but in the historical area there are not biking tracks and some streets consist of cobbled stones.11. Regularly he orders an analysis of the water to ensure its quality. that for the future there is another route planned. During the summer months this boat can also be booked for private tours along the river Daugava. In the case of the fishermen`s houses this connects well to the original use of this area. Valdem#ra iela at the bridge Van)u tilts. it is not very comfortable to access. whose motorboat “Ingrida” travels between his restaurant and the city centre.263 In former times sandy !"psala was a popular recreation area for the citizens of Riga. 22.
11. 12.267 If carried out in a qualitative and interesting way. such as the “Kangaroo house”.2006
.2006 267 Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs. 19. but too conservative to present interesting modern architecture.268 In the restoration projects on !"psala. such as the giant metal kangaroo that was placed on top of the “Kangaroo house”. it has been criticised by architects and planners. wellness and some services play an increasing role. 22. 28-29 269 Interview with M#ris Gailis.269 However. when the outside spaces and the floating terrace are in use. 12. p. just because the house
Interview with Zaiga Gaile. some features of the restored buildings clearly give the impression of kitsch271. the side-by-side of old and new was one of the main factors in the redevelopment efforts. the combination of old and new architecture usually adds to the attractiveness of a place. as it was mentioned above. which hosts the Portuguese embassy and the residence of the ambassador. 14.266 The fact that the waterfront on !"psala is mainly a residential area makes it a rather quiet place. housing is still the main function. the developers plan to build the above mentioned Jewish memorial museum in the historical area of !"psala. With these measures they aim to put additional values to the area in order to make it even more interesting and attractive for living and for visitors.11.11.265 In the case of the gypsum factory.2006 270 Interview with Jonas Büchel.which had always predominantly been a place for living.2006 271 Interview with Jonas Büchel. Some houses are reconstructed for a combination of working and living.12. In the current redevelopment of the second part of the gypsum factory. a former production site has been redeveloped for new uses: mainly for apartments but also for some offices and for a restaurant. 22.12. but other functions such as offices. Only the restaurant brings some life to it. that the combinations of old and new were not very successful: the old architecture was not preserved according to the principles of conservation and the “modern” extensions are of good quality. Furthermore. (2001a). D.270 Also.2006 268 Schubert.12.2006 Interview with M#ris Gailis. especially during the summer.
because according to the developer they then get a small compensation.279 Anyway. 12.2006 274 Based on my own research on !"psala. p.11. they form a harmonious entity.12.275 This is clearly not the case in the !"psala projects. gentrification and segregation are taking place to a great extent. the way the restoration was carried out must be criticized in my opinion. 14. which was one of the reasons why they moved to !"psala.2006
.272 In the case of the gypsum factory.273 The mixture of industrial and modern architecture was also positively mentioned by the residents of the gypsum factory: For them the style of the buildings makes the area attractive. 19. November/December 2006 275 Schubert. 28-29 276 Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs. either because of rising rents or because their house is sold. 22. the second case might be even more profitable. Even though the different buildings are built in different styles.had once belonged to an Australian investor.278 Today. in contrast.2006 279 Interview with M#ris Gailis.11. who rent a flat in one of those houses. The losers of the situation are the original tenants. some owners of the original houses have understood the value of their property and make a lot of money selling it to the developer or even waiting for the price to rise even more. Many of them are forced to leave the area. One factor for sustainable regeneration of waterfront areas is a sound mixture of inhabitants with different backgrounds and incomes. Here.2006 278 Interview with Zaiga Gaile.2006 Interview with Jonas Büchel. (2001a).12.12. the private developer was able to buy wooden houses for a very cheap price in order to restore them and sell them to wealthy new residents. 274 But as in the case of the wooden houses.277 Especially in the beginning of his activities. it is a general prediction that within some years all original
Interview with Zaiga Gaile. the evaluation of architecture is rather positive: The result of the combination of old and new buildings presents an interesting ensemble. 14.2006 277 Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs. For them.11. D.276 From a very poor neighbourhood the area has developed into one of the most expensive places in the city within the course of only a few years. 19.
residents will have left the area, so it will develop in a place, which is exclusively for wealthy residents.280 Even though today rich and poor people live in the direct neighbourhood, there is hardly any interaction between them.281 According to the architect, the residents of the gypsum factory form a close community with many personal contacts, but contacts to the surrounding unrenovated houses are very seldom.282 The developer makes no attempt to counteract this development: it rather corresponds well with his aims to develop the area into a nice and luxury place. The high fences around the gypsum factory give already now the impression of a gated community and Jonas Büchel claims that at least mentally this fence already exists around the entire restoration area.283 The redevelopment projects by M#ris Gailis are completely private initiatives. He was able to buy so much land on !"psala, that now he owns most of the protected historical centre and is able to develop it according to his personal wishes. 284 Since he and his wife live in the area themselves, they also have a private interest in its development.285 Today, the neighbourhood is dominated by private space: The gypsum factory and the restored wooden houses are bordered by fences or walls, cameras symbolise the control about the private properties and the isolation of the wealthy residents. The restoration projects have created an area full of contrasts between rich and poor. The city council does not have the measures and the will to control any of the private developments on !"psala. None of the current developments – land monopolism, gentrification and segregation – are realised as possible problems by the city council.286 The only rules that restrict the developments in the protected historical area are the buildings regulations and the UNESCO regulations, but as can be seen
Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs, 19.12.2006 Interview with M#ris Gailis, 22.11.2006 282 Interview with Zaiga Gaile, 14.11.2006 283 Interview with Jonas Büchel, 12.12.2006 284 Interview with Jonas Büchel, 12.12.2006 285 Interview with Zaiga Gaile, 14.11.2006 286 Interview with Gvido Princis, 15.12.2006
from several examples, the state inspection of monuments does not seem too eager to intervene if these rules are violated.287 Since a private developer is primarily interested in profit and not in a balanced development according to the wishes and needs of the inhabitants, it is not surprising that the original residents were not informed about or involved in the planning process of the restoration projects.288 Generally, community participation beyond the formal procedures dictated by the law is not a very common practice in urban planning in Riga.289 On !"psala these formal procedures did not play any role, because they only have to be followed for projects of a certain scale, which the restoration projects did not have.290 So, community participation and information did not take place at all within the restoration projects. Only when the second round of the gypsum factory project was started, the inhabitants of the first part of the factory were informed about the planned developments, primarily because they would be affected by dirt and noise from the adjacent construction site. The opinions of the original residents of the area did not play any role at any point of the planning process.291
4.5 Problems and perspectives of urban planning in Riga
As I see it, the points of criticism concerning the projects on !"psala mirror some general problems of urban planning in Riga: the ways of how to deal with historical architecture, the lack of public participation in planning, land ownership issues and the missing measures and political will to regulate urban development.
Interview with P%teris Bl&ms, 14.12.2006 Based on my own research on !"psala, November/December 2006 289 Interview with Jonas Büchel, 11.12.2006 290 Interview with Gvido Princis, 15.12.2006 291 Based on my own research on !"psala, November/December 2006
Dealing with historical architecture The urban planning expert Jonas Büchel argues, that in Riga there exists a tendency for “Historismus”, which forms a barrier for both the balanced conservation of historical architecture and modern developments. “Historismus” means that many architects in Riga, including Zaiga Gaile, favour the conservation of historical architecture at all costs – preserving the past is their highest priority and that often prevents modern future-oriented projects.292 And even more extreme: they demolish historical architecture in order to rebuild it with new materials in the original look. Thus, the will to preserve does not mean the completely correct restoration of historical buildings. It rather means the most important aspect in restoration projects is the historical look, the facade. What is behind does not matter so much.293 But still, as the !"psala case shows, history is actively and successfully marketed. This goes well in line with the fact, that restoration projects are usually aimed for a wealthy target group, and this group is not primarily interested in a 100% correctly restored building, but in a beautiful historic look – a building that looks historic, but not old, combined with all possible modern amenities.294 In my opinion, this attitude towards historical architecture must be seen critical, since it turns historical areas into artificial places that are beautiful, but that lack any authentic character. The same goes for the planned Jewish memorial museum on !"psala, which in my eyes uses the history of the holocaust in Riga just to make profit. This very commercial attitude towards history is, as it was outlined in the theoretical framework above, a typical feature of a post-socialist city in transformation.
Interview with Jonas Büchel, 12.12.2006 Interview with Jonas Büchel, 12.12.2006 294 Interview with P%teris Bl&ms, 14.12.2006
it is not a surprise to me that public participation does not play a role in the planning process there. 15.2006 297 Interview with Jonas Büchel. including a public announcement of the plans and at least two periods of public hearing.12. which in reality is not interested to make the urban development transparent and understandable for the inhabitants.296 But also from the inhabitant side it must be noted that the interest in participation is very low. Indeed public participation is defined by the law: For development projects on a bigger scale a legal procedure has to be followed.2006
. This can partly be explained by the fact that in post-socialist societies urban planning as such is perceived in a very negative way and the public interest in planning and public authorities is traditionally rather low. The missing connection between the citizens and the city council leads to a very low level of identification of the citizens with their city and their neighbourhood. in Riga it is not developing at all. meaning that the inhabitants are really empowered to shape developments according to their needs. According to Jonas Büchel this derives from the fact that in Riga there is no fruitful relationship between the people and the public authorities.2006 Interview with Jonas Büchel. they generally feel that it is not worth to get involved. However.12.297 But also in the Baltic context and even in the inner-Latvian context the level of interest is extremely low in Riga. the mode of urban planning in Riga has to be characterised as top-down and technocratic. because they cannot change anything
Interview with Gvido Princis.Public participation Since the restoration projects on !"psala are a completely private initiative with no intervention from the public sector. such as Liep#ja and even small towns like Talsi the civil society is developing very actively. The city council acts like a “city in the city”.295 But genuine participation of the inhabitants beyond these legal procedures. 12. 11. While other Latvian cities. also in general public participation has a rather low status in Riga and the inhabitants have a rather low interest in participating.12. Thus. does not exist. Instead.
12.301 The same goes for processes like gentrification and segregation: Not only does the city lack the measures to regulate these processes but it does not even realise these developments as a problem.2006
. 15. but apart from these measures the city has no possibilities and often also no will to regulate the developments in the city in any way. 19.12.2006 Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs.2006 304 Interview with Jonas Büchel. 19. there is always a way to by-pass them. Urban planning documents only form a
Interview with Jonas Büchel. 12.2006 303 Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs.12.304 Of course the spatial plan and the building regulations – even though they are possible to by-pass – provide the legal framework for land use and urban development.12. 17.299 But the privatisation of land is a global phenomenon. most of the territory in Riga is in the hands of private bodies. towards which the city is heading.11. What makes the developments in Riga problematic is that the city council does not have any legal measures and often also not the political will to control the direction.300 Even if some regulations exist. even most of the land under public housing blocks.2006 300 Interview with Jonas Büchel.anyway. but they are in line with the global development trends.302 The background of these problems is an extremely liberal mode of urban planning. 11. This makes Riga the least active city in the country when it comes to community participation. 12. so in this respect the cases of !"psala and Riga are nothing special.12. Some city officials have recently started to regard this development as a mistake.2006 301 Interview with Inese Baranovska and Mario Zetzsche.2006 302 Interview with Gvido Princis.12.298
Land use and level of public regulation Another point that has to be discussed is how the city of Riga deals with its land: How can it be that a private investor buys almost an entire island in order to develop it according to his personal wishes. without facing any control from the public authorities? Today.303 Some experts even say that urban planning in the Western European sense does not exist at all in Riga.
.2006 Interview with Gvido Princis.305 Thus.12. as could be seen in chapter 2. It commands formal authority.306 Private developers do not have to take any responsibilities regarding the needs of the society. Riga is not the only city where this trend can be observed. such as the right to approve detailed plans.“wish-list” of the city council for the development of the city.”307
Interview with Jonas Büchel. since the lack of public control is a typical feature of urban development in post-socialist cities.2006 307 Feldman. but has not been able to use that authority in an efficient and constructive way. 11. but their realisation is usually left completely for the private market. p. the developments in Riga are so much marketdriven that there is no way for the city council to steer the direction to which the city is heading or even to ensure the sustainability of the development projects. A similar development can be observed from the neighbouring capital Tallinn. granted by legislation. 15. (2000). However.12. where Merje Feldman states that the city “distances itself from leadership and responsibility. M.
311 One reason for this trend is also the fact that the urban planning department in the city council consists almost entirely of architects.308 Through various factors – like the relocation of port activities towards the river mouth and the building of bridges and streets – the close connection between city and river disappeared. A. But even if this condition – a better education for urban planners in Latvia – would be fulfilled.
Pope. Instead. Therefore only very few urban planners.12. 265-269 Interview with P%teris Bl&ms.2006
. the power. uncoordinated private development projects. 12. (2000). the realisation of redevelopment projects to meet this need are usually left for the private market.2006 311 Interview with Gvido Princis.310 Due to the massive private land ownership and the lack of public control. not of urban planners. which offer a unique potential for developments – including both the regeneration of architectural heritage and new constructions. But even though the need for the revitalisation of waterfront areas has been formulated in the main documents of the Riga development plan. 15. 14. which has always had a big influence on the development of the city. 15.2006 312 Interview with Jonas Büchel. radical changes would be required to provide the city with the will.312 In my opinion this contributes to the tendency that the city council is dominated by small scale thinking instead of integrated large-scale visions.5 Conclusion
Riga has a long maritime history. Its location on the banks of the river Daugava close to the seaside provides the city with huge waterfront areas. work in the country.12. the measures and the finances to bring back some regulating instances to urban development. the city is the scene for independent. In Latvia there is no university that offers basic education in urban planning. p.2006 310 Interview with Gvido Princis.12.12.309 Only recently the city council realised the need to bring back the city to the water. an overall concept for the urban development that is followed by all actors does not exist in Riga. which have studied abroad.
but in how far they will be realised remains to be seen. to bring back to the city some of the maritime atmosphere it once had and to develop the waterfront in an interesting place that people like to use. since it is picturesquely located on the bank of the river and has an excellent view towards the old town. The place is perfectly suitable for waterfront developments. the architect Zaiga Gaile. The restoration projects on !"psala – even though far from perfect – are a first step into this direction. is that they combined waterfront regeneration with the restoration of historical – wooden and industrial – architecture. at least in the Latvian context. almost opposite the centre of the city. their waterfront projects are the only ones in Riga that have exceeded the planning stage so far.313 The plans for the projects presented above – especially the Riga Port City and J3B – seem promising to me. carried out by different actors with different. 12.12.2006
. the waterfront has become an arena for different uncoordinated mostly private regeneration projects.12. The developer M#ris Gailis and his wife. Instead. many other projects are planned on the banks of the river Daugava. The evaluation of the preliminary results on !"psala revealed.2006 Interview with Jonas Büchel. in my opinion some of the initiatives give the impression that they might be able to re-establish a stronger relationship between the city and the water. sometimes contradicting interests. that the ambitious projects are only partly successful: Indeed they succeeded in increasing public attention and
Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs. Since they were the first ones to show interest in the waterfront. Today. were about the first private actors in Riga to rediscover the great potential of the waterfront in the protected historical area on the island of !"psala. Nevertheless.From the development plans it can be seen that also for the waterfront an overall concept of the city does not exist. 19. which can learn from the experiences made on !"psala.314 What in my opinion makes the redevelopment projects by M#ris Gailis and Zaiga Gaile unique.
Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs. to a lesser extent. which lead to an uncoordinated urban development completely steered by the market.12. architecture.appreciation for wooden and industrial historical architecture in Riga and they managed to develop the area from a forgotten place with high criminality and no amenities to a beautiful and luxury place with a good reputation. turn into the losers of the transformation.2006
. This raises the question: What kind of post-socialist city is Riga today and what is it going to be like in the future? From the theoretical framework presented in this thesis it can be concluded that Riga today still features many aspects of a post-socialist city in transformation: For me the most important signs of the transformation are the lack of public regulation and the massive privatization of land.2006 Interview with P%teris Bl&ms.12. 19. these issues from the case study reflect some general trends in urban planning in Riga. The central planning of the Soviet era. the projects cause a radical gentrification and segregation process in the neighbourhood. functions.316 Furthermore. inhabitants and. 19. such as old people and unskilled workers.2006 318 Interview with Jonas Büchel.2006 317 Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs.12. resulting in many features that are regarded as typical in transformation societies: Cities that are dominated by an increasing gap between rich and poor and by social processes like gentrification.315 But the projects also have to face some criticism concerning the manner of how they reconstructed the historical buildings.317 Other critical aspects include the lack of public participation in the planning process and the creation of mono structures on the island regarding land ownership. was substituted by a radically different development mode based on neo-liberal ideas. 14. segregation and marginalization. 12.12. in which certain groups of the society.318 As it was shown. These conditions make it possible for private actors to carry out development projects the way it was shown above. for perceived negatively.
In terms of public participation. In my eyes the most essential issue for the city is now to find a balance between the interests of the free market and 81
.The lack of effective regulatory instruments also paves the way for the manner in which the city deals with its historical architecture: Commercial interests seem to be more important than the historically correct conservation and restoration of historical buildings. in Riga it does not play an influential role at all. compared to other Baltic and Latvian cities Riga is left behind. in my eyes the transformation period in Riga is far from completed. even though through formal procedures the city tries to keep up the notion of existing public participation. This can partly be explained by a general mistrust among citizens towards planning institutions in transformation societies. While in a Western European understanding the democratic participation of all actors in the planning process is regarded as crucial for sustainable development. Riga is heading towards – to say it with Tosics´ words – an “unregulated capitalist city” model. which is dominated by the gap of rich and poor. while its spatial form is rather similar to Western European cities. in which private actors play the dominant role in urban development and which makes use of its historic fabric in a very commercialized way. can also be interpreted as a unique feature of postsocialist cities which might even be able to survive the transformation period. which regarding the level of public control and social processes is similar to North American cities. In my understanding the trend for “Historismus” concerning a certain phase of the city`s past. Neither the city council nor the citizens seem to be very interested in public participation. This means a city. namely the pre-Soviet past. but the decisions about its future development should be made now. Not only bears this the risk that Riga develops into an artificial city of facades lacking any authenticity. Judging from the issues above. If the city fails to establish effective regulatory instruments. but the fact that also in the post-socialist context Riga is lacking behind suggests that the communication between the public authorities and the inhabitants and thus the identification of the inhabitants with their city is even less than in other post-socialist cities.
regulation by the public sector. Private actors should respect this overall vision. that the city council should establish stronger participation rights for its citizens.
. Another aspect that I regard as crucial in this context is. Therefore the city council needs to establish effective instruments to implement its development plans and to supervise the urban developments. so that they can not only express their demands. but that these demands also have to be taken into consideration in the planning to some account. The authorities have to create a strong vision for its future development in order to provide some orientation about where the city is heading.
Merje: Urban Waterfront Regeneration and Local Governance in Tallinn. R. Amy: The New Three Brothers. New York. Rinio: Complexity on the Urban Waterfront.rigasbrivosta.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers 1996.). Zaiga/Cibule. Ingm#rs: Kolekcijas Apraksts. San Francisco: McGraw-Hill Inc. In: Marshall. A. Edv"ns: Guide to Industrial Heritage of Latvia. Vol. London. Dick: Waterfronts – Cities Reclaim their Edge. New Pasts – Heritage Planning in Selected Cities of Central Europe. Riga: Zaigas Gailes Birojs 2005 83
.: Old Cities.E./Hamilton F. 1. Riga: Industrial Heritage Trust of Latvia/State Inspection for Cultural Heritage Protection 2002 Breen. 52 (2000).): Cities After Socialism.E. 5. J. Ian: The Socialist City – Spatial Structures and Urban Policy. p. p. Iveta/Atavs. articles and websites Andrusz.lv/ (01.lv/eng/parvalde. 30-69 +rgalis. GeoJournal. Gregory: Structural Change and Boundary Instability. 1994 Bruttomesso.06. In: Europe-Asia Studies. 105-116 Biedri.2007) French. Andis/Liepi. p./Tunbridge. G. p. Richard (ed. Anne/Rigby. In: Andrusz. In: Koka M#ju Kolekcija !"psal#. Vol. p.06. Michael/Szelenyi. Andis: Riga.fes-baltic. Riga: Preses Nams 2001 Ashworth. 829-850 Freeport of Riga Authority: http://www.J. Gregory/Harloe. Ivan (eds. Country Office Latvia: http://www.2007) Gaile.): Waterfronts in Postindustrial Cities. 21 Feldman. 49 (1999). 39-50 Bryzgel. October 2006. No. In: The Baltic Guide (Riga). No.asp#struktura (01. New York: John Wiley & Sons 1979 Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. New York: Spon Press 2001.List of references
%mums (JAU): http://www. London: Belhaven Press 1992. Nata)a/Dimitrovska Andrews. 1-19 International Association of Cities and Ports (IACP): http://www. F.php?page=geo_infothek&node=Stadttypen&article=Inf oblatt+Die+europ%E4ische+Stadt (13.06. Ian/Pichler-Milanovic. David (eds. Michael/Szelenyi.lv/ (01. No. Michael: Cities in the Transition.i” (J3B): http://www.06. Tokyo. Paris: United Nations University Press 2005.jau. In: Hamilton. 3-21 Harder-Gersdorff. In: Geographical Review. F.2007) Gudemann. Brian: Global and Local Change on the Port-City Waterfront. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers 1996. p. p. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh 2001 Hoyle. Viktors: Memorial of *anis Lipke.): Riga und der Ostseeraum – von der Gründung 1201 bis in die Frühe Neuzeit. Brian/Pinder. Brian/Pinder. p.2007) Jaunie „Tr"s br#.php?sadala=5 (01.06.Google Maps: http://maps. In: Misans. In: Hoyle. Gregory/Harloe. Ilgvars (ed.06. In: Andrusz.html (03.): Cities After Socialism. Marburg: Herder-Institut 2005. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Lexikon Verlag 1995 Hamilton.google.2007) Jansons.j3b. Elisabeth: Riga als Handelsmetropole des Ostseeraums in der Frühen Neuzeit. Ian/Pichler-Milanovic. David: Cities and the Sea – Change and Development in Contemporary Europe. http://www.): European Port Cities in Transition.06.2007) Klett Verlag: Infoblatt “Die Europäische Stadt”. 1-29 Heineberg.gov. Kaliopa (eds. Ivan (eds. Nata)a/Dimitrovska Andrews. Kaliopa: Introduction. 395-417 Hoyle. 90 (2000).klett.de/ (18.E. Heinz: Stadtgeographie.aivp. 261-294 Harloe. Riga: Association “Memorial of *anis Lipke” 2006 Jaunr"gas att"st"bas uz.): Transformations of Cities in Central and Eastern Europe – Towards Globalization. p.lv/index. p. 3.2007)
. Vol. Wolf-Eckhard: Bertelsmann Neues Lexikon.org/article1593_english. New York.de/sixcms/list.E.
(eds. 49 (1999). Petersburg – Zwei Ostseemetropolen im Vergleich. Riga: Latvijas Ostu Padome 1998 Koolhaas. Zoltán: Cities from State-Socialism to Global Capitalism: an Introduction. p. Egils: Ports of Latvia. Massachusetts: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy 2004.06. London. p.): Waterfronts in Post-industrial Cities.2007) Kocers. In: White. p.N.: The Water`s Edge: The Space between Buildings and Water. 15-21 85
. 119-191 Marshall. Jahrhundert. 3-20 Owen. Sasha/Marcuse. In: Marshall.rigaplans.: Creative Brownfield Redevelopment. No.): The Urban Mosaic of Post-Socialist Europe.: Riga Port City Masterplan. 1-9 Nawratek. In: Greenstein.Klett Verlag: Infoblatt “Die nordamerikanische Stadt”. 3-14 Mayhew. Yesim: Recycling the City – The Use and Reuse of Urban Land. In: Eduard Mühle (ed. Ivan (eds. Zorica (eds. 201-217 Marcuse. K. Rosalind/Sungu-Eryilmaz.): Riga im Prozess der Modernisierung – Studien zum Wandel einer Ostseemetropole im 19. Marburg: Herder-Institut 2004. Heidelberg.net/en/ (14. Peter: Privatization and its Discontents – Property Rights in Land and Housing in the Transition in Eastern Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2004 Meyer. Susan: Oxford Dictionary of Geography. New York: Physica-Verlag 2006.2007) Nedovi(-Budi(. Zorica/Tsenkova. Michael/Szelenyi. p. 1-6 Kunzmann.php?page=geo_infothek&node=Nordamerika&article= Infoblatt+Die+Nordamerikanische+Stadt (13. p. Klaus R. Rotterdam: Office for Metropolitan Architecture (OMA) 2006 Kovács. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers 1996.klett.): Urban Waterside Regeneration – Problems and Prospects. New York: Spon Press 2001. Richard (ed. Krzyztof: http://www. p.de/sixcms/list. Gregory/Harloe. GeoJournal.06. London: Ellis Horwood Ltd. http://www. Vol. 1993. Peter: The Urban Mosaic of Post-Socialist Europe. et al. J. p. 1. New York. Klaus: Riga und St. Cambridge.): Cities After Socialism. Sasha/Nedovi(-Budi(. In: Andrusz. Richard: Contemporary Urban Space-making at the Water`s Edge. In: Tsenkova. Rem et al. und 20.
und Uferzonen im Wandel. In: Hafen. Berlin: Leue Verlag 2001a.: The Socialist City.i. http://ethesis. Ergebnisse sowie Forschungsansätze. 49 (1999). 1. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers 1996.os Gadsimtos. 11-14 SIA MG: Dz"vojamo 1ku Ansamblis 2ip)a Fabrika – Z&MG stila dz"vok. 15-36 Schubert. 7-16 Schubert. Sampo: Residential differentiation.helsinki. Berlin: Leue Verlag 2001c. p.pdf (13.): Recreation and Tourism as a Catalyst for Urban Waterfront Redevelopment.06. Berlin: Leue Verlag 2001b.06. Gregory/Harloe. Stephen J. Michael/Szelenyi. 7-8 Schubert. In: Hafen. p. p.com/ (01.): Cities After Socialism. Vol.lv (17. p.Page.fi/julkaisut/val/sospo/vk/ruoppila/resident. Pils%tas Att"st"bas Departaments: http://www.05.pmteuropa. Riga: Jumava 2000 Project Management Team (PMT): http://www. Riga SIA MG: http://www. Westport: Praeger Publishers 1995. In: Andrusz.mg. p. Riga: Riga City Development Department 2006 R"gas Dome.rdpad. David M.: Waterfront Revitalization in London – Market-Led Planning and Tourism in London Docklands. Michael (ed. Dirk: Vorwort. No. housing policy and urban planning in the transformation from state socialism to a market economy: the case of Tallinn. Arvis: R"gas Osta Devi. 53-71 Pope. Stephen J. Dirk: Revitalisierung von (brachgefallenen) Hafen.2007) Sailer-Fliege.und Uferzonen in Seehafenstädten – Anlässe.03.und defizite. p. 70-99 86
. Dirk: Summary. GeoJournal. In: Craig-Smith. Ziele.2007) Smith.und Uferzonen im Wandel.2007) Ruoppila.2007) Riga City Development Department: Riga – a future cosmopolis of modern architecture. Espoo: Centre for Urban and Regional Studies Publications 2006.lv/working%5Ftime/ (01.und Uferzonen im Wandel. In: Hafen. Ulrike: Characteristics of post-socialist urban transformation in East Central Europe. Ivan (eds./Fagence.
pdf (13. In: Tsenkova. (eds.): Transformations of Cities in Central and Eastern Europe – Towards Globalization. In: Tsenkova. Michael P. 349-374 University of Latvia. Natasa/Dimitrovska Andrews. In: Smith.geog. Zorica (eds.org/wiki/Riga (03. October/November 2006. Uldis: The right time for architectural thinking. p. Joe R.12. 38-44 Tosics.html (01. 21-50 Tsenkova. 3-34 Strauß.2007) Wikipedia: Riga: http://en.p. p. Paris: United Nations University Press 2005. p. Tokyo. Sasha/Nedovi(-Budi(.2006 87
. 17. New York: Basil Blackwell 1987. Oxford. Berlin: Leue Verlag 2001 Tirons. Ian/Pichler-Milanovic. Zorica (eds. Zorica: The Post-Socialist Urban World.03. www. Heidelberg.2007) Zaigas Gailes Birojs: 1ku Kompleksa Arhitektoniski M#kslinieciskais un Kult&rv%sturiskais Nov%rt%jums 2001 n. In: Hamilton. Joe R.): The Urban Mosaic of Post-Socialist Europe.06.E.wikipedia. Kaliopa (eds. Christian: Amphibische Stadtentwicklung – Wasser im Lebensraum Stadt. In: Baltic Outlook – Air Baltic Inflight Magazine (Riga).): The Capitalist City – Global Restructuring and Community Politics. 44-78 Tsenkova. F.2007) Wyly. Department of Geography: http://www. lecture notes. p. Heidelberg.2006 Interview with P%teris Bl&ms. Sasha/Nedovi(-Budi(.lv/fakultates/gzzf/geografija/cilveks.: Cities and the New International Division of Labor: an Overview.lu. Sasha/Nedovi(-Budi(.06. New York: Physica-Verlag 2006.): The Urban Mosaic of Post-Socialist Europe./Feagin./Feagin. Iván: City Development in Central and Eastern Europe since 1990: the Impacts of Internal Forces. Michael P. Sasha: Beyond Transitions – Understanding Urban Change in Post-Socialist Cities. 14. New York. Introduction to Urban Geography.ubc. J3B. New York: Physica-Verlag 2006.ca/~ewyly/g350/socialist.11. p.
Interviews Interview with Inese Baranovska and Mario Zetzsche. Geography 350. Elvin: From model to plan to market – Socialist and post-socialist urban systems.Smith.
22.2006 Interview with M#ris Gailis. !"psalas Det#lpl#nojums. 14. Riga City Council 2006a City Development Department (CDD): Es Planoju Rigu – Planning of the Riga Historical Centre and its Protection Zone Territory.01.Interview with Jonas Büchel.11. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.12. 07. Freeport of Riga Authority.12. Riga City Council 2005a City Development Department (CDD): Es pl#noju R"gu – Long Term Development Strategy of Riga City till 2025.12.2007 Interview with Edgars S&na. JAU.2006 Email interview with Aigars Ku)-is. 17. Urban Planning Department. 11. 14.2006
Documents City Development Department (CDD): City of Riga Development Programme 2006 – 2012. J3B.2006 Email interview with Edgar Schieder. 10. Department of Geography. Riga City Council 2006b R"gas Dome: !"psalas Det#lpl#nojums.2006 Interview with Gvido Princis.2006 Interview with Zaiga Gaile. 15. University of Latvia.12.12.2006 Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs. Riga City Council.2006 Interview with Astr"da Rogule. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.11. Zaigas Gailes Birojs. Riga City Council 2005c City Development Department (CDD): Building Regulations for Riga Historical Centre and its Protection Zones. Riga City Council 2005b R"gas Dome: Teritorijas zon%jums.2006 Interview with Jonas Büchel.12. Riga City Council 2005a R"gas Dome: Teritorijas Izmanto)ana un Apb&ves Noteikumi. PMT Austria. Riga City Council 2005b City Development Department (CDD): Es pl#noju R"gu – Spatial Plan of Riga for 2006 – 2018. 12.11. 19. Riga City Council 2005c 88
. SIA MG.
. 2005 n. slide 50. 2005 n. slide 22.ppt”.p.p. Zaigas Gailes Birojs: Power Point Presentation “Prezentacija Kipsala_2.Photographs Zaigas Gailes Birojs: “_Baznicas ielas maja_1. Zaigas Gailes Birojs: Power Point Presentation “Prezentacija Kipsala_2.jpg”.ppt”.ppt”. slide 49. 2005 n. Zaigas Gailes Birojs: Power Point Presentation “Prezentacija Kipsala_2.
. The pink colour shows commercial zones with potential high-rise constructions while the dark yellow zones are residential areas.Appendices
APPENDIX 1: ZONING MAP OF KIPSALA (EXTRACT)319
R"gas Dome (2005c).
Nationality o Latvian o Russian o no citizenship o other ____________________________
7. Marital Status o single o married o living together o divorced o widowed 4. Employment o yes o no if no. Education o basic o secondary o vocational o higher 5. why? o unemployed o pensioneer o maternity leave o incapable of working o other ____________________________ if yes. Sex o male o female 2.
Actual Income per Month o < 100 LVL o 100 – 250 LVL o 251 – 500 LVL o 501 – 1000 LVL o > 1000 LVL
. PERSONAL DATA
1. what kind of employment?
6.APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN (ORIGINAL RESIDENTS) I. Age o 18-25 years o 26-35 o 36-50 o 51-65 o over 65 3.
Total number of rooms ________ rooms 11. How many people live in the flat? ________ persons 12.. has this area changed a lot during the past 5 years? o yes o no o if yes. public facilities (electricity.... PERSONAL OPINIONS ABOUT THE NEIGHBOURHOOD
18.. For how long have you been living in this flat? 17.... CHARACTERISTICS OF THE APARTMENT
8. water... in how far?
16. heating/per month) _____________ LVL 13. gas... what has changed?
..II. how much? ________ LVL
9. the rent (per month)____________ LVL . . Your flat is.. 5 years o yes o no o if yes. Do you know in which year/period this house was built?
_______ years o year: ____________ o period: ______________ o don`t know
15. How much do you pay for. Has your standard of living improved during that time?
o yes o no o if yes. . Has the rent increased during the last. If there was a rent increase. 1 year o yes o no o if yes. how much? ________ LVL .
Total size of the flat
14. o private o rented o from municipality o from private owner o other ________________________ ________ sqm 10. In your opinion.
19. If yes. Do you think that this project has an influence on this area?
o yes o no o if yes. in how far?
23. When the gypsum factory was renovated and transformed. what is your opinion about it?
o yes o no
22. in how far?
25. do you like these changes?
o yes o no o why?
20. which ones?
o how often? _______ times per month 26. Do you know the residential project in the former gypsum factory? 21. in how far?
24. Do you have any personal contacts or interactions with the old residents of this area?
o yes o no o if yes. did the planners inform you about their plans? 27. Were you invited to participate in the planning process? o yes o no o yes o no
. If anything is changing. Do you use any of the facilities provided in the gypsum factory?
o yes o no o if yes. Do you think that this project has an influence on your own life?
o yes o no o if yes.
Do you think that you will continue to live here in the future?
o yes o no o why?
. What would you like to change in this area?
31. What is your vision for this area for the future? What will it be like?
30. Would you like to get more involved in the o yes development of this area in the future? o no o if yes. Which facilities would you have liked to be included in the gypsum factory project?
29.o if yes. how could you participate?
o did you participate? o yes o no o if yes.
Sex o male o female 2. Marital Status o single o married o living together o divorced o widowed 4. why? o unemployed o pensioneer o maternity leave o incapable of working o other ___________________________ if yes. Age o 18-25 years o 26-35 o 36-50 o 51-65 o over 65 3. Employment o yes o no if no. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE APARTMENT 95
. what kind of employment?
6. PERSONAL DATA
o Latvian o Russian o no citizenship o other ___________________________ o < 100 LVL o 100 – 250 LVL o 251 – 500 LVL o 501 – 1000 LVL o > 1000 LVL
7. Education o basic o secondary o vocational o higher 5.APPENDIX 3: QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN (NEW RESIDENTS) I.
Actual Income per Month
built? o year: ________________ o period: _________________ o don`t know .
Your flat is. o private o rented o from municipality o from private owner o other _______________________
9... For how long have you been living in this flat? 14. the rent (per month) ____________ LVL . Total number of rooms _________ rooms 11. . the renovation of the gypsum factory and the wooden houses has an influence on this area?
o yes o no o if yes.. Why did you choose to move here?
Total size of the flat _________ sqm
10... What is your opinion about this area?
17. .. heating/per month) _____________ LVL 13. How many people live in the flat? _________ persons 12. which influence?
. public facilities (electricity. Do you know when this house was.... water.. gas.. renovated? o year: ________________ o don`t know ________ years
III. How much do you pay for. Do you think. PERSONAL OPINION ABOUT THIS NEIGHBOURHOOD
Do you have any personal contacts or interactions with the old residents of this area?
o yes o no o if yes. in how far?
22. What is your opinion about the old unrenovated houses in this area?
19. What is your vision for Kipsala in the future? What will it be like?
25. Do you have any personal contacts or interactions with your direct neighbours?
o yes o no o if yes. What do you think about the old residents of this neighbourhood?
20. What would you like to change in this area?
24. in how far?
21.18. Do you feel safe in this neighbourhood? o yes o no o why?
23. GYPSUM FACTORY 97
. Do you think that you will continue to live here in the future?
o yes o no o why?
Do you use any of the facilities provided in the gypsum factory?
o yes o no o if yes. Which facilities would you like to be included in the gypsum factory?
28. Were you informed about the second phase of the renovation of the gypsum factory? 29. how?
30. Were you invited to participate in the planning process?
o yes o no o yes o no o if yes.26. Would you like to get more involved in the development of this area in the future?
. how could you participate?
o did you participate? o yes o no o if yes. how often? ___ times per month