THE UNIVERSITY OF TURKU

Faculty of Humanities Baltic Sea Region Studies

MASTER`S THESIS

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

iii

LIST OF FIGURES
FIG. 1: LOCATION OF THE ISLAND OF !$PSALA ALMOST OPPOSITE RIGA` S OLD TOWN................................................ 3 FIG. 2: SPATIAL STRUCTURE IN A SOCIALIST LARGE CITY ............................................................................................. 8 FIG. 3: MODEL OF URBAN TRANSITION FROM SOCIALISM TO POST-SOCIALISM ............................................................ 9 FIG. 4: SPATIAL STRUCTURE IN A POST-SOCIALIST LARGE CITY..................................................................................12 FIG. 5: LOCATION OF THE MAIN WATERFRONT PROJECTS IN CENTRAL RIGA .............................................................44 FIG. 6: LOCATION OF THE PROTECTED HISTORICAL AREA AND THE GYPSUM FACTORY PROJECT ON !$PSALA ........52 FIG. 7: MAP AND MODEL SHOWING THE DIFFERENT BUILDINGS OF THE FIRST PHASE OF THE GYPSUM FACTORY
PROJECT .........................................................................................................................................................................54

FIG. 8: RESTAURANT CORNER OF THE GYPSUM FACTORY BEFORE (2000) AND AFTER THE RESTORATION (2004) ..56 FIG. 9: A MBASSADOR`S RESIDENCE RED HOUSE BEFORE (2001) AND AFTER THE RESTORATION (2005) ............60

LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: ZONING MAP OF KIPSALA (EXTRACT) ....................................................................................................90 APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN (ORIGINAL RESIDENTS) ..................................................................................91 APPENDIX 3: QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN (NEW RESIDENTS) ...........................................................................................95

iv

Preface

The idea for this thesis originated from an international summer school for architects and urban planners in Riga, in which I participated in August 2006. It was organised by the Riga Technical University (RTU) and had the title Industrial Heritage in Riga: Contemporary Developments and Future Visions. The school included seminars about current waterfront redevelopment projects and also an excursion to the island of !"psala an area, which impressed me from the very first moment with its elegant housing and the eye-catching contrast between rich and poor. 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. 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. 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. 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, but who also became a very good friend during my exchange semester in Riga.

1 Introduction
Within the last century, cities with ports or waterfronts worldwide have experienced a process of disintegration between city and water, followed by a rediscovery of the run-down waterfront areas for redevelopment.1 Waterfront revitalization has been carried out all over the world, ranging from large-scale projects like Baltimore, London or Hamburg to many smaller port cities.2 Not all of these projects were successful.3 But still, the process of waterfront revitalization is regarded as essential in urban regeneration, since waterfronts belong to the most visible sites of the city. Thus, these are the places, which have the power to give the city a new image and if carried out in a balanced and high-quality way, these areas can turn from no-go places to the catalysts of urban development.4 Generally cities in transformation societies, such as Riga, have discovered the value of their waterfronts later than in Western Europe or North America. Now it is interesting to observe, how these cities deal with their waterfronts. While there is an immense body of academic literature about waterfront regeneration in Western countries, there is hardly any literature about Eastern Europe and the Baltic States. 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 2000.5 Thus, the case study presented in this thesis shall be an attempt to fill the gap. Since waterfront redevelopment is a very recent phenomenon in Riga, there is almost no literature about the projects available, not even in Latvian. Thus, most of my findings are based on empirical research, which was carried out in Riga between October 2006 and January 2007. It is based on interviews with relevant key persons either directly involved in

1 2

Strau, C. (2001), p. 13-16 Schubert, D. (2001c), p. 11-14 3 One prominent example is the first phase of the redevelopment of the London Docklands. For more information please see Page, S. J. (1995), p. 57-70 4 Marshall, R. (2001), p. 7-10 5 Feldman, M. (2000), p. 829-850

waterfront projects or experts coming from a background in urban planning, port development, conservation and architecture as well as on questionnaires with inhabitants of my research area. Unique to the region, Riga is the only capital city in the Baltic Sea Region located at the junction of a major river and the Baltic Sea. This special location has dominated the city`s development since it was founded in 1201. Historically, the city has always had a very strong connection to the water, reaching the peak in the end of the 19th century, when Riga was the biggest export harbour of the Russian Empire and the biggest export harbour for timber in the whole world. In those days, the waterfronts of the city were extensively used.6 Within the last century, however, the close connection between city and water got lost for several reasons, among them the construction of bridges, streets and the relocation of port activities away from the city centre.7 This development has affected all waterfront areas, not exclusively port areas. The island of !"psala, opposite Riga`s centre, exemplifies this phenomenon. Traditionally a fishermen`s village with wharfs and warehouses, such water-related activities began to decline after World War II.8 The waterfront areas that had former been the liveliest parts of the city, developed into underused or even abandoned no-go places. Only recently the city council and especially private actors have rediscovered the enormous potential of the 400 kilometers of waterfront in Riga.9 Many waterfront projects are currently under development, 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, consisting of an ensemble of wooden fishermen`s houses and the buildings of the former gypsum factory B%ma. Another fact that attracted my attention was that these projects focus primarily on the restoration and reconstruction of wooden and industrial

6 7

Pope, A. (2000), p. 267-268 Interview with P%teris Bl&ms, 14.12.2006 8 Interview with P%teris Bl&ms, 14.12.2006 9 Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs, 19.12.2006

heritage types of architecture that had previously been neglected by developers.10 As the first regenerated waterfront area in Riga, !"psala is a precursor of current waterfront projects. Together with its prime location, these issues make !"psala a unique and interesting case in Riga.

FIG. 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. Some typical features of post-socialist urban development can be derived from the !"psala case. My main interest is to find out how the heritage of the historical project area is taken into account in the planning, what is done to re-establish a stronger connection between city and water, which social processes on the island are caused by the restoration projects, how these projects are controlled and which role the needs of the local inhabitants plays. 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, how it deals with the urban land, if and how it regulates urban development and which role public participation plays in the planning process. Thus,

10 11

Interview with P%teris Bl&ms, 14.12.2006 Based on Google Maps, http://maps.google.de/ (18.06.2007)

my research focuses primarily on spatial, social and political processes in urban waterside regeneration. 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. They would, however, be a very interesting issue for further research. The thesis consists of the following parts: In order to understand the processes of waterfront redevelopment in Eastern Europe, it is necessary to incorporate the specific postsocialist context of urban development. Therefore I will give an overview on urban development in socialist and post-socialist cities as a theoretical framework for this thesis. Before I come to the specific case of Riga, I will introduce a general theoretical background for waterfront revitalization, defining the basic concepts used in this paper and presenting factors of successful revitalization relying on the theories by Bruttomesso and Schubert. Concerning the Riga case, first the project area will be introduced and the legal administrative framework for waterfront redevelopment will be given, as it is formulated in the major urban planning documents of the city of Riga. 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, 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. From the evaluation of the waterfront projects on !"psala, general statements about the mode of urban planning in Riga can be drawn. Based on these evaluations the conclusion returns to the question, 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.

2 Theoretical Framework
In my opinion, 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. Thus, the first part of this chapter will present the common features of socialist cities, explore which factors contributed to the urban change in Central and Eastern European cities (hereafter Eastern European cities) in recent years, namely the aspects of transformation from socialist to post-socialist cities, and it will outline the scholarly debate about their possible future. 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.

2.1 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, due to its transformation from state socialism and central planning towards democracy and neo-liberal market economy.12 It means basically that urban planning by public authorities becomes weaker, while private developers play an increasing role in shaping the city. 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.13

12 13

Nedovi(-Budi(, Z./Tsenkova, S./Marcuse, P. (2006), p. 3-10 Harloe, M. (1996), p. 15-16

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 City16 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
14 15

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 resources20. 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

17
18

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
23 24

Sailer-Fliege, U. (1999), p. 8-11 Sailer-Fliege, U. (1999), p. 10

pre-socialist areas close to the city centre were to a big extent populated by low social status groups.25

2.1.2 Common features of post-socialist urban transformation

Since the collapse of communism and the gaining of independence, the states in Central and Eastern Europe have undergone a period of political and economical transformation.26 In some countries, the transformation process is still underway. Even though there exist variations from state to state, several common features of planning during the transformation period can be identified.27
SOCIALIST CITY

Political Transformation

Economic Transformation

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.

POST-SOCIALIST CITY

FIG. 3: MODEL OF URBAN TRANSITION FROM SOCIALISM TO POST-SOCIALISM28

25 26

Sailer-Fliege, U. (1999), p. 12-14 Tsenkova, S./Nedovi(-Budi(, Z. (2006), p. 349 27 Sailer-Fliege, U. (1999), p. 8 28 Based on Kovcs, Z. (1999), p. 2

As Fig. 3 shows, the transformation of Eastern European cities can be divided into political and economic aspects. The major political factors were the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the change from one dominating party to a multi-party system, the realisation of free elections and the return to self-governance. The economic transformation comprised the collapse of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON), the emergence of free flows of capital, the reintegration in the world economy and an enormous privatization wave. Both, political and economic aspects, led to the end of central planning in urban planning. The transformation towards market regulation caused major changes on the labour and housing market, as it will be seen below. All those changes contributed to the creation of a new urban order, determined by a globalized and commercialized society. This had also many social consequences, such as an increasing income gap between rich and poor, social and spatial segregation and gentrification.29 The immense changes within the first decade after the collapse of communism resulted from inherited urban structures, market economy ideologies, a new governmental framework and the general processes of societal transformation.30 On the ideological level, the restructuring of the economy according to neo-liberal ideas was crucial. An important fact for urban development is that there are not many restrictions on private ownership of enterprises and land. Housing and properties have been realized as economic commodities again.31 On the level of economic transformation, the reintegration into the European and the international economy was an influential factor. Foreign investors played an increasing role in the economic restructuring process. Furthermore, the process of drastic deindustrialization led to a fast development of the previously neglected service sector. So far, however, only a minority of the population has

29 30

Kovcs, Z. (1999), p. 1-5 Tsenkova, S./Nedovi(-Budi(, Z. (2006), p. 349-353 31 Tosics, I. (2005), p. 54-56

10

benefited from the developments. Especially elderly people, unskilled workers and state employees belong to the losers of the transformation.32 In urban planning, a shift from state to local self-government can be recognized, but tight local budgets and mistrust against urban planning among the citizens keep the influence of public urban planning relatively low. The state has also largely withdrawn from the housing sector, giving way for a massive privatization process and leaving the construction of new housing for private investors. Thus, social housing is not very high on the agenda any longer and only the poorest households receive housing allocations, which leads to increasing social problems.33 Regulatory land-use controls and planning procedures have been problematic in many transformation societies so far, 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. 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

32 33

Sailer-Fliege, U. (1999), p. 11 Kovcs, Z. (1999), p. 2-4 34 Marcuse, P. (1996), p. 180-181

11

FIG. 4: SPATIAL STRUCTURE IN A POST- SOCIALIST LARGE CITY35

These changes influence the spatial structure of post-socialist cities (Fig. 4). In my understanding, the most important spatial changes, which took place in most Eastern European cities after the collapse of communism, are that the city loses its compact form through suburbanization, that huge industrial areas, also close to the city centre, are not in use any longer and that some former neglected neighbourhoods with historical housing stock are gentrified. Another interesting feature of Eastern European cities in transformation, which is relevant for this thesis, is the way they use their history for city marketing and urban development. The rejection of the built symbols of the recent past goes in line with a restitution of earlier, previously suppressed pasts. These are actively used for political and

35

Sailer-Fliege, U. (1999), p. 13

12

economic purposes. Political uses include not only the abolishment of the recent, negatively perceived past, 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. In economic terms, the potential of built heritage for economic development has been realized and plays now an essential role in development strategies. Most important in this respect are the discovery of heritage tourism and the restoration and marketing of heritage for new uses, such as commercial, entertainment or residential.36 In my opinion this commercialization of the specific history of post-socialist cities might be a feature, which will be able to survive the transition and which will be present also in the future, no matter in which direction these cities will develop. 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. In order to be able to manage these challenges, it is necessary to successfully complete the transformation after socialism, establishing a new institutional framework and a new system of public control, which are prerequisites for a long-term strategy of urban development and key factors in the globalizing, competitive world.37

2.1.3 Perspectives for post-socialist cities

As in my opinion all previously socialist cities should now be called post-socialist, the term post-socialist does not necessarily mean that a distinctive post-socialist type of city, which is different from types of cities in modern capitalist societies, is likely to emerge. For me, the question is rather: post-socialist and what else? In fact this is an issue, which currently is

36 37

Ashworth, G. J./Tunbridge, J. E. (1999), p. 105-111 Tosics, I. (2005), p. 74-75

13

highly debated among scholars.38 Some scholars argue that post-socialist cities are generally heading towards a global capitalist type of city, but without defining what capitalist city actually means to them.39 But today in the scholarly debate it is increasingly accepted, 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. 40 Therefore an increasing number of scholars differentiate between several potential outcomes of future cities depending on the level of public control, the functioning of the land market, the level of investments and the participation of the citizens.41 According to this differentiation three types of cities are likely to emerge: an unregulated capitalist city model, a regulated capitalist city model and an unregulated third world city model. While Albania and some other Balkan states are regarded as future third world types of cities with quick development without any public control, Eastern European cities including the Baltic capitals are predicted to develop into different kinds of market-oriented capitalist cities. The less public control is established, the more will these cities develop towards an American sprawl-type of city. The stronger the public intervention, the more will the cities develop towards the European compact-type of city.42 In my opinion it is not possible to talk about the global capitalist city. Indeed cities are part of the global capitalist economy43, but this does not mean that there is only one distinct type of a capitalist city. Thus, I support Tosics` idea that post-socialist cities might head towards different types of cities. Concerning the general orientation of post-socialist cities towards Western Europe and the US, 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

38 39

Smith, D. M. (1996), p. 71 For example Z. Kovcs 40 Feldman, M. (2000), p. 832 41 Tosics, I. (2005), p. 71-72 42 Tosics, I. (2005), p. 74 43 Smith, M. P./Feagin, J. R. (1987), p. 3

14

something in between. The North American type of city is based on the dominance of private actors and a low level of public control. It has to deal with processes like suburbanization and urban sprawl, decay and ghettoization in the inner city, revitalization efforts in the city centres, the creation of edge cities and gated communities.44 In contrast, the urban development in European cities is usually influenced by historical structures. Since cities date from different historical periods, also their structure can be very different which makes it hard to speak about the European city. Even though global trends make European cities more and more similar to North American ones, until now they could usually keep their distinct character due to their historical structures.45 Public actors usually play a regulating role in the planning process. Currently, key terms in European urban planning are density, mixeduse, the compact city, decentralization and community participation, which shall ensure the sustainable development of European cities.46 Since the major Eastern European cities usually have a rich history, which is still visible in the urban structure, I cannot imagine that they will completely develop into a North American type of city. On the other hand, if the level of public control remains as low in Eastern European cities as it is now, I can neither imagine, that they will develop completely into a European type of city. In my opinion, it is therefore most likely that Eastern European cities will develop towards different levels of in between, maybe even keeping certain post-socialist features such as the commercialization of their specific history. 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

44

Klett Verlag, http://www.klett.de/sixcms/list.php?page=geo_infothek&node=Nordamerika&article=Infoblatt+Die+Nordameri kanische+Stadt (13.06.2007) 45 Klett Verlag, http://www.klett.de/sixcms/list.php?page=geo_infothek&node=Stadttypen&article=Infoblatt+Die+europ%E4isc he+Stadt (13.06.2007) 46 Heineberg, H. (2001), p. 129-131

15

the property market, slow differentiation of rather low population incomes. First slow, but from 1996 accelerated privatization housing to sitting tenants, and establishment of new type of public control over the land market, planning, and building process. The outcome might be somewhere between the unregulated and regulated capitalist city-model, depending on the strength and direction of public control.47 From my experiences in Riga, however, I would agree with Tsenkova, who claims that instead of promoting public control, the new marketoriented governments have adopted a laissez-faire approach to planning which gives rise to uneven urban development.48 Currently, no regional planning or land use controls exist in Latvia that would be able to effectively regulate the urban development.49 All these issues are relevant for my project area on the island of !"psala in Riga, which has to deal with an extreme gap between rich and poor. Riga has faced a creeping privatization process during the past five years, in which another 50% of Riga`s stock was transferred into private hands.50 On !"psala, private investors construct an exclusive area for high-income and high-status residents, while in the direct neighbourhood some of the poorest and socially weakest people in the city live from support of friends and families, because with the small pensions and housing allocations alone they would not be able to stay. Social problems such as marginalisation, gentrification and segregation are taking place, and the public sector is not willing or able to regulate the polarising developments. An in-depth analysis of the situation on !"psala and the underlying factors follows in the case study later in this paper.

47 48

Tosics, I. (2005), p. 73 Tsenkova, S. (2006), p. 42 49 Marcuse, P. (1996), p. 180-181 50 Tsenkova, S. (2006), p. 45

16

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. Since gentrification likewise forms one of the basic concepts of this thesis, it will also be defined below. Owen categorized waterfronts into four types: water edge, meaning constructions rising straight from the water, perforated water edge, meaning buildings right at the edge of the water, but perforated by passageways, set back buildings, meaning buildings that are located close to the water, 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. 51 Within this categorization, my research area !"psala represents the third type of waterfront: set back buildings, which are separated by a road and the embankment from the water`s edge. However, for my purposes a waterfront project may also include buildings, which are not directly located on the water, but which are tied to it visually and historically.52 In everyday life the word vitality is a synonym to liveliness, fresh spirit or activity.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, i.e. the reorganization and relocation of the activities within the port area. From the perspective of urban planning, which is the focal point of this paper, it refers to new uses of old port areas and waterfronts, i.e. the change from port economy related uses to services, recreational uses and housing, in order to reintegrate abandoned sites into the urban structure. The aim is to develop these places into lively and active parts of the city.54

51 52

Owen, J. (1993), p. 16-18 Breen, A./Rigby, D. (1994), p. 10 53 Gudemann (1995), p.128 54 Schubert, D. (2001a), p. 16

17

Revitalization can either mean the cleaning of old sites and construction of new premises, or the reuse and redevelopment of existing premises.55 As can be seen from above, 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. It also reflects the different interests of various actors in the city, who want to play a role in the development of the respective areas.56 In this paper revitalization, regeneration and redevelopment will be used as synonyms. Gentrification refers to the renewal and rehabilitation of depressed neighbourhoods, often buildings with heritage value in central locations, by more affluent people moving to this area.57 The original tenants have to move out, since leases fall in, houses are sold, or landlords harass their tenants into moving58. In many cases this development results in a change of the real estate structure from renting to ownership.59 In the case of Riga, gentrification is a rather new phenomenon. The island of !"psala is one of the first places in the city where gentrification processes can be observed. This is due to the favourable location of the site close to the city centre and next to the waterfront, and to the historic value of the built heritage of the island.60

55 56

Kunzmann, K. R. (2004), p. 201-202 Schubert, D. (2001a), p. 27 57 Heineberg, H. (2001), p. 18 58 Mayhew, S. (2004), p. 219 59 Mayhew, S. (2004), p. 219 60 Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs, 19.12.2006

18

2.2.1 Redevelopments along the water`s edge reasons and opportunities

Only a few decades ago, derelict port zones and waterfront areas dominated the appearance of many harbour cities.61 Starting in the 1960s, however, the unique potential of these places was recognized and a special interest in them emerged. Waterfront redevelopment became a widespread phenomenon in North America in the 1970s, one of the most prominent projects being the Baltimore Inner Harbour, and spread to European cities in the 1980s. 62 Today, there are numerous examples of revitalization projects all over the world, 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.63 The city of Riga has reacted rather late to the challenge of under- or unused port and waterfront areas. But recently, Latvian investors have realized that these areas, mostly located close to the city centre, offer immense opportunities for new uses like housing, offices, tourism or recreation. The new uses could help to reintegrate the old ports and waterfronts into the city. The reasons and problems of revitalizing port and waterfront areas are similar in many harbour cities, but the aims, planning systems, financing and scale of the projects are very different.64 Seaports have always had a key role in the economic and cultural life of a harbour city. This was also the case in Riga, 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.65 In my opinion the redevelopment of waterfronts and old port areas offers the opportunity to reintegrate port and city, water and land, as well as historical heritage and present-day life. And it can help to bring back to the city some of the maritime flair it once had.

61 62

Schubert, D. (2001b), p. 7 Hoyle, B./Pinder, D. (1992), p. 11 63 Schubert, D. (2001c), p. 11-14 64 Schubert, D. (2001b), p. 7-8 65 Meyer, K. (2004), p. 3

19

The reason for the need of transformations of ports and waterfronts is the worldwide structural change of sea trade and the related port economy, and a subsequent change in the relationship between city and port. Containerization and computerization in sea trade had the effect that often the port had to move seawards, away from the city, because it needed more space and deeper waters. The traditional ports close to the city centres, with multi-purpose terminals and quayside warehouses were not needed any longer. Often these areas became abandoned and neglected no-go places, until their potential was rediscovered and revitalization projects were started.66

2.2.2 Factors of successful waterfront revitalization

The redevelopment of derelict port and waterfront areas is a global phenomenon. Scholars have thus tried to develop theoretical models, identifying the factors and aims of successful waterfront redevelopment. These factors will be presented below. It must be noted, however, that theoretical concepts for waterfront redevelopment rely heavily on the experiences made in Western European and North American cities. It is questionable, whether they can completely be transferred to Eastern European or Baltic cases. Theoretical models for waterfront redevelopment in Eastern Europe do not exist.67 All the same, in my opinion the following factors give some very general tendencies for successful waterfront redevelopment, which makes them to a certain extent also relevant for the Eastern European context. Neglected port areas and waterfronts offer huge possibilities to reorganize the relation between the city centre, the waterfront area and the water itself. The waterfront zones, which previously presented barriers for urban development, can now be used to reconnect the city to

66 67

Marshall, R. (2001), p. 5 Feldman, M. (2000), p. 829

20

the water.68 To make the area interesting it is essential to highlight its unique character. This can be done by establishing appropriate activities on the piers and the routes along the waterside, by creating viewpoints to enjoy the urban landscape and by preserving certain elements in the area, which refer to its past.69 Abandoned port and waterfront areas usually have many relicts from their maritime and industrial past. Their unique location offers the opportunity to connect the (sometimes even protected) architectural heritage of the area with new uses. 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 highlighting of the maritime heritage of port and waterfront areas adds to their attractiveness.70 Since the water is one of the main factors in these areas, it should be highlighted as a special value. Port and waterfront areas open up possibilities for new uses. Several different functions and activities should be assigned to the area. The mix of functions refers to the different uses of urban space (like residential, mobility, commercial, services, culture and recreation). One dominating function or the dual term commerce and entertainment might cause the danger of lowering the quality of the area, e.g. by falling abandoned at certain times of the day or by presenting an artificial atmosphere. Thus, a mixture of different functions, a mixture of restoration and new construction, and a mixture of residents with different incomes are regarded as factors for sustainable redevelopment. The reason is that the area is not dependent on events, seasons or times of the day, since there are permanent residents living in there, making it more stable. In many cases redeveloped waterfront zones also include cultural and leisure activities, which makes them attractive for tourists and visitors.71 The functions and activities play a big role not only in the regeneration itself, but also in the relationship between the area and the rest of the city. In order to prevent the dangers

68 69

Schubert, D. (2001a), p. 24-25 Bruttomesso, R. (2001), p. 46 70 Schubert, D. (2001a), p. 29-30 71 Schubert, D. (2001a), p. 28-29

21

mentioned above, a certain number of activities should be connected to the original uses of the area, keeping alive the memory of the past and contributing to the identity of the place. Also, the functions should be carefully balanced, ideally resulting in a sound mixture of appropriate productive activities and a certain amount of residence and associated activities, so that the area does not become a zone exclusively for visitors, which is picturesque but artificial. The routes in the area should encourage interaction between the different functions and activities rather than separating them. Taking these measures into account, 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, which is closely linked to the heart of the city.72 The co-presence of public and private usually makes waterfront zones more interesting. This refers to functions, spaces and actors. Functions and activities from the public domain, such as government offices and museums, should be mixed with privately managed activities, such as hotels and entertainment venues. Traditional public spaces like squares, roads and parks should be joined by private spaces like gardens and clubs. The different actors at a functionally and spatially mixed waterfront usually have different systems to manage these zones, which help to create a typical urban mix of public and private.73 The structural change in ports and waterfront areas resulted in many cities in high unemployment. Thus, the regeneration process in these areas should aim to create new jobs and to reintegrate the local inhabitants into the labour market. It must be noted, however, that usually it is not possible to completely compensate the loss of jobs in the port-related industries by jobs in the service sector, which are typical for waterfront areas.74 Regeneration of waterfronts usually takes place within a complicated net of different actors, different interests and different property ownership.75 Port authorities often have a

72 73

Bruttomesso, R. (2001), p. 43 Bruttomesso, R. (2001), p. 44 74 Schubert, D. (2001a), p. 23-24 75 Hoyle, B. (2000), p. 414

22

special status in the city, which might make cooperation with them difficult. Another possible conflict is the gap between the interests of the investors, the overall development needs of the city and the needs of the local residents. Sustainable and socially sound urban development policy is often in contradiction to the political reality in the city, which is dictated by the city budget, the measures of the city to regulate development and necessity of short-term success within an election period. These factors make integrated strategies for waterfront redevelopment almost impossible and encourage the emergence of uncoordinated independent projects. In many countries, the regeneration is almost completely left to the investors and market forces. However, the restructuring of the waterfront also offers the opportunity to use a new, integrated and participatory mode of planning.76 One condition for successful waterfront regeneration is to open up previously inaccessible areas for the public, so that the waterfront becomes an active part of the city, which can be used by inhabitants and visitors.77 It is a worldwide phenomenon that waterfronts often are cut off from the rest of the city by barriers and transport corridors. Also, in many cases private properties and industries are located directly on the water. All this makes these areas very difficult to access. Public access possibilities, esplanades along the water and the establishment of ferry connections can help to revitalize the waterfronts.78 In order to ensure the quality of the area, it must be guaranteed that it is easily accessible. A crucial issue is easy, pleasant and safe access for pedestrians. In many regeneration projects one focus was to make the waterfront a pedestrian zone by restricting vehicle traffic. Access of private vehicles was limited, the quantity of vehicles was regulated and routes within the area were accurately defined. This resulted in the fact that many waterfronts have become one of the main pedestrian areas in the city. Such a strategy may not, however limit the mobility

76 77

Schubert, D. (2001a), p. 27 Bruttomesso, R. (2001), p. 45 78 Schubert, D. (2001a), p. 26

23

of residents and visitors. Thus, the development of effective public transport connections is extremely important.79 The unique location of waterfronts offers the possibility to connect them to other parts of the city by waterborne transport. This has many advantages, as it takes away some pressure from the streets in the city and it presents a pleasant kind of transport. 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. Successful waterfront regeneration is also dependent on the quality of the water. Clean water means an extension of the open area, which is usable by residents and visitors. The possibilities that it offers for various uses today mostly linked to leisure activities add a certain value to the area. In contrast, unsatisfactory water quality lowers the quality of the entire waterfront zone, including the land areas.80 An issue that is extremely important in the post-socialist context is the accumulation and circulation of capital. As urban development in Eastern European cities is usually dominated by private actors and driven by the market, profit is usually the major concern in development projects. Since land has been understood as a value again, waterfronts have developed into an important target for private developers, who realised the potential of these areas to generate profit.81

79 80

Bruttomesso, R. (2001), p. 45-46 Bruttomesso, R. (2001), p. 46 81 Interview with P%teris Bl&ms, 14.12.2006

24

3 Waterfront redevelopment in Riga

In comparison to the other capitals in the Baltic Sea Region context, Riga has a unique location on the bank of an important river and at the seaside. The place has always been an important gateway between East and West.82 Where the Riga River meets the river Daugava, a port existed even before the city of Riga was founded in 1201. It was the main reason for the founding of the city at this location, and throughout the city history the port has played a crucial role for urban development.83 In the 19th century it developed into the biggest export port of the Russian Empire, some historians even claim that Riga had the biggest port worldwide for the export of timber.84 A pontoon bridge on the river Daugava became an important nodal point between sea trade and river trade. City and river were closely connected, since an important part of the city life took place along the quays.85 Since the end of the 19th century, however, this connection was gradually lost. 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. The remaining port activities were located closer to the river mouth, away from the city centre and a railway connection was established.86 In 1872, the first stationary bridge was built.87 More bridges followed, blocking much of the seaborne traffic from the central parts of the city. 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. 88 Buildings for port related activities were abandoned. On !"psala, warehouses and wharfs lost their function and disappeared, and also the fishing business that had dominated the island for centuries lost its
82 83

Kocers, Egils (1998), p. 9 Harder-Gersdorff, E. (2005), p. 261 84 Pope, A. (2000), p. 267-268 85 Pope, A. (2000), p. 265 86 Interview with Jonas Bchel, 12.12.2006 87 Pope, A. (2000), p. 269 88 Interview with P%teris Bl&ms, 14.12.2006

25

importance. The port areas used or unused were no longer publicly accessible. 89 In Soviet times, major streets were built along the banks of the river Daugava, the most important one being 11. Novembra Krastmala between the old town and the river. All this had the effect of disintegrating city and water. The maritime atmosphere that had once dominated Riga was completely lost.90 Today, there are more than 400 kilometers of coastline within the city borders91, among them un- or underused areas with a unique potential for redevelopment, such as one of the last remaining dockland areas in Europe.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. In 2005, the borders of the port were officially changed, thus opening up new possibilities for revitalisation projects. Comparing to Western European cities, this reevaluation of waterfront areas has occurred rather late, because in Soviet times planners had different priorities than waterfronts and in the underused port areas some activities were (and are) still going on.93 Thus, only in the mid-1990s an initial interest in one of these areas emerged by the private developer M#ris Gailis, who started to redevelop a historical area on !"psala.94 His projects form the focus of my case study. Today, there are dozens of different initiatives concerning waterfront redevelopment in the city. The most discussed ones in the central parts of the city will be presented below.

89 90

Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs, 19.12.2006 Interview with Jonas Bchel, 12.12.2006 91 Interview with Gvido Princis, 15.12.2006 92 Koolhaas, R. et al. (2006), p. 7 93 Interview with Edgars S&na, 14.12.2006 94 SIA MG, http://www.mg.lv (17.05.2007)

26

3.1 Introduction to the case study area

!"psala is a very young island. It was created only in the 18th century, when *agaru island, Burk#nu island and some smaller islands grew together. In the east of the island there was built a dam and sand was accumulated, which made the island grow gradually. It is unsure, where the name !"psala exactly derives from. However, there are stories told that !"psala was named after a fisherman called !"pa, who lived on the island. Only in the beginning of the 20th century this name was first mentioned in official documents.95 Until the 1960s the island remained a rather rural place with a fishermen`s village and many greeneries. The dominant businesses were fishing and rafting, but also some small wharfs operated on the island.96 The wooden fishermen`s houses still exist today. Now the entire ensemble is protected as a historical monument of national significance. The buildings of the gypsum factory are from the end of the 19th century.97 In the 1970s, the character of the island started to change drastically. There were built many new structures in Soviet style, such as housing blocks, the campus of the Riga Technical University and an exhibition hall.98 Already in those days a few officials of the Soviet regime discovered the island and built their villas there.99 At the same time the fishing business lost its importance, many fishermen moved away and the wharves and storage houses on the island lost their function. Rather weak social groups with a very low income and a low standard of education moved into the old houses on the island, which usually were not connected to the electricity, heating or canalisation system of the rest of the city. Criminality was on the rise. Since then, the original social structure of the island was

95 96

R"gas Dome (2005a), p. 3 +rgalis, A. (2001), p. 94 97 Zaigas Gailes Birojs (2001 n.p.), p. 1 98 R"gas Dome (2005a), p. 5 99 Interview with Jonas Bchel, 12.12.2006

27

already in decay. Some descendants of the fishermen, however, remained on !"psala, and still there are some families who have been living on the island for several generations.100 In the mid-1990s, 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, restoring the old fishermen`s houses and the gypsum factory and attracting the financial elite of the country to the island. Since then, processes like gentrification and segregation are taking place to a large extent. 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. It is in the development from one of the poorest to one of the most exclusive and most expensive areas in the city. However, currently there are still some unrenovated places housing original residents with a very low income and social status. The direct neighbourhood of rich and poor, restored buildings and buildings in decay, gives the area a very special atmosphere. If the developments continue as they do now, it will be only a matter of time until the last original residents have left and the island will be a completely exclusive place. Reasons for the extremely rising popularity of this place are the close location to the city centre, the excellent view from many locations and the historical setting.101 Today, 2.200 inhabitants live on the island, which has a territory of 110.1 ha, including 1.300 students in the dormitories on the campus of the Riga Technical University. Unfortunately there are no separate population statistics for !"psala, which makes statements about the residents there rather difficult.102 The main territorial complexes on the island are the RTU campus with its dormitories, public swimming pool and the largest exhibition hall of the Baltic States, the press building Preses Nams, the high-rise building of the Hanza bank, the shopping mall Olympia and a huge shop of construction materials in the north of

100 101

Interview with P%teris Bl&ms, 14.12.2006 Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs, 19.12.2006 102 R"gas Dome (2005a), p. 3

28

!"psala.103 The protected historical part covers an area of 23.66 ha and comprises more than 30 wooden buildings. The majority of these buildings are located between !"psalas iela, Balasta Dambis, Enkura iela, Oglu iela, Lo'u iela and the inner border of Zunda (the channel between !"psala and Pardaugava).104 In terms of size and population this area is not the dominant structure on !"psala, but it has an important meaning as the historical heart of the island.105 Since 1997 the entire island is part of the UNESCO buffer zone around the world heritage Jugendstil centre of Riga.106 The buffer zone functions as a protection belt around the historical UNESCO area. Therefore, special rules and regulations apply to it, e.g. concerning the maximum height of buildings. Since the city council nevertheless promotes high-rise constructions in this area, it has repeatedly got into conflict with the UNESCO board, which even threatened the city council with removing Riga from the list of world heritage sites.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.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. It consists of three main documents:
103

Riga long-term development strategy until 2025

R"gas Dome (2005a), p. 4. Recently built complexes like Hanza bank and Olympia added on the basis of own observations. 104 R"gas Dome (2005b), p. 1 105 R"gas Dome (2005a), p. 7 106 R"gas Dome (2005a), p. 3 107 Wikipedia, Riga, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riga (03.06.2007) 108 Interview with P%teris Bl&ms, 14.12.2006

29

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. Thus, it serves as an umbrella document for both the development programme and the spatial plan. Furthermore it describes the interests of the city, the main development targets and planning guidelines as well as a model to supervise the implementation of the plans.109 The development programme 2006-2012 concretizes the development priorities, which are defined in the long-term strategy. It formulates tasks, projects and programmes in order to promote the social and economical development of the city of Riga.110 The Riga spatial plan 2006-2018 presents the land use policy of the city. In this document it is defined, which zones in the city may be used for which functions. It is the only of the main documents, which is legally binding and according to experts it is also the one, which is most important for urban planning in Riga.111 In addition to that there are several other official documents, which are essential in the context of waterfront redevelopment: For the different areas in the city there exist detailed plans, which further concretize the zoning for this neighbourhood, the infrastructure and planned developments. Such a plan also exists for !"psala.112 It shall be analysed later in this chapter. Since all the waterfront projects mentioned in this paper are located within the buffer zone of the UNESCO world heritage area, the specially designed planning document for the historical centre of Riga (Planning of the Riga Historical Centre and its Protection Zone Territory113) applies to them, and they have to follow certain regulations which are defined

109 110

CDD, Riga City Council (2005b) CDD, Riga City Council (2005a) 111 CDD, Riga City Council (2005c) 112 R"gas Dome (2005a) 113 CDD, Riga City Council (2006b)

30

in the document Building Regulations for Riga Historical Centre and its Protection Zones114. Even though later in this paper we will see that in reality these plans and regulations are only of a very limited value, since their implementation is problematic and the few existing binding rules are possible to by-pass, nevertheless they form the administrative and legal context for waterfront redevelopments in Riga. Therefore the status of waterfront projects in the respective plans, as well as the theoretical restrictions that the building regulations pose on the projects, shall be analysed below.

3.2.1 Long-term development strategy until 2025

The long-term development strategy is themed: Riga opportunity for everyone. It defines main goals concerning the social and economic sphere, urban environment and city administration, corresponding to the three development pillars that the city defined: economy, society and urban environment. The urban economy in Riga shall ideally be versatile and growing, partner-like and with a high added value, so that Riga becomes internationally competitive and might take a connecting function between East and West in economic terms. The vision for the society is that it is well-provided, socially supported and well-cared, healthy and active, family-oriented, informed and mentally rich. Concerning the urban environment, the city shall be comfortably and easily accessible, safe, clean and green and provide the inhabitants with quality housing. All this shall contribute to an efficiently managed city, in which the inhabitants like to live.115

114 115

CDD, Riga City Council (2006a) CDD, Riga City Council (2005b), p. 23

31

Waterfront issues are explicitly mentioned in the long-term development strategy. Inefficiently used waterfronts are identified as one of the weaknesses in the urban environment of the city.116 Therefore special attention should be paid to these areas, which currently often are run-down territories. 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.117 Ensuring the development and accessibility of waterfronts in order to establish a high-quality living and business environment, but also focusing on public space, even forms one of the 14 basic concepts of spatial planning in Riga. Another one is the promotion of water territories for various kinds of recreation, while a third one stresses the importance of preserving, renovating and using the cultural heritage of the city.118

3.2.2 Development Programme 2006-2012

The development programme gives an overview on the current situation in terms of population, economy, infrastructure, environment, housing, tourism, healthcare, social services, education, culture, entertainment and sport in Riga. 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. It also deals with the implementation and the monitoring of the development programme. Waterfront redevelopment is not explicitly mentioned in this document. It is, however, stated that water areas make a considerable share of the citys territory, altogether 17.6%. But

116 117

CDD, Riga City Council (2005b), p. 22 CDD, Riga City Council (2005b), p. 28 118 CDD, Riga City Council (2005b), p. 52-53

32

unlike in other cities in the Baltic Sea Region, such as Stockholm and Helsinki, they are not efficiently used in Riga.119 Thus, development of by-water territories should be enforced.120

3.2.3 Riga Spatial Plan 2006-2018

After outlining the development preconditions, goals and visions for the city of Riga, the spatial plan presents the developments in Riga in the international, 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, since they have been dealt with most extensively are environment and transport, but also all the other topics identified in the long-term strategy appear in this document.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.122 Apart from this repetition there are no references to waterfronts at all in the entire document.

3.2.4 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. It is a binding political document, which supplements the spatial plan for 2006-2018. Preservation and development of historical spatial structures and

119 120

CDD, Riga City Council (2005a), p. 5 CDD, Riga City Council (2005a), p. 156 121 CDD, Riga City Council (2005c), p. 2-3 122 CDD, Riga City Council (2005c), p. 24

33

public spaces in the city including streets, boulevards, squares, parks and waterfronts is one of the main development objectives in the document.123 Concerning the development of public open space there is a complete subchapter about historical watercourses, water bodies and embankments. However, it focuses mainly on development possibilities for the embankment of the river Daugava along the old town, suggesting making it a pedestrian area with (maritime) recreation facilities. Another focal point mentioned in this subchapter is the embankments of certain city canals, which should be developed into an embankment park. The areas of the projects, which are mainly dealt with in this paper, are only marginally tackled in the document, saying that the waterfronts in the historical protection zone including !"psala, Andrejosta, Andrejsala and Exportosta should be arranged as plantation territories.124 The preservation, renovation and use of cultural heritage, including the industrial heritage of the city, are mentioned in various chapters in this document.

3.2.5 Building regulations in the historical centre and the buffer zone

These binding regulations shall regulate the preservation, renovation and construction within the historical centre of Riga and the adjacent protected territories. It was especially designed for the UNESCO world heritage area and its buffer zone in order to fulfil the criteria set by the UNESCO.125 Different regulations exist for different areas. Since the island of !"psala is located in the UNESCO buffer zone, the regulations for the historical part of the island are as followed (extract): The spatial character of the cultural heritage environment comprising residential, commercial and industrial buildings of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century
123 124

CDD, Riga City Council (2006b), p. 26 CDD, Riga City Council (2006b), p. 81-84 125 CDD, Riga City Council (2006a), p. 7

34

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. If the maximum number of storeys for a plot is not indicated on this map, the height should not exceed 24 meters.127

3.2.6 Detailed Plan !#psala

The detailed plan contains a description of !"psala in relation to the development programme of Riga, an analysis of the spatial structure of the island, the current situation and planned developments in the field of transport and a short presentation of the real estate situation on the island. Special reference is made to the historical part of !"psala including the wooden houses and the factory buildings, which are the main focus of this thesis. According to law No. 1284 by the Cultural Ministry of Latvia from 1998, this area is listed as a protected historical ensemble of national significance. Thus, special regulations apply to it and to a protection zone of 100 meters around it.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
126 127

CDD, Riga City Council (2006a), p. 56 CDD, Riga City Council (2006a), p. 10 128 R"gas Dome (2005a), p. 3-4

35

entire city. This is due to its location on the river Daugava almost opposite the old town of Riga. Therefore, special attention should be paid to the development of the silhouette of !"psala. The plan suggests a silhouette reminding of a fan, 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.129 Functionally, !"psala can be divided into several parts: commercial territories and high-rise buildings, public buildings, low residential buildings, mixed-use areas with residential, commercial and public functions as well as a small area with greeneries and space, which is not allowed to be used (e.g. a belt of ten meters width along the shoreline).130 The zoning map shows, where on the island these functions are located and which building regulations apply to them. 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, the historical residential area and the mixed-use area may not have more than three or four floors, depending on the location.131 Spatially, !"psala can be divided into the protected historical part and an area of newer constructions, which have been developed since the 1970s. The historical area mainly consists of old fishermen houses, which to a great extent have been restored already, and the historical gypsum factory where one part has been restored while the other part is currently under restoration. The historical area is located in the middle part of the island. It is mainly for lowrise residential use. The newer areas are mostly located in the northern and southern parts of !"psala. They have various uses, including Soviet residential blocks, shopping and hotel complexes and the RTU campus.132

129 130

R"gas Dome (2005a), p. 5 R"gas Dome (2005b), p. 1-7 131 R"gas Dome (2005b), p. 3-6. For a visual impression of the zoning on the island, please see the extract of the zoning map (Appendix 1). 132 R"gas Dome (2005a), p. 3-4

36

There are three forms of traffic affecting the island: traffic within the island, traffic connecting !"psala with other parts of Riga and transit traffic between the left and the right bank of the river, connecting central Riga with Pardaugava (as the parts of the city, which are located on the left bank of the river Daugava, are generally called).133 Currently there are four bridges on the island. However, three of them are minor bridges connecting !"psala and Pardaugava, while only one bridge Van)u tilts forms the only connection between !"psala and central Riga. Since this connection attracts also a lot of east-west transit traffic, it causes a lot of transport problems on southern !"psala. 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, also in the northern part of the island. Along the shoreline of the channel Zunda the city council reserved a territory for another street. These developments shall solve the traffic problems, which within ten years are assumed to be 2.2 to 2.5 times higher than today.134 However, it would also mean increased traffic on !"psala in the north-south direction, maybe resulting in the fact that the whole island becomes a place for transit traffic. As a general principle for the developments on !"psala it is formulated in the detailed plan, that the existing buildings should be conserved wherever possible. Concerning the protected historical ensemble it is regarded as important to conserve the historical building substance as much as possible, 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.135 More information from the detailed plan, which is relevant for my focal area, i.e. the historical part of the island, will be given in the context of the presentation of this area within the case study.
133 134

R"gas Dome (2005a), p. 8 R"gas Dome (2005a), p. 8-11 135 R"gas Dome (2005a), p. 14-15

37

3.2.7 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, as can be seen in the long term development strategy. However, the more concrete the plan, the less the issue is tackled. In the most relevant plan for urban planning in Riga, the spatial plan, waterfront redevelopment is hardly mentioned. This shows that even though the city has identified those areas as potential development zones, it has no concrete strategy of how to develop them. 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, who state that the implementation of the visions of the city council is usually left for private investors and the market136. The city council hardly has any measures to regulate or supervise the developments. The development documents rather formulate a wish-list of the city concerning the direction of urban development, but the actual implementation is mostly left to private actors and the market.137 There are few laws (such as the building regulations), which provide a legal basis to regulate the developments, but investors usually find a way to avoid those laws and carry out their projects anyway. As one urban planner puts it: If an investor really wants to build something, he will build it.138 These limits of urban planning might be a

136 137

Interview with Jonas Bchel, 11.12.2006; Interview with Gvido Princis, 15.12.2006 Interview with Jonas Bchel, 11.12.2006 138 Interview with Inese Baranovska and Mario Zetzsche, 17.11.2006

38

typical feature of planning in the Baltic States, since Merje Feldman noticed a similar situation in her study about Tallinn.139 I regard development plans as the main tool to regulate urban development. But a tool only works if it is effectively implemented. Since the city lacks the instruments for its implementation, 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. The missing regulation instruments result in the fact, that in reality there is no overall concept for development, but rather single independent and private projects, which the city is not able and in some cases also not willing to control. This impression is even supported by Gvido Princis from the Riga city council, 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.140 The result of these developments is that the city lacks a clear structure, which makes it also hard to predict its future developments. 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. Indeed they can express their demands and their opinions about the plans in official procedures, but the authorities do not have to take these opinions into consideration. 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 society141. Therefore in my opinion it would be necessary to create a formal procedure of public participation, not just consultation.

139 140

Feldman, M. (2000), p. 833 Interview with Gvido Princis, 15.12.2006 141 Nawratek, K., http://www.rigaplans.net/en/ (14.06.2007)

39

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. Most of the findings presented in this chapter are based on fieldwork carried out in Riga between October 2006 and January 2007. The empirical research consisted of two different parts: narrative interviews with key persons involved in current waterfront projects namely the ones on !"psala, the Riga Port City project on Andrejsala and the Jaunie Tr"s br#,i project in three central waterfront locations on the one hand, and questionnaires with residents from my focal area on the other hand. The interviews were carried out in order to get an overview on urban planning in Riga in general and the current waterfront projects, and to get a deeper insight into the developments in the historical part of !"psala. The interview partners were carefully chosen and consisted of actors actively involved in the developments, but also (more) independent local experts and a representative of the Urban Planning Department of the Riga City Council. This mixture of interview partners with different backgrounds should ensure that different interests and perspectives are taken into account, so that the results of the research are as objective as possible. Complete objectivity, however, is in my opinion not possible, as also the local experts come from a certain background and give their very personal view on the developments in Riga. In concrete terms, the interviewees and their background were the following: Concerning the !"psala case: M#ris Gailis, the developer of the gypsum factory and the wooden houses as well as some other residential projects on !"psala. He is the former prime minister of Latvia, who after

40

withdrawal from politics started a real estate company called MG, which is now active in the real estate development of the historical part of !"psala.142 Zaiga Gaile, 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. Since she and her husband live themselves in one the restored wooden houses right at the waterfront, they also have a personal interest in developing the area.143 Edgar Schieder, representative of Project Management Team (PMT), the Austrian investor who is the strategic partner of MG in the !"psala projects.144 (email interview) Concerning other redevelopment projects: Inese Baranovska and Mario Zetzsche, representatives of the state agency Jaunie Tr"s br#,i (New Three Brothers J3B), which is responsible for the planning and implementation of the three cultural projects on the waterfront: the Contemporary Art Museum (CAM), the Concert Hall and the National Library.145 Astr"da Rogule, also a representative of the state agency J3B, responsible for the CAM.146 Aigars Ku)-is, representative of Jaunr"gas att"st"bas uz.%mums (New Development Agency JAU), the development company of the Riga Port City project on Andrejsala.147 (email interview) Local experts: Jonas Bchel, at that time consultant at the German political foundation Friedrich-EbertStiftung, focuses on sustainable restoration of residential buildings, community participation and socially sound urban planning.148

142 143

SIA MG, http://www.mg.lv (17.05.2007) Interview with Zaiga Gaile, 14.11.2006 144 PMT, http://www.pmteuropa.com/ (01.06.2007) 145 J3B, http://www.j3b.gov.lv/index.php?sadala=5 (01.06.2007) 146 J3B, http://www.j3b.gov.lv/index.php?sadala=5 (01.06.2007) 147 JAU, http://www.jau.lv/ (01.06.2007) 148 Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, http://www.fes-baltic.lv/ (01.06.2007)

41

P%teris Bl&ms, self-dependent architect and conservation specialist, focuses on the sustainable restoration of the wooden architecture in Riga.149

Andis Kubla'ovs, lecturer in the Department of Geography at the University of Latvia, especially focusing on urban planning. 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.150

City Council: Gvido Princis, architect and deputy director of the Urban Planning Department of the Riga City Council.151 Port Authorities: Edgars S&na, head of the Strategic Planning Department at the Freeport of Riga Authority.152 In order to get an impression of the opinions of the residents in the historical part of !"psala, 33 questionnaires with both open and closed questions were filled in. There were two different questionnaires designed, one for the original residents of the island and one for the new residents. I spoke with 25 original residents, with four residents of the gypsum factory and with four residents of the new town houses built by M#ris Gailis, which are situated in the direct neighbourhood of the gypsum factory and some wooden houses. Unfortunately it was not possible to get any opinions of residents of the reconstructed wooden houses, because they belong to the wealthiest people of the country and were not willing to receive any visitors. The questionnaires were designed in Latvian, English and Russian. The closed questions were analysed using SPSS, while the open questions were categorised and summarised. Additionally, Anita Pluce, a Latvian translator with a good command of Russian,

149 150

Interview with P%teris Bl&ms, 14.12.2006 University of Latvia, http://www.lu.lv/fakultates/gzzf/geografija/cilveks.html (01.06.2007) 151 R"gas Dome, http://www.rdpad.lv/working%5Ftime/ (01.06.2007) 152 Freeport of Riga Authority, http://www.rigasbrivosta.lv/eng/parvalde.asp#struktura (01.06.2007)

42

was present during the entire research on the island in order to ensure a successful communication between the residents and me.

4.1 !"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, as can be seen above. However, an overall vision of the city council for the waterfront is missing. Waterfront redevelopment in Riga must rather be described as a number of small, independent projects by private developers. 153 The only exception is the state initiative J3B, which will be presented later in this chapter. Even though it claims the need for redevelopment, the city council is neither directly involved in the revitalisation projects nor does it have the measures, and as some say the interest to control them. This makes the Riga waterfront a scattered mosaic of different projects, actors, interests and visions, which are sometimes contradicting each other.154 There are projects on both banks of the river Daugava. Some are very centrally located, while others are in rather peripheral areas of the city. Most of them consist of completely new developments. The regeneration of the architectural heritage of waterfront locations is carried out in some places like on !"psala or the Riga Port City project, but is not yet a very common practice.155 This chapter presents a selection of the main projects in the central part of Riga.

153 154

Interview with Gvido Princis, 15.12.2006 Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs, 19.12.2006 155 Riga City Development Department (2006), p. 1-19

43

FIG. 5: LOCATION OF THE MAIN WATERFRONT PROJECTS IN CENTRAL RIGA156

4.1.1 !#psala

The first waterfront related initiative in Riga was the projects carried out by the private developer M#ris Gailis on !"psala. In the mid-1990s, he started the construction of 41 townhouses in central !"psala. The next steps were the restoration of a part of the B%ma gypsum factory, primarily for real estate development, and the restoration of a number of historical wooden fishermen`s dwellings. Currently the second part of the gypsum factory is under construction and the restoration of even more wooden houses is planned.157 Since it started only a few years after the regaining of independence in 1991, it is the only waterfront initiative in Riga, which today is at least partly finished, while all the other initiatives are still in the planning stage. On !"psala, some results of the regeneration process can already be seen, analysed and evaluated.
156 157

Own illustration based on Google Maps, http://maps.google.de/ (18.06.2007) SIA MG, http://www.mg.lv (17.05.2007)

44

4.1.2 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, Eksportosta and the adjacent territories. All in all the area covers 123 ha. The developments are carried out by JAU, a private development company founded by Riga Freeport Authority and the Norwegian enterprise Port Pro AS in 2001. They are mostly financed by private money, apart from the CAM, which receives some state funding.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. The planned focus is on mixed-use, the dominant functions being housing, offices, different kinds of businesses, retail and services like kindergartens. The target groups for the housing shall be well-situated professionals or pensioners interested in fashioned lifestyle and water-related activities.159 However, 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.160 The museum will be placed in an old electric power plant, which will be reconstructed by the internationally renowned architect Rem Koolhaas, who plans to preserve the industrial heritage within a modern glass cocoon.161 The building, which dates from 1905, presents a fine example of industrial architecture, even though it is not a protected building.162 Other former industrial buildings shall be renovated and used for new functions as well, including the historical Krasta railway station and the so-called grain elevator. By this, JAU wants to show evidence of the history of the site in order to establish a place with a unique character. Additionally, some other cultural highlights like a small energy museum are

158 159

Email interview with Aigars Ku)-is, 07.12.2006 Email interview with Aigars Ku)-is, 07.12.2006 160 Email interview with Aigars Ku)-is, 07.12.2006 161 Tirons, U. (2006), p. 40 162 Biedri.), A./Liepi.), E. (2002), p. 39

45

planned. Still, the majority of the planned developments within the Riga Port City project will be new constructions.163 The transformation of the area will be carried out gradually: currently the developers are still in the planning stage. A master plan for the development of the area has just been worked out by Rem Koolhaas and his architectural office, OMA; the landscape architectural office Inside Outside; Ove Arup & Partners, Ltd.; and the Latvian engineering company Grupa 93. The concept is currently under assessment.164 Whether the planned heights of the new constructions will cause conflicts with the UNESCO, since the project area is located in the UNESCO buffer zone, remains to be seen. The next stage of the project will be the development of the first area, Andrejsala, including the construction of the CAM. In the bigger part of the project territory, Exportosta, port activities are still going on. They shall be gradually withdrawn and then the redevelopment of the entire area shall be completed within the next 25 years.165 JAU claims that they pay attention to a slow and sustainable transformation of the area, which takes into account the needs and wishes of the future society. Information of the inhabitants of Riga and feedback play a crucial role in the planning process, possibly due to the big influence of Rem Koolhaas on the entire project.166 The planners want to develop a lively area, which shall be accessible for all kinds of visitors and inhabitants around the clock and area, that people like to use during all times of the day. Therefore the concept includes, that the main exhibition of the CAM will be for free and that there will be activities day and night.167 A unique feature of this initiative is that JAU already now opened a part of Andrejsala for the public, inviting different groups of artists to the area. They just have to pay for public
163 164

Email interview with Aigars Ku)-is, 07.12.2006 Koolhaas, R. et al. (2006), p. 57 165 Email interview with Aigars Ku)-is, 07.12.2006 166 Interview with Jonas Bchel, 12.12.2006 167 Interview with Astr"da Rogule, 17.11.2006

46

facilities, otherwise they may use the old port buildings for free, under the condition, that they regularly organise cultural events for the public in this area. This was a clever marketing strategy to place this former closed area on the mental map of the Rigans: today, the frequent concerts, 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. It also results in a positive public attitude towards the planned developments of the Riga Port City.168 The agreement with the artists runs out in May 2008 but might be prolonged.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.

4.1.3 Cultural projects by J3B

The state agency J3B was created in April 2005 as an umbrella organisation, which is responsible for the development of three major cultural projects along the waterfront: the National Library, the new Concert Hall and the CAM, the last one in cooperation with JAU.170 While the museum will be housed in an already existing building, the National Library and the Concert Hall are completely new constructions which will be placed on the left bank of the river Daugava.171 The projects formally started with an international workshop of architects who decided on the best locations for the three projects. Afterwards, there were design competitions organised for the National Library and the Concert Hall, while Rem Koolhaas was invited to

168 169

Interview with Inese Baranovska and Mario Zetzsche, 17.11.2006 Email interview with Aigars Ku)-is, 07.12.2006 170 IACP, http://www.aivp.org/article1593_english.html (03.06.2007) 171 Bryzgel, A. (2006), p. 21

47

make a proposal for the CAM.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. The Concert Hall will be built on a dam, so that it seems to be floating on the river Daugava. In addition to their primary functions, all buildings will also include conference halls, meeting spaces, restaurants, cafs and shops.173 Thus, they shall be used by all kinds of people, not only by museum-goers or the concert audience. The concepts include, that parts of the buildings will be accessible for the public for almost 24 hours a day, so that the places will not fall abandoned in the evenings. Even though all projects are located within the UNESCO buffer zone, there are currently no conflicts between the plans and the UNESCO regulations. The UNESCO even officially supports the National Library project.174 In the design competitions it was considered important, that the architects not only design the buildings, but also develop the adjacent areas as attractive public spaces. Since two of the projects are located on the left bank of the river Daugava, 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.175 According to a survey by the research centre Latvijas Fakti, 78% of the population support the building of the National Library, 71% the Concert Hall and 62% the CAM. These numbers are widely regarded as extremely positive, since traditionally the public interest towards cultural projects is rather low.176 All projects are still in the planning stage and will not be completed before 2010, which makes an evaluation today very difficult. The experts I talked to, however, agreed that all buildings are of crucial significance for the Riga waterfront. If they can be realised the way

172 173

Interview with Inese Baranovska and Mario Zetzsche, 17.11.2006 Bryzgel, A. (2006), p. 21 174 Interview with Inese Baranovska and Mario Zetzsche, 17.11.2006 175 Interview with Inese Baranovska and Mario Zetzsche, 17.11.2006 176 Bryzgel, A. (2006), p. 21

48

they are planned, they will provide the waterfront with interesting architectural highlights, which make the riverfront as a whole more attractive.177

4.1.4 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.178 This is also mentioned in the detailed plan of !"psala, which defines some areas for commercial developments with up to 40 floors.179 Since the planning is not in the hand of one, but several investors, it is hard to predict how the area will look like in the future. Currently there is only the press building Preses Nams and the building of the Hanza bank, but soon there will be more developments.180 The opinions towards this area are ambivalent: While some of my interview partners see the chance, that the new commercial centre helps to give more value to the Pardaugava waterfront181, the actors involved in the restoration projects on !"psala namely M#ris Gailis and Zaiga Gaile are against the plans, because they fear that the constructions lead to increased traffic problems which might have negative impacts on their restoration area.182 They question also, whether a city as Riga, which even suffers from a decreasing population, really needs highrise buildings on such a large scale. 183 The planned developments cause a conflict with the UNESCO, since the plans do not respect the height limits set by the UNESCO. How this conflict will be solved, is still open.184

177 178

Interview with Jonas Bchel, 12.12.2006 Interview with Gvido Princis, 15.12.2006 179 R"gas Dome (2005b), p. 4 180 Interview with Gvido Princis, 15.12.2006 181 Interview with Jonas Bchel, 11.12.2006 182 Interview with M#ris Gailis, 22.11.2006; Interview with Zaiga Gaile, 14.11.2006 183 Interview with Zaiga Gaile, 14.11.2006 184 Interview with P%teris Bl&ms, 14.12.2006

49

4.1.5 Waterfront along the old town

A widely discussed issue in Riga is the missing connection between the old town and the riverfront. Directly along the water a promenade was built, but right next to it there is 11. Novembra Krastmala one of the major streets of the city with heavy traffic which blocks the old town from the river. The street is almost impossible to cross, since there are hardly any traffic lights. This makes it a quite dangerous place, which neither inhabitants nor visitors like to use.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. They argue, that only if the street is put underground the potential of the waterfront could be fully used.186 The area should be exclusively for bikers and pedestrians and provide the visitors with a selection of restaurants, cafs and some entertainment like festivals or waterfront concerts in order to make it a lively part of the city centre.187 Also, 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. They claim, that the geological structures in Riga are not suitable for building a tunnel on the bank of the river. Furthermore the project would be too expensive and time-consuming.189 Instead, they favour a combined solution of building back the street, so that it gets less attractive for cars, 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.190 The discussion is still going on and it is not sure, whether anything will happen in

185 186

Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs, 19.12.2006 Interview with P%teris Bl&ms, 14.12.2006; Interview with Jonas Bchel, 12.12.2006; Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs, 19.12.2006 187 Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs, 19.12.2006 188 Interview with Jonas Bchel, 12.12.2006 189 Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs, 19.12.2006 190 Interview with Gvido Princis, 15.12.2006

50

this area in the near future, but the need to transform the waterfront along the old town is very clear. Comparing all these different projects, the !"psala case is unique for Riga is several ways: Not only is it the only project that exceeded the planning stage, 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. At least theoretically conservation and preservation play an important role in the projects on !"psala. How these principles have been put into practice can be seen later in this case study. 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. In contrast to the big apartment blocks planned in other projects, the detached houses on !"psala give the place a rather suburban character. !"psala is also the only project that concentrates almost exclusively on housing (except for the restaurant), even though the developer currently tries to add some service and entertainment functions.191

4.2 The main regeneration projects on !"psala

M#ris Gailis and his company MG are active in several projects on !"psala, starting from the restoration of the gypsum factory and the wooden fishermen`s houses to the building of new row-houses, the so called town-houses, schools and sports facilities. For this thesis, however, only his activities in the protected historical part of !"psala are relevant: the gypsum factory project and the restoration of the wooden houses. The factor that makes the gypsum factory

191

Interview with M#ris Gailis, 22.11.2006

51

and those wooden houses, that are located directly at the shoreline, unique, is their idyllic setting and the prime view towards the old town of Riga.

FIG. 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. The buildings were built in different periods and designed in different styles. The first building was a big wooden barn, which was torn down again some years later. 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. Both buildings were well preserved and in a relatively good condition when the restoration process started. 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. Some of the factory buildings were in quite a poor condition, when the reconstruction process started.193 The factory worked as a production place for gypsum until World War II. During the Soviet occupation the factory came into possession of the

192 193

Own illustration based on Google Maps, http://maps.google.de/ (18.06.2007) Zaigas Gailes Birojs (2001 n.p.), p. 2

52

Soviet army and worked as a laundry for the army.194 In 1991, the army left and the buildings were abandoned. Later, approximately two thirds of the factory was privatised by a businessman from Belarus, who started a production of hockey sticks there. The other part remained empty.195 In the end of the 1990s, 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. M#ris Gailis as the real estate developer started to privatise first the buildings and later the land, a complicated and time-consuming process which was only finished in 2001.196 Only then the concrete planning for the restoration could start. In her mission statement, the architect noted that the factory buildings are a valuable monument in terms of cultural history, landscape and architecture, even though they are not officially listed as protected buildings. 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. Therefore their special character should be preserved as far as possible, even though many buildings were in a bad condition. 197 Initially, M#ris Gailis with his company MG was the only responsible developer, while the architectural work was carried out by Zaiga Gailes architectural office Zaigas Gailes Birojs, the restoration work was done by the company Tradima and the actual construction work was in the hands of the construction company Re & Re.198 Quite soon M#ris Gailis realised that he could not finance the entire project, so he developed a project partnership with the Austrian real estate company PMT, which was willing to invest into the project. Nevertheless the main management responsibilities were

194 195

Zaigas Gailes Birojs (2001 n.p.), p. 1 Interview with M#ris Gailis, 22.11.2006 196 Interview with M#ris Gailis, 22.11.2006. In Latvia, the privatisation procedure of army property works like this: First, the person, who wants to privatise has to rent the respective buildings for at least one year. Then he or she has to apply to the Ministry of Defence in order to get the right to privatise the buildings. After approval, the value of the buildings is evaluated and the buildings can be bought for this prize. Only when the buildings are privatised, also the land can be privatised after the same procedure. 197 Zaigas Gailes Birojs (2001 n.p.), p. 3 198 Interview with Zaiga Gaile, 14.11.2006

53

still with M#ris Gailis.199 Together, the partners could finance 60% of the costs; the rest was taken as a loan in cooperation with the Hanza bank.200 Thus, the empty part of the factory was restored as an apartment complex mainly for living, but to a minor extent also for offices consisting of five different buildings: Liela M#ja (Big House), in which also a restaurant was planned, Veca M#ja (Old House), Ang,u M#ja (English House), Holandie)u M#ja (Dutch House) and Koted/as (Cottages).

FIG. 7: MAP AND MODEL SHOWING THE DIFFERENT BUILDINGS OF THE FIRST PHASE OF THE GYPSUM FACTORY
PROJECT
201

The Koted/as row-houses along the waterfront are the only part of the project that was completely new constructions. All the other buildings were restored or reconstructed, depending on their shape and condition. Some buildings have been changed to make them more comfortable for living, e.g. by adding bigger windows. The different houses have been designed in different styles, Holandie)u M#ja reminding of a Dutch building style and Ang,u M#ja reminding of an English building style. A fact that has been heavily criticised

199

Email interview with Edgar Schieder, 10.01.2007. The contract between the Latvian affiliate company of PMT, SIA PMT Balticum and SIA MG says, that both parties contribute 50% of the finances for the gypsum factory project: MG contributes the value of the property, while PMT Balticum contributes the same value in form of money. Thus, both parties own 50% of the project, but MG is responsible for the management. 200 Email interview with Edgar Schieder, 10.01.2007 201 SIA MG, p. 3-5

54

by experts is, that parts of the buildings have been demolished, just to rebuild them again in the same shape not because they were in such a bad condition (as the architect claims), 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.202 This happened for instance with the building A Liela M#ja (Fig. 7), which now houses the restaurant. Thus, only parts of the gypsum factory are original.203 However, the general outer appearance of the buildings should keep the original look as much as possible. Also in the interior, many original parts were preserved, such as the wooden ceilings or brick walls. The concept of the restoration was to design complete apartments including all interior like kitchens, bathrooms, saunas, fireplaces and even built-in wardrobes. Most apartments stretch over two or three levels. The aim was to create high quality living and office space in loftstyle, which is unique in Latvia. All buildings have access to the inner yard, which is designed as a historical factory yard with a well in the centre and the old chimney in one corner. Special attention was paid to the preservation and renovation of the chimney, because it was realised to be an important historical landmark for the area. The architect even found a useful new function for it: today the chimney serves as ventilation for the underground parking.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.205 After three years of construction the project was finished in late 2004. The result was a complex of 34 apartments of different shapes and sizes, ranging from studios of 60 square meters to apartments of 200 square meters, which were sold to clients from Latvia and abroad.206

202 203

Interview with P%teris Bl&ms, 14.12.2006; Interview with Jonas Bchel, 12.12.2006 Interview with Zaiga Gaile, 14.11.2006 204 Interview with Zaiga Gaile, 14.11.2006 205 Interview with Zaiga Gaile, 14.11.2006 206 SIA MG, p. 13

55

FIG. 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, who bought it as an investment. The original price was approximately 2000 0 per square meter. Within three years it increased to more than the double amount: recently a flat was sold for 4700 0 per square meter. 209 In connection with the gypsum factory project M#ris Gailis developed a small marina for private yachts in front of the factory buildings, a shop for maritime items and a restaurant on the corner of the factory with the best view towards the old town. The restaurant still belongs to M#ris Gailis, and he tries to bring back some maritime character to the place by building a terrace floating on the river Daugava, and by establishing a boat-service with the antique motorboat Ingrida, dating from the 1930s, 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.211 All involved parties expressed their satisfaction with the outcome of the project and argued that

207 208

Zaigas Gailes Birojs (2005 n.p.): Power Point Presentation Prezentacija Kipsala_2.ppt, slide 50 Zaigas Gailes Birojs (2005 n.p.): Power Point Presentation Prezentacija Kipsala_2.ppt, slide 49 209 Interview with M#ris Gailis, 22.11.2006 210 Interview with M#ris Gailis, 22.11.2006 211 Email interview with Edgar Schieder, 10.01.2007

56

the aim had been completely achieved.212 By independent experts the evaluation of the project is rather ambivalent. On the one hand it is admitted, 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, in a location, which is perfectly suitable for high quality apartments.213 On the other hand it is criticised, that the new construction of historical architecture is bad architectural practice, that some details in the concept do not seem to be correct, and that the project creates some kind of a gated community, which lives separately from the rest of the neighbourhood.214 Recently, 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. Since this part had already been privatised for the production of hockey sticks, there was no long bureaucratic procedure this time, but MG and Zaigas Gailes Birojs could start with the restoration process right away.215 The project is currently underway and will probably be completed in 2008. 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, there shall be less apartments, the biggest covering up to 400 square meters and having private elevators. The main building in this part is the old factory workshop. According to the architect it was in such a bad condition that it had to be demolished, but in the course of the project it will be built anew in the original style.216 This practice is again very much criticised by the conservation expert P%teris Bl&ms, who argues that the structure of the building was still in a good condition, but it was decided to tear it down in order to make the construction of the underground parking space cheaper,

212

Interview with Zaiga Gaile, 14.11.2006; Interview with M#ris Gailis, 22.11.2006; Email interview with Edgar Schieder, 10.01.2007 213 Interview with Jonas Bchel, 12.12.2006 214 Interview with Jonas Bchel, 12.12.2006; Interview with P%teris Bl&ms, 14.12.2006 215 Interview with M#ris Gailis, 22.11.2006 216 Interview with Zaiga Gaile, 14.11.2006

57

just as in the first gypsum factory project.217 The other buildings will be completely new, but also in brick style. The row-houses along the waterfront shall accommodate the most spacious apartments; while there will be smaller studio-style apartments in the second row. All in all there are going to be 31 apartments and offices. In the right part of the complex there are some service facilities like a gym, a spa and a hairdresser planned. The yard of this complex is going to be designed in contrast to the first factory yard, as green space.218 What the outcome of this project will look like still remains to be seen. The wooden houses in the protected historical area of !"psala date from 120 to almost 200 years ago, the oldest one being from about 1820. They are the relicts of the old fishermen`s village, which dominated the island until the late 1960s. Even though the area is not very big, it presents the historical heart of the island and therefore the entire ensemble is protected as a state monument of national significance. Thus, certain building regulations have to be taken into account when dealing with those houses: the buildings are not allowed to be demolished, but they may be reconstructed, providing that the historical facade is preserved and traditional materials are used (e.g. wooden window frames instead of plastic ones). In order to ensure a low density in the protected area, 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.219 These regulations and the location of the area in the UNESCO buffer zone had to be taken into account, when MG and Zaigas Gailes Birojs started to buy and restore some of the wooden houses in 2004.220 Until today 13 houses have already been restored, while number 14 is currently under reconstruction and more wooden buildings are planned to be

217 218

Interview with P%teris Bl&ms, 14.12.2006 Interview with Zaiga Gaile, 14.11.2006 219 R"gas Dome (2005b), p. 5 220 Gaile, Z./Cibule, I./Atavs, I. (2005), p. 1

58

reconstructed in the near future.221 According to some owners of old wooden houses, M#ris Gailis regularly asks them to sell their property to him,222 which clearly shows his ambitions to transform the entire historical ensemble into a renovated high quality area for tenants with high incomes. In two of the already completed restoration projects PMT Balticum SIA, the Latvian affiliate company of the Austrian PMT, is involved as a partner and investor via the company SIA Ziemelzunds Ltd, of which 90% are owned by PMT and 10% are owned by M#ris Gailis. Through this cooperation, PMT Balticum SIA holds 90% of the so called Red House, which is rented out to the Austrian state and hosts the Austrian embassy in Latvia, as well as 90% of the so called Kangaroo House, which is rented out to the Portuguese state and hosts the Portuguese embassy in Latvia.223 The other projects were exclusively carried out by MG and Zaigas Gailes Birojs and usually sold after completion. Today they are the homes of some of the richest people in the country, among them some very high politicians.224 Not only buildings from !"psala are restored, 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. According to him, 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. The state inspection of monuments agrees, however, to translocate the building. Therefore M#ris Gailis is able to remove it from the city centre, receives a compensation of the previous owner and builds the house up again on !"psala. Until now this has happened with two houses, a third one is under construction.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. The principle of the reconstruction formulated by the architect was to preserve the facades, so that the historical
221 222

Interview with M#ris Gailis, 22.11.2006 Based on my own research on !"psala, November/December 2006 223 Email interview with Edgar Schieder, 10.01.2007 224 Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs, 19.12.2006 225 Interview with M#ris Gailis, 22.11.2006

59

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. The side and the back of the buildings, however, were in some cases quite radically changed.

FIG. 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. Therefore there was not only an underground parking space constructed for all buildings, but there were also modern extensions added to the houses in order to get more space for living. These extensions house, for instance, swimming pools and saunas. To make the rooms brighter, some extra windows, balconies or terraces were also added. 229 Most of the houses, which were originally built for several families, were transformed into a one-family-house. An exception is the biggest building that has already been reconstructed a wooden Jugendstil house called Laubes M#ja. This 3-storey-building, which originally had about six apartments on each floor and shared toilets and bathrooms in the staircase, was turned into seven apartments and three offices.230 However, according to the architect the original structures of the rooms were kept as far as possible.231

226 227

Gaile, Z./Cibule, I./Atavs, I. (2005), p. 1 Zaigas Gailes Birojs (2005 n.p.): Power Point Presentation Prezentacija Kipsala_2.ppt, slide 22 228 Zaigas Gailes Birojs (2005 n.p.): _Baznicas ielas maja_1.jpg 229 Interview with Zaiga Gaile, 14.11.2006 230 Gaile, Z./Cibule, I./Atavs, I. (2005), p. 4-19 231 Interview with Zaiga Gaile, 14.11.2006

60

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.232 In contrast, the evaluation of the reconstructions by independent experts is rather negative: They argue that, as in the case of the gypsum factory, reconstructing historical buildings using partly new constructions and materials is bad architectural practice. The architectural condition of most houses was quite good, so it would have been better to renovate the original houses instead of taking them apart and reconstructing them partly using new materials. Now only parts of the buildings have remained original. According to P%teris Bl&ms this was done, because the houses should be sold to wealthy residents who were interested in the historical look of the buildings, but at the same time wanted to live in a new, modern apartment with all amenities.233 It was also noticed, that concerning some details, the historical reconstruction was not correct: For instance, instead of using historically correct buildings materials like cobbled stones, concrete was used to cover parking lots and yards. Fences were built up, even though traditionally there had never been fences in the area.234 Another point of criticism was that the modern additions to the old buildings are too conservative to be called real modern architecture, which makes the combination of old and new rather boring. So, according to Jonas Bchel, the work of the architect is neither a balanced modernisation of the area adding modern architecture nor a completely correct conservation.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, who saved altogether 36 Jews during World War II, hiding them in a shed in the garden of his house on !"psala. The museum on the former site of the shed on Maza Balasta iela 8 is going to be designed by

232 233

Gaile, Z./Cibule, I./Atavs, I. (2005), p. 1 Interview with P%teris Bl&ms, 14.12.2006 234 Interview with Jonas Bchel, 12.12.2006 235 Interview with Jonas Bchel, 12.12.2006

61

Zaiga Gaile. The museum is going to be inaugurated in 2008.236 According to M#ris Gailis, 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. It was interesting for me to hear that they did not initiate the museum, because they are personally interested in Jewish history or because they regard it as important to tell *anis Lipke`s story, but only because a museum about the holocaust sells well. Thus, they hope to make the island even more attractive for residents, as well as to attract tourists and visitors to the area.237

4.3 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. 33 people participated in the research, 25 original residents and eight new residents (four living in the gypsum factory and four living in adjacent town-houses). The focus was placed on the original residents of the neighbourhood, since it was my primary interest to find out, which impact the redevelopment projects by M#ris Gailis have on these people and what they think about the changes within the area. The scale of this survey is not very big, so the results rather indicate general tendencies than actual, universal conclusions. Especially the number of new residents who participated in the survey is quite small, so the results from this group must be interpreted as individual examples instead of general conclusions. Nevertheless, they give a very rough impression about the social and financial status of new residents and their opinions about the area.

236 237

Jansons, V. (2006), p. 20-26 Interview with M#ris Gailis, 22.11.2006

62

About two thirds of the original residents were Latvians, while 28% of the respondents were Russians. In the case of the new residents, we spoke with three foreigners from Great Britain and the USA and five Latvians. This corresponds well to the information given by Zaiga Gaile, who mentioned that the restored buildings are popular among affluent foreigners.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, i.e. less than 142 Euros. In contrast, half of the interviewed new residents did not reply to this question, 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. 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, and only 16% have a higher education at university level. Among the new residents, in contrast, six respondents out of eight have a higher education. 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, unskilled workers and state employees.239 In the survey, almost half of the original residents were pensioners, an aspect that strongly correlates with their level of income, 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. Among the original residents, the type of housing is very mixed: 44% of the respondents rent an apartment, 48% own a private apartment and the rest of the people have other accommodation agreements, such as a free room in return for some caretaking work in house and garden. In contrast, most of the interviewed new residents lived in private apartments, and only one respondent had a rent agreement. These results show on the one

238 239

Interview with Zaiga Gaile, 14.11.2006 Sailer-Fliege, U. (1999), p. 11

63

hand, that the privatization process has started to spread among the unrenovated buildings in the historical zone of !"psala. 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.240 On the average, the original residents pay about 47 LVL rent per month and roughly the same amount for utilities. Almost one quarter of the respondents have experienced a rent increase within the last year, even though the standard of living had not improved. 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, if they can afford it. Two owners of unrenovated historical houses mentioned that they want to wait for a good opportunity to sell their property for a high price. Concerning the project area, 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. All respondents who knew the gypsum factory project were of the opinion that it has a big influence on the neighbourhood. They mentioned both positive and negative influences: The buildings look better and thus the project makes the area more beautiful, but now more wealthy people live in the area and prices are on the rise. Also, it was said that the area is becoming less friendly, because there is not so much interaction between the residents any longer. Indeed, all interviewed new residents stated that they have only little or no contact to the original residents and vice versa. Also all new residents think that the gypsum factory project has an influence on the area, but they see this influence exclusively positive: according to them the projects accelerate the positive development of !"psala and make the area more beautiful. The main reason, why the new residents chose to move to the area is the beautiful, central and quiet location of the historical area on !"psala. For the people
240

Mayhew, S. (2004), p. 219

64

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. They seem rather active in using the restaurant of the gypsum factory (six respondents go there about once a month or more frequently), while only 12% of the original residents use it occasionally. These issues give evidence about the fact that segregation and gentrification are actually happening on !"psala at the moment. With regard to the planning process, none of the original residents have been informed about the restoration plans of the developer. None of them were invited to participate in the planning process either, even though 32% of the respondents explicitly stated that they would like to get more involved in the development of the neighbourhood. 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, but they were not invited to participate in the planning process. This result shows that the developer is not interested in taking the wishes or needs of the residents, especially the original inhabitants of the area, 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. In the future there will be more services for the people on !"psala, such as schools and restaurants, and also the conditions of the roads on the island will improve. 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, especially when the restoration projects will be finished. While three people explicitly mentioned that they evaluate the development of the area as positive, three others wished that the area should be as it had been in former times.241

241

Based on my own research on !"psala, November/December 2006

65

4.4 Evaluation of the restoration projects

In my opinion both positive and negative aspects can be identified, when evaluating the restoration projects on !"psala. The developer succeeded to add new value to the waterfront in !"psala and to establish a closer connection between the island and the water. 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. Already now it is the most expensive place in the city.242 The waterfront is dominated by aesthetically reconstructed historical buildings. Some water-related activities, like a restaurant terrace and a marina are placed on the shore.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.244 The developers claim that they pay special attention to a balanced conservation and restoration of the historical heritage of !"psala. This ambition certainly exists and must be seen very positive, because traditionally wooden houses and industrial heritage do not have a very high status throughout the city, 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, which previously had been very much neglected. Today, more and more people in Riga appreciate the historical wooden architecture.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.246 This prestigious project makes more and more people realise the interesting aspects of industrial architecture. Thus, today the restoration of industrial buildings

242 243

Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs, 19.12.2006 Interview with Zaiga Gaile, 14.11.2006 244 Based on my own research on !"psala, November/December 2006 245 Interview with P%teris Bl&ms, 14.12.2006 246 Interview with Zaiga Gaile, 14.11.2006

66

for living purposes becomes more and more fashionable in Latvia and several projects are currently in the making, both in Riga, Ventspils and Liep#ja.247 However, 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, thus they demolished parts of the buildings in order to build them up again with new materials, but in the original style.248 From the conservation point of view, this practice is very questionable, since usually the buildings were in such a good condition, that a balanced renovation of the original materials would have been enough. One reason for this practice was probably that the restoration was not carried out for the original inhabitants of the buildings, but for a wealthy target group who was interested in other values than a balanced conservation. 249 This bears the risk that the buildings lose their authenticity and develop into artificial facades, or as Jonas Bchel puts it into kitsch.250 Also, in the case of the protected houses it is interesting to see that the state inspection of monuments did not interfere.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, as long as it is only done in exceptional cases.252 According to conservationist P%teris Bl&ms the practice of relocating wooden buildings has a long tradition in Latvia.253 Thus, this method does not disturb the authenticity of the place as long as it does not dominate the area so much, that it turns into a kind of museum village. However, these developments go in line with a general trend in Latvia for Historismus, meaning that special attention is paid for the facades, and not for what is behind. 254 The restoration projects on !"psala can thus only be seen as a first step into

247 248

Interview with Zaiga Gaile, 14.11.2006 Interview with P%teris Bl&ms, 14.12.2006 249 Interview with P%teris Bl&ms, 14.12.2006 250 Interview with Jonas Bchel, 12.12.2006 251 Interview with P%teris Bl&ms, 14.12.2006 252 Interview with Jonas Bchel, 12.12.2006 253 Interview with P%teris Bl&ms, 14.12.2006 254 Interview with Jonas Bchel, 12.12.2006

67

the right direction. Historical wooden and industrial architecture have become appreciated values, but a balanced restoration requires more. 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, the actors provide the original tenants with the know-how and the financial support to carry out the necessary renovations by themselves. This makes the place much more authentic than the !"psala historical area.255 Water-related features play a big role in the waterfront projects on !"psala. M#ris Gailis puts a lot of effort in establishing stronger connections between the island and the river Daugava.256 Recently, the embankments of the river along Balasta Dambis were renewed on his own initiative. In summer the restaurant in the gypsum factory, which is owned by M#ris Gailis, serves its guests on a floating terrace on the river. Here is the berth of his historical motorboat from the 1930s, Ingrida, which can be booked by the guests of the restaurant. Right next to it he developed a marina for private yachts and motorboats. According to him he does not make any money with the marina itself, but he understood, that it adds some special value to the area. So, by having the marina, he can raise the prices for the apartments in the adjacent waterfront locations.257 Interesting features like the traditional wind indicators on some buildings add to the maritime atmosphere of the place.258 The maritime and industrial history of !"psala is actively used by the developer in his marketing strategy with success, as the great interest of wealthy residents in the area shows.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.

255 256

Interview with P%teris Bl&ms, 14.12.2006 Interview with Jonas Bchel, 12.12.2006 257 Interview with M#ris Gailis, 22.11.2006 258 Interview with Zaiga Gaile, 14.11.2006 259 Interview with M#ris Gailis, 22.11.2006

68

Even though the project area is located very close to the city centre, it is not very comfortable to access. 260 The easiest way to get to the protected historical area is by car, but there is not much parking space.261 Bikers can easily get to the island, but in the historical area there are not biking tracks and some streets consist of cobbled stones, which makes biking not very comfortable. Since often there are no pavements and some streets do not have a surface at all, it can get very muddy at times, which makes it quite uncomfortable for pedestrians to get around, even though usually there is no heavy traffic. The area is poorly connected to the city centre by public transport. Within the area there is no connection at all, but the only bus route starts on Kr. Valdem#ra iela at the bridge Van)u tilts. The detailed plan says, however, that for the future there is another route planned, when the new bridge between !"psala and Pardaugava will be completed.262 The waterfront area on !"psala would be ideal for waterborne transport to and from the city, but so far, public connections of this kind do not exist. The only kind of waterborne transport is provided by M#ris Gailis, whose motorboat Ingrida travels between his restaurant and the city centre. During the summer months this boat can also be booked for private tours along the river Daugava. The service is primarily intended for the guests of the restaurant and the original residents from !"psala could never afford it.263 In former times sandy !"psala was a popular recreation area for the citizens of Riga, who liked to come here for swimming. According to M#ris Gailis, also today it is possible to swim in the river Daugava. Regularly he orders an analysis of the water to ensure its quality.264 In contrast to other planned waterfront projects in Riga, which shall be developed into mixed-use areas, the restoration projects on !"psala are primarily intended for residential uses. In the case of the fishermen`s houses this connects well to the original use of this area,
260 261

Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs, 19.12.2006 R"gas Dome (2005a), p. 9 262 R"gas Dome (2005a), p. 8-13 263 Interview with M#ris Gailis, 22.11.2006 264 Interview with M#ris Gailis, 22.11.2006

69

which had always predominantly been a place for living. Some houses are reconstructed for a combination of working and living, such as the Kangaroo house, which hosts the Portuguese embassy and the residence of the ambassador.265 In the case 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. In the current redevelopment of the second part of the gypsum factory, housing is still the main function, but other functions such as offices, wellness and some services play an increasing role. Furthermore, 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.266 The fact that the waterfront on !"psala is mainly a residential area makes it a rather quiet place. Only the restaurant brings some life to it, especially during the summer, when the outside spaces and the floating terrace are in use.267 If carried out in a qualitative and interesting way, the combination of old and new architecture usually adds to the attractiveness of a place.268 In the restoration projects on !"psala, the side-by-side of old and new was one of the main factors in the redevelopment efforts.269 However, as it was mentioned above, it has been criticised by architects and planners, 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, but too conservative to present interesting modern architecture.270 Also, some features of the restored buildings clearly give the impression of kitsch271, such as the giant metal kangaroo that was placed on top of the Kangaroo house, just because the house
265 266

Interview with Zaiga Gaile, 14.11.2006 Interview with M#ris Gailis, 22.11.2006 267 Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs, 19.12.2006 268 Schubert, D. (2001a), p. 28-29 269 Interview with M#ris Gailis, 22.11.2006 270 Interview with Jonas Bchel, 12.12.2006 271 Interview with Jonas Bchel, 12.12.2006

70

had once belonged to an Australian investor.272 In the case of the gypsum factory, in contrast, the evaluation of architecture is rather positive: The result of the combination of old and new buildings presents an interesting ensemble. Even though the different buildings are built in different styles, they form a harmonious entity.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, which was one of the reasons why they moved to !"psala. 274 But as in the case of the wooden houses, the way the restoration was carried out must be criticized in my opinion. One factor for sustainable regeneration of waterfront areas is a sound mixture of inhabitants with different backgrounds and incomes.275 This is clearly not the case in the !"psala projects. Here, gentrification and segregation are taking place to a great extent.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.277 Especially in the beginning of his activities, 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.278 Today, 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. The losers of the situation are the original tenants, who rent a flat in one of those houses. Many of them are forced to leave the area, either because of rising rents or because their house is sold. For them, the second case might be even more profitable, because according to the developer they then get a small compensation.279 Anyway, it is a general prediction that within some years all original

272 273

Interview with Zaiga Gaile, 14.11.2006 Interview with Jonas Bchel, 12.12.2006 274 Based on my own research on !"psala, November/December 2006 275 Schubert, D. (2001a), p. 28-29 276 Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs, 19.12.2006 277 Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs, 19.12.2006 278 Interview with Zaiga Gaile, 14.11.2006 279 Interview with M#ris Gailis, 22.11.2006

71

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 Bchel 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

280 281

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 Bchel, 12.12.2006 284 Interview with Jonas Bchel, 12.12.2006 285 Interview with Zaiga Gaile, 14.11.2006 286 Interview with Gvido Princis, 15.12.2006

72

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.

287 288

Interview with P%teris Bl&ms, 14.12.2006 Based on my own research on !"psala, November/December 2006 289 Interview with Jonas Bchel, 11.12.2006 290 Interview with Gvido Princis, 15.12.2006 291 Based on my own research on !"psala, November/December 2006

73

Dealing with historical architecture The urban planning expert Jonas Bchel 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.

292 293

Interview with Jonas Bchel, 12.12.2006 Interview with Jonas Bchel, 12.12.2006 294 Interview with P%teris Bl&ms, 14.12.2006

74

Public participation Since the restoration projects on !"psala are a completely private initiative with no intervention from the public sector, it is not a surprise to me that public participation does not play a role in the planning process there. However, also in general public participation has a rather low status in Riga and the inhabitants have a rather low interest in participating. Indeed public participation is defined by the law: For development projects on a bigger scale a legal procedure has to be followed, including a public announcement of the plans and at least two periods of public hearing.295 But genuine participation of the inhabitants beyond these legal procedures, meaning that the inhabitants are really empowered to shape developments according to their needs, does not exist. Instead, the mode of urban planning in Riga has to be characterised as top-down and technocratic.296 But also from the inhabitant side it must be noted that the interest in participation is very low. 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.297 But also in the Baltic context and even in the inner-Latvian context the level of interest is extremely low in Riga. While other Latvian cities, such as Liep#ja and even small towns like Talsi the civil society is developing very actively, in Riga it is not developing at all. According to Jonas Bchel this derives from the fact that in Riga there is no fruitful relationship between the people and the public authorities. The city council acts like a city in the city, which in reality is not interested to make the urban development transparent and understandable for the inhabitants. 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. Thus, they generally feel that it is not worth to get involved, because they cannot change anything

295 296

Interview with Gvido Princis, 15.12.2006 Interview with Jonas Bchel, 11.12.2006 297 Interview with Jonas Bchel, 12.12.2006

75

anyway. This makes Riga the least active city in the country when it comes to community participation.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, most of the territory in Riga is in the hands of private bodies, even most of the land under public housing blocks. Some city officials have recently started to regard this development as a mistake.299 But the privatisation of land is a global phenomenon, so in this respect the cases of !"psala and Riga are nothing special, but they are in line with the global development trends. 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, towards which the city is heading.300 Even if some regulations exist, there is always a way to by-pass them.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.302 The background of these problems is an extremely liberal mode of urban planning.303 Some experts even say that urban planning in the Western European sense does not exist at all in Riga.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, 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. Urban planning documents only form a
298 299

Interview with Jonas Bchel, 12.12.2006 Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs, 19.12.2006 300 Interview with Jonas Bchel, 12.12.2006 301 Interview with Inese Baranovska and Mario Zetzsche, 17.11.2006 302 Interview with Gvido Princis, 15.12.2006 303 Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs, 19.12.2006 304 Interview with Jonas Bchel, 11.12.2006

76

wish-list of the city council for the development of the city, but their realisation is usually left completely for the private market.305 Thus, 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.306 Private developers do not have to take any responsibilities regarding the needs of the society. However, Riga is not the only city where this trend can be observed, since the lack of public control is a typical feature of urban development in post-socialist cities, as could be seen in chapter 2. A similar development can be observed from the neighbouring capital Tallinn, where Merje Feldman states that the city distances itself from leadership and responsibility. It commands formal authority, such as the right to approve detailed plans, granted by legislation, but has not been able to use that authority in an efficient and constructive way.307

305 306

Interview with Jonas Bchel, 11.12.2006 Interview with Gvido Princis, 15.12.2006 307 Feldman, M. (2000), p. 845

77

5 Conclusion
Riga has a long maritime history, which has always had a big influence on the development of the city.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.309 Only recently the city council realised the need to bring back the city to the water. Its location on the banks of the river Daugava close to the seaside provides the city with huge waterfront areas, 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, the realisation of redevelopment projects to meet this need are usually left for the private market.310 Due to the massive private land ownership and the lack of public control, an overall concept for the urban development that is followed by all actors does not exist in Riga. Instead, the city is the scene for independent, uncoordinated private development projects.311 One reason for this trend is also the fact that the urban planning department in the city council consists almost entirely of architects, not of urban planners. In Latvia there is no university that offers basic education in urban planning. Therefore only very few urban planners, which have studied abroad, work in the country.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. But even if this condition a better education for urban planners in Latvia would be fulfilled, radical changes would be required to provide the city with the will, the power, the measures and the finances to bring back some regulating instances to urban development.
308 309

Pope, A. (2000), p. 265-269 Interview with P%teris Bl&ms, 14.12.2006 310 Interview with Gvido Princis, 15.12.2006 311 Interview with Gvido Princis, 15.12.2006 312 Interview with Jonas Bchel, 12.12.2006

78

From the development plans it can be seen that also for the waterfront an overall concept of the city does not exist. Instead, the waterfront has become an arena for different uncoordinated mostly private regeneration projects, carried out by different actors with different, sometimes contradicting interests. Nevertheless, 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, 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. The restoration projects on !"psala even though far from perfect are a first step into this direction. Since they were the first ones to show interest in the waterfront, their waterfront projects are the only ones in Riga that have exceeded the planning stage so far. Today, many other projects are planned on the banks of the river Daugava, which can learn from the experiences made on !"psala.313 The plans for the projects presented above especially the Riga Port City and J3B seem promising to me, but in how far they will be realised remains to be seen. The developer M#ris Gailis and his wife, the architect Zaiga Gaile, 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, almost opposite the centre of the city. The place is perfectly suitable for waterfront developments, since it is picturesquely located on the bank of the river and has an excellent view towards the old town.314 What in my opinion makes the redevelopment projects by M#ris Gailis and Zaiga Gaile unique, at least in the Latvian context, is that they combined waterfront regeneration with the restoration of historical wooden and industrial architecture. The evaluation of the preliminary results on !"psala revealed, that the ambitious projects are only partly successful: Indeed they succeeded in increasing public attention and

313 314

Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs, 19.12.2006 Interview with Jonas Bchel, 12.12.2006

79

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.315 But the projects also have to face some criticism concerning the manner of how they reconstructed the historical buildings.316 Furthermore, the projects cause a radical gentrification and segregation process in the neighbourhood.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, architecture, inhabitants and, to a lesser extent, functions.318 As it was shown, these issues from the case study reflect some general trends in urban planning in Riga. 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, which lead to an uncoordinated urban development completely steered by the market. The central planning of the Soviet era, for perceived negatively, was substituted by a radically different development mode based on neo-liberal ideas. These conditions make it possible for private actors to carry out development projects the way it was shown above, 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, segregation and marginalization, in which certain groups of the society, such as old people and unskilled workers, turn into the losers of the transformation.

315 316

Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs, 19.12.2006 Interview with P%teris Bl&ms, 14.12.2006 317 Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs, 19.12.2006 318 Interview with Jonas Bchel, 12.12.2006

80

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. Not only bears this the risk that Riga develops into an artificial city of facades lacking any authenticity. In my understanding the trend for Historismus concerning a certain phase of the city`s past, namely the pre-Soviet past, can also be interpreted as a unique feature of postsocialist cities which might even be able to survive the transformation period. In terms of public participation, compared to other Baltic and Latvian cities Riga is left behind. Neither the city council nor the citizens seem to be very interested in public participation. While in a Western European understanding the democratic participation of all actors in the planning process is regarded as crucial for sustainable development, in Riga it does not play an influential role at all, 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, 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. Judging from the issues above, in my eyes the transformation period in Riga is far from completed, but the decisions about its future development should be made now. If the city fails to establish effective regulatory instruments, Riga is heading towards to say it with Tosics words an unregulated capitalist city model, which regarding the level of public control and social processes is similar to North American cities, while its spatial form is rather similar to Western European cities. This means a city, which is dominated by the gap of rich and poor, in which private actors play the dominant role in urban development and which makes use of its historic fabric in a very commercialized way. 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

regulation by the public sector. The authorities have to create a strong vision for its future development in order to provide some orientation about where the city is heading. Private actors should respect this overall vision. Therefore the city council needs to establish effective instruments to implement its development plans and to supervise the urban developments. Another aspect that I regard as crucial in this context is, that the city council should establish stronger participation rights for its citizens, 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.

82

List of references

Monographs, articles and websites Andrusz, Gregory: Structural Change and Boundary Instability. In: Andrusz, Gregory/Harloe, Michael/Szelenyi, Ivan (eds.): Cities After Socialism. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers 1996, p. 30-69 +rgalis, Andis: Riga. Riga: Preses Nams 2001 Ashworth, G.J./Tunbridge, J.E.: Old Cities, New Pasts Heritage Planning in Selected Cities of Central Europe. GeoJournal, Vol. 49 (1999), No. 1, p. 105-116 Biedri.), Andis/Liepi.), Edv"ns: Guide to Industrial Heritage of Latvia. Riga: Industrial Heritage Trust of Latvia/State Inspection for Cultural Heritage Protection 2002 Breen, Anne/Rigby, Dick: Waterfronts Cities Reclaim their Edge. New York, San Francisco: McGraw-Hill Inc. 1994 Bruttomesso, Rinio: Complexity on the Urban Waterfront. In: Marshall, Richard (ed.): Waterfronts in Postindustrial Cities. London, New York: Spon Press 2001, p. 39-50 Bryzgel, Amy: The New Three Brothers. In: The Baltic Guide (Riga), October 2006, p. 21 Feldman, Merje: Urban Waterfront Regeneration and Local Governance in Tallinn. In: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52 (2000), No. 5, p. 829-850 Freeport of Riga Authority: http://www.rigasbrivosta.lv/eng/parvalde.asp#struktura (01.06.2007) French, R. A./Hamilton F.E. Ian: The Socialist City Spatial Structures and Urban Policy. New York: John Wiley & Sons 1979 Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Country Office Latvia: http://www.fes-baltic.lv/ (01.06.2007) Gaile, Zaiga/Cibule, Iveta/Atavs, Ingm#rs: Kolekcijas Apraksts. In: Koka M#ju Kolekcija !"psal#. Riga: Zaigas Gailes Birojs 2005 83

Google Maps: http://maps.google.de/ (18.06.2007) Gudemann, Wolf-Eckhard: Bertelsmann Neues Lexikon. Gtersloh: Bertelsmann Lexikon Verlag 1995 Hamilton, F.E. Ian/Pichler-Milanovic, Nata)a/Dimitrovska Andrews, Kaliopa: Introduction. In: Hamilton, F.E. Ian/Pichler-Milanovic, Nata)a/Dimitrovska Andrews, Kaliopa (eds.): Transformations of Cities in Central and Eastern Europe Towards Globalization. Tokyo, New York, Paris: United Nations University Press 2005, p. 3-21 Harder-Gersdorff, Elisabeth: Riga als Handelsmetropole des Ostseeraums in der Frhen Neuzeit. In: Misans, Ilgvars (ed.): Riga und der Ostseeraum von der Grndung 1201 bis in die Frhe Neuzeit. Marburg: Herder-Institut 2005, p. 261-294 Harloe, Michael: Cities in the Transition. In: Andrusz, Gregory/Harloe, Michael/Szelenyi, Ivan (eds.): Cities After Socialism. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers 1996, p. 1-29 Heineberg, Heinz: Stadtgeographie. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schningh 2001 Hoyle, Brian: Global and Local Change on the Port-City Waterfront. In: Geographical Review, Vol. 90 (2000), No. 3, p. 395-417 Hoyle, Brian/Pinder, David: Cities and the Sea Change and Development in Contemporary Europe. In: Hoyle, Brian/Pinder, David (eds.): European Port Cities in Transition. London: Belhaven Press 1992, p. 1-19 International Association of Cities and Ports (IACP): http://www.aivp.org/article1593_english.html (03.06.2007) Jaunie Tr"s br#,i (J3B): http://www.j3b.gov.lv/index.php?sadala=5 (01.06.2007) Jansons, Viktors: Memorial of *anis Lipke. Riga: Association Memorial of *anis Lipke 2006 Jaunr"gas att"st"bas uz.%mums (JAU): http://www.jau.lv/ (01.06.2007) Klett Verlag: Infoblatt Die Europische Stadt, http://www.klett.de/sixcms/list.php?page=geo_infothek&node=Stadttypen&article=Inf oblatt+Die+europ%E4ische+Stadt (13.06.2007)

84

Klett Verlag: Infoblatt Die nordamerikanische Stadt, http://www.klett.de/sixcms/list.php?page=geo_infothek&node=Nordamerika&article= Infoblatt+Die+Nordamerikanische+Stadt (13.06.2007) Kocers, Egils: Ports of Latvia. Riga: Latvijas Ostu Padome 1998 Koolhaas, Rem et al.: Riga Port City Masterplan. Rotterdam: Office for Metropolitan Architecture (OMA) 2006 Kovcs, Zoltn: Cities from State-Socialism to Global Capitalism: an Introduction. GeoJournal, Vol. 49 (1999), No. 1, p. 1-6 Kunzmann, Klaus R.: Creative Brownfield Redevelopment. In: Greenstein, Rosalind/Sungu-Eryilmaz, Yesim: Recycling the City The Use and Reuse of Urban Land. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy 2004, p. 201-217 Marcuse, Peter: Privatization and its Discontents Property Rights in Land and Housing in the Transition in Eastern Europe. In: Andrusz, Gregory/Harloe, Michael/Szelenyi, Ivan (eds.): Cities After Socialism. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers 1996, p. 119-191 Marshall, Richard: Contemporary Urban Space-making at the Water`s Edge. In: Marshall, Richard (ed.): Waterfronts in Post-industrial Cities. London, New York: Spon Press 2001, p. 3-14 Mayhew, Susan: Oxford Dictionary of Geography. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2004 Meyer, Klaus: Riga und St. Petersburg Zwei Ostseemetropolen im Vergleich. In: Eduard Mhle (ed.): Riga im Prozess der Modernisierung Studien zum Wandel einer Ostseemetropole im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Marburg: Herder-Institut 2004, p. 1-9 Nawratek, Krzyztof: http://www.rigaplans.net/en/ (14.06.2007) Nedovi(-Budi(, Zorica/Tsenkova, Sasha/Marcuse, Peter: The Urban Mosaic of Post-Socialist Europe. In: Tsenkova, Sasha/Nedovi(-Budi(, Zorica (eds.): The Urban Mosaic of Post-Socialist Europe. Heidelberg, New York: Physica-Verlag 2006, p. 3-20 Owen, J.: The Water`s Edge: The Space between Buildings and Water. In: White, K.N. et al. (eds.): Urban Waterside Regeneration Problems and Prospects. New York, London: Ellis Horwood Ltd. 1993, p. 15-21 85

Page, Stephen J.: Waterfront Revitalization in London Market-Led Planning and Tourism in London Docklands. In: Craig-Smith, Stephen J./Fagence, Michael (ed.): Recreation and Tourism as a Catalyst for Urban Waterfront Redevelopment. Westport: Praeger Publishers 1995, p. 53-71 Pope, Arvis: R"gas Osta Devi.os Gadsimtos. Riga: Jumava 2000 Project Management Team (PMT): http://www.pmteuropa.com/ (01.06.2007) Riga City Development Department: Riga a future cosmopolis of modern architecture. Riga: Riga City Development Department 2006 R"gas Dome, Pils%tas Att"st"bas Departaments: http://www.rdpad.lv/working%5Ftime/ (01.06.2007) Ruoppila, Sampo: Residential differentiation, housing policy and urban planning in the transformation from state socialism to a market economy: the case of Tallinn. Espoo: Centre for Urban and Regional Studies Publications 2006, http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/val/sospo/vk/ruoppila/resident.pdf (13.03.2007) Sailer-Fliege, Ulrike: Characteristics of post-socialist urban transformation in East Central Europe. GeoJournal, Vol. 49 (1999), No. 1, p. 7-16 Schubert, Dirk: Revitalisierung von (brachgefallenen) Hafen- und Uferzonen in Seehafenstdten Anlsse, Ziele, Ergebnisse sowie Forschungsanstze- und defizite. In: Hafen- und Uferzonen im Wandel. Berlin: Leue Verlag 2001a, p. 15-36 Schubert, Dirk: Summary. In: Hafen- und Uferzonen im Wandel. Berlin: Leue Verlag 2001b, p. 7-8 Schubert, Dirk: Vorwort. In: Hafen- und Uferzonen im Wandel. Berlin: Leue Verlag 2001c, p. 11-14 SIA MG: Dz"vojamo 1ku Ansamblis 2ip)a Fabrika Z&MG stila dz"vok,i. Riga SIA MG: http://www.mg.lv (17.05.2007) Smith, David M.: The Socialist City. In: Andrusz, Gregory/Harloe, Michael/Szelenyi, Ivan (eds.): Cities After Socialism. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers 1996, p. 70-99 86

Smith, Michael P./Feagin, Joe R.: Cities and the New International Division of Labor: an Overview. In: Smith, Michael P./Feagin, Joe R. (eds.): The Capitalist City Global Restructuring and Community Politics. Oxford, New York: Basil Blackwell 1987, p. 3-34 Strau, Christian: Amphibische Stadtentwicklung Wasser im Lebensraum Stadt. Berlin: Leue Verlag 2001 Tirons, Uldis: The right time for architectural thinking. In: Baltic Outlook Air Baltic Inflight Magazine (Riga), October/November 2006, p. 38-44 Tosics, Ivn: City Development in Central and Eastern Europe since 1990: the Impacts of Internal Forces, In: Hamilton, F.E. Ian/Pichler-Milanovic, Natasa/Dimitrovska Andrews, Kaliopa (eds.): Transformations of Cities in Central and Eastern Europe Towards Globalization. Tokyo, New York, Paris: United Nations University Press 2005, p. 44-78 Tsenkova, Sasha: Beyond Transitions Understanding Urban Change in Post-Socialist Cities. In: Tsenkova, Sasha/Nedovi(-Budi(, Zorica (eds.): The Urban Mosaic of Post-Socialist Europe. Heidelberg, New York: Physica-Verlag 2006, p. 21-50 Tsenkova, Sasha/Nedovi(-Budi(, Zorica: The Post-Socialist Urban World. In: Tsenkova, Sasha/Nedovi(-Budi(, Zorica (eds.): The Urban Mosaic of Post-Socialist Europe. Heidelberg, New York: Physica-Verlag 2006, p. 349-374 University of Latvia, Department of Geography: http://www.lu.lv/fakultates/gzzf/geografija/cilveks.html (01.06.2007) Wikipedia: Riga: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riga (03.06.2007) Wyly, Elvin: From model to plan to market Socialist and post-socialist urban systems. Geography 350, Introduction to Urban Geography, lecture notes, www.geog.ubc.ca/~ewyly/g350/socialist.pdf (13.03.2007) Zaigas Gailes Birojs: 1ku Kompleksa Arhitektoniski M#kslinieciskais un Kult&rv%sturiskais Nov%rt%jums 2001 n.p.

Interviews Interview with Inese Baranovska and Mario Zetzsche, J3B, 17.11.2006 Interview with P%teris Bl&ms, 14.12.2006 87

Interview with Jonas Bchel, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, 11.12.2006 Interview with Jonas Bchel, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, 12.12.2006 Interview with Zaiga Gaile, Zaigas Gailes Birojs, 14.11.2006 Interview with M#ris Gailis, SIA MG, 22.11.2006 Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs, University of Latvia, Department of Geography, 19.12.2006 Email interview with Aigars Ku)-is, JAU, 07.12.2006 Interview with Gvido Princis, Riga City Council, Urban Planning Department, 15.12.2006 Interview with Astr"da Rogule, J3B, 17.11.2006 Email interview with Edgar Schieder, PMT Austria, 10.01.2007 Interview with Edgars S&na, Freeport of Riga Authority, 14.12.2006

Documents City Development Department (CDD): City of Riga Development Programme 2006 2012. Riga City Council 2005a City Development Department (CDD): Es pl#noju R"gu Long Term Development Strategy of Riga City till 2025. Riga City Council 2005b City Development Department (CDD): Es pl#noju R"gu Spatial Plan of Riga for 2006 2018. Riga City Council 2005c City Development Department (CDD): Building Regulations for Riga Historical Centre and its Protection Zones. Riga City Council 2006a City Development Department (CDD): Es Planoju Rigu Planning of the Riga Historical Centre and its Protection Zone Territory. Riga City Council 2006b R"gas Dome: !"psalas Det#lpl#nojums. Riga City Council 2005a R"gas Dome: Teritorijas Izmanto)ana un Apb&ves Noteikumi, !"psalas Det#lpl#nojums. Riga City Council 2005b R"gas Dome: Teritorijas zon%jums. Riga City Council 2005c 88

Photographs Zaigas Gailes Birojs: _Baznicas ielas maja_1.jpg. 2005 n.p. Zaigas Gailes Birojs: Power Point Presentation Prezentacija Kipsala_2.ppt, slide 22. 2005 n.p. Zaigas Gailes Birojs: Power Point Presentation Prezentacija Kipsala_2.ppt, slide 49. 2005 n.p. Zaigas Gailes Birojs: Power Point Presentation Prezentacija Kipsala_2.ppt, slide 50. 2005 n.p.

89

Appendices
APPENDIX 1: ZONING MAP OF KIPSALA (EXTRACT)319

319

R"gas Dome (2005c). The pink colour shows commercial zones with potential high-rise constructions while the dark yellow zones are residential areas.

90

APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN (ORIGINAL RESIDENTS) I. PERSONAL DATA

1. Sex o male o female 2. Age o 18-25 years o 26-35 o 36-50 o 51-65 o over 65 3. Marital Status o single o married o living together o divorced o widowed 4. Education o basic o secondary o vocational o higher 5. Employment o yes o no if no, why? o unemployed o pensioneer o maternity leave o incapable of working o other ____________________________ if yes, what kind of employment?

6.

Nationality o Latvian o Russian o no citizenship o other ____________________________

7.

Actual Income per Month o < 100 LVL o 100 250 LVL o 251 500 LVL o 501 1000 LVL o > 1000 LVL

91

II. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE APARTMENT

8. Your flat is... o private o rented o from municipality o from private owner o other ________________________ ________ sqm 10. Total number of rooms ________ rooms 11. How many people live in the flat? ________ persons 12. How much do you pay for... ... the rent (per month)____________ LVL ... public facilities (electricity, gas, water, heating/per month) _____________ LVL 13. Has the rent increased during the last... ... 1 year o yes o no o if yes, how much? ________ LVL ... 5 years o yes o no o if yes, how much? ________ LVL

9.

Total size of the flat

14. If there was a rent increase, why?

15. Has your standard of living improved during that time?

o yes o no o if yes, in how far?

16. For how long have you been living in this flat? 17. Do you know in which year/period this house was built?

_______ years o year: ____________ o period: ______________ o don`t know

III. PERSONAL OPINIONS ABOUT THE NEIGHBOURHOOD

18. In your opinion, has this area changed a lot during the past 5 years? o yes o no o if yes, what has changed?

92

19. If anything is changing, do you like these changes?

o yes o no o why?

20. Do you know the residential project in the former gypsum factory? 21. If yes, what is your opinion about it?

o yes o no

22. Do you think that this project has an influence on this area?

o yes o no o if yes, in how far?

23. Do you think that this project has an influence on your own life?

o yes o no o if yes, 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, in how far?

25. Do you use any of the facilities provided in the gypsum factory?

o yes o no o if yes, which ones?

o how often? _______ times per month 26. When the gypsum factory was renovated and transformed, 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

93

o if yes, how could you participate?

o did you participate? o yes o no o if yes, how?

28. Which facilities would you have liked to be included in the gypsum factory project?

29. Would you like to get more involved in the o yes development of this area in the future? o no o if yes, how?

30. 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?

32. Do you think that you will continue to live here in the future?

o yes o no o why?

94

APPENDIX 3: QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN (NEW RESIDENTS) I. PERSONAL DATA

1. Sex o male o female 2. Age o 18-25 years o 26-35 o 36-50 o 51-65 o over 65 3. Marital Status o single o married o living together o divorced o widowed 4. Education o basic o secondary o vocational o higher 5. Employment o yes o no if no, why? o unemployed o pensioneer o maternity leave o incapable of working o other ___________________________ if yes, what kind of employment?

6.

Nationality

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.

Actual Income per Month

II. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE APARTMENT 95

8.

Your flat is... o private o rented o from municipality o from private owner o other _______________________

9.

Total size of the flat _________ sqm

10. Total number of rooms _________ rooms 11. How many people live in the flat? _________ persons 12. How much do you pay for... ... the rent (per month) ____________ LVL ... public facilities (electricity, gas, water, heating/per month) _____________ LVL 13. For how long have you been living in this flat? 14. Do you know when this house was... ... built? o year: ________________ o period: _________________ o don`t know ... renovated? o year: ________________ o don`t know ________ years

III. PERSONAL OPINION ABOUT THIS NEIGHBOURHOOD

15. Why did you choose to move here?

16. What is your opinion about this area?

17. Do you think, the renovation of the gypsum factory and the wooden houses has an influence on this area?

o yes o no o if yes, which influence?

96

18. What is your opinion about the old unrenovated houses in this area?

19. What do you think about the old residents of this neighbourhood?

20. Do you have any personal contacts or interactions with your direct neighbours?

o yes o no o if yes, in how far?

21. 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. Do you feel safe in this neighbourhood? o yes o no o why?

23. What would you like to change in this area?

24. What is your vision for Kipsala in the future? What will it be like?

25. Do you think that you will continue to live here in the future?

o yes o no o why?

IV. GYPSUM FACTORY 97

26. Do you use any of the facilities provided in the gypsum factory?

o yes o no o if yes, how often? ___ times per month

27. 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. Were you invited to participate in the planning process?

o yes o no o yes o no o if yes, how could you participate?

o did you participate? o yes o no o if yes, how?

30. Would you like to get more involved in the development of this area in the future?

98