Waterfront revitalization

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


Faculty of Humanities

BISCHOF, STEFANIE: Waterfront Revitalization in Riga – the case of !"psala

Master`s thesis. 89 p., 9 appendix pages


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

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 1

2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 CHANGES IN URBAN DEVELOPMENT FROM “SOCIALIST” TO “POST-SOCIALIST” ........................................... 5

2.1.1 Common features of socialist cities........................................................................................................ 6

2.1.2 Common features of post-socialist urban transformation .................................................................... 9

2.1.3 Perspectives for post-socialist cities .................................................................................................... 13

2.2 PORT AND WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION.................................................................................................. 17

2.2.1 Redevelopments along the water`s edge – reasons and opportunities .............................................. 19

2.2.2 Factors of successful waterfront revitalization ................................................................................... 20

3 WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT IN RIGA ......................................................................................... 25

3.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE STUDY AREA ................................................................................................... 27

3.2 LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN RIGA ........................................... 29

3.2.1 Long-term development strategy until 2025 ........................................................................................ 31

3.2.2 Development Programme 2006-2012 .................................................................................................. 32

3.2.3 Riga Spatial Plan 2006-2018................................................................................................................ 33

3.2.4 Planning of the Riga Historical Centre and its Protection Zone Territory....................................... 33

3.2.5 Building regulations in the historical centre and the buffer zone...................................................... 34

3.2.6 Detailed Plan !"psala ........................................................................................................................... 35

3.2.7 Evaluation of the development plans ................................................................................................... 38

4 CASE STUDY !"PSALA................................................................................................................................... 40

4.1 !$PSALA IN THE CONTEXT OF CURRENT WATERFRONT PROJECTS IN RIGA.................................................. 43

4.1.1 !"psala ................................................................................................................................................... 44

4.1.2 Riga Port City ........................................................................................................................................ 45

4.1.3 Cultural projects by J3B ....................................................................................................................... 47

4.1.4 New commercial centre on Kl"versala and !"psala............................................................................ 49

4.1.5 Waterfront along the old town.............................................................................................................. 50

4.2 THE MAIN REGENERATION PROJECTS ON !$PSALA ....................................................................................... 51

4.3 RESULTS OF THE EMPIRICAL RESEARCH IN THE CASE STUDY AREA ............................................................. 62

4.4 EVALUATION OF THE RESTORATION PROJECTS ............................................................................................. 66

4.5 PROBLEMS AND PERSPECTIVES OF URBAN PLANNING IN RIGA..................................................................... 73

5 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................... 78

LIST OF REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 83

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................................. 90

iv

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: AMBASSADOR`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

v

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

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 Strauß, C. (2001), p. 13-16

2 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

2

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 Pope, A. (2000), p. 267-268

7 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

3

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

Interview with P%teris Bl&ms, 14.12.2006 11

Based on Google Maps, http://maps.google.de/ (18.06.2007)

4

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 post-

socialist 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.

5

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

Nedovi(-Budi(, Z./Tsenkova, S./Marcuse, P. (2006), p. 3-10 13

Harloe, M. (1996), p. 15-16

6

In my understanding, all cities that have been under socialist rule until the fall of the

iron curtain should now be called post-socialist in that sense, that these cities had certain

common characteristics in socialist times and faced similarities in the transformation process

starting in the beginning of the 1990s, as it will be outlined below. This, however, does not

mean that these cities will present a distinct type of city also in the future – in fact their

developments are quite different.14

It is much debated to which direction the cities are heading

and what might be the outcome in the future. Of course, the models and features below

present a highly theoretical and idealized way to look at the change of Eastern European

cities, which in reality does not exist in this form. Another aspect that limits the value of these

static models is that cities are constantly under development – thus, a “status quo” as it is

presented in the models does not really exist. Nevertheless this theoretical presentation is

useful and necessary in my opinion, since it gives a general idea about the different processes

that can be observed in Eastern European cities during the socialist era, in the beginning of

the transformation period and today.

2.1.1 Common features of socialist cities

It is much debated whether such a thing as the socialist city with a distinctive urban form

really existed, since geographical and political variations caused differences in the

urbanization processes even under very similar ideologies.15

Early theories like “The Socialist

City”16

by French and Hamilton in 1979 argued in favour of a distinct model of a socialist

city, in which central planning had succeeded in preventing spatial and social segregation.

Later studies challenged this attitude, showing that urban inequalities also existed in socialist

14

Tosics, I. (2005), p. 71-74 15

Wyly, E., www.geog.ubc.ca/~ewyly/g350/socialist.pdf (13.03.2007) 16

French, R. A./Hamilton F. E. I. (1979)

7

cities.17

It must also be considered, that the socialist system itself was not static, but

constantly developing.18

Thus, it is difficult to give general statements about the entire period.

However, some typical characteristics of urban development in Eastern European

cities under the socialist rule can be identified. These comparable processes are caused by

similarities in the socialist ideology, the framework set by state policy, concrete measures of

implementation and the issue of pre-communist urban structures that had to be dealt with.19

On the ideological level, cities were considered to be the catalysts of modernization and

progress. A central planning system was implemented, in which industrialization and

urbanization were based on “state ownership of the means of production and the centrally

planned determination of the use and allocation of resources”20

. A key issue for central

planning was the nationalization of land. Heavy industry was favoured, while light industry,

consumer good production and the service sector were neglected. The state provided

subsidized and therefore cheap public welfare goods and services. It also held a monopoly

control over foreign trade.21

The one-party system and the centrally planned economy along

with the state ownership of land put urban development under a very tight public control.

Urban planning had a very high status, since it was viewed as an important tool to achieve

political aims.22

Since the goal was an egalitarian society, the state had to ensure equal living

conditions for everyone, eradicating any individual character of a dwelling. Pre-socialist

urban structures, which symbolized the capitalist past, were demolished or at least neglected.

A specific and central socialist housing policy was crucial for the construction of residential

and urban social areas. Subsidized housing was the rule. However, all socialist states had to

face problems of inefficiency and shortage of urban housing. In practice this led to the

17

Ruoppila, S. (2006), p. 19-21 18

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

8

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 pre-

socialist 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

Sailer-Fliege, U. (1999), p. 8-11 24

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

9

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

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

25

Sailer-Fliege, U. (1999), p. 12-14 26

Tsenkova, S./Nedovi(-Budi(, Z. (2006), p. 349 27


Based on Kovács, Z. (1999), p. 2

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

10

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

Kovács, Z. (1999), p. 1-5 30

Tsenkova, S./Nedovi(-Budi(, Z. (2006), p. 349-353 31

Tosics, I. (2005), p. 54-56

11

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


Kovács, Z. (1999), p. 2-4 34

Marcuse, P. (1996), p. 180-181

12

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


13

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

Ashworth, G. J./Tunbridge, J. E. (1999), p. 105-111 37

Tosics, I. (2005), p. 74-75

14

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

Smith, D. M. (1996), p. 71 39

For example Z. Kovács 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

15

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”, “mixed-

use”, 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

16

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 market-

oriented 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

Tosics, I. (2005), p. 73 48

Tsenkova, S. (2006), p. 42 49

Marcuse, P. (1996), p. 180-181 50

Tsenkova, S. (2006), p. 45

17

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

Owen, J. (1993), p. 16-18 52

Breen, A./Rigby, D. (1994), p. 10 53

Gudemann (1995), p.128 54

Schubert, D. (2001a), p. 16

18

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 moving”58

. 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

Kunzmann, K. R. (2004), p. 201-202 56

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

19

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

Schubert, D. (2001b), p. 7 62

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

20

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

Marshall, R. (2001), p. 5 67

Feldman, M. (2000), p. 829

21

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

Schubert, D. (2001a), p. 24-25 69

Bruttomesso, R. (2001), p. 46 70

Schubert, D. (2001a), p. 29-30 71

Schubert, D. (2001a), p. 28-29

22

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



Schubert, D. (2001a), p. 23-24 75

Hoyle, B. (2000), p. 414

23

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

Schubert, D. (2001a), p. 27 77


Schubert, D. (2001a), p. 26

24

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

Bruttomesso, R. (2001), p. 45-46 80


Interview with P%teris Bl&ms, 14.12.2006

25

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

Kocers, Egils (1998), p. 9 83

Harder-Gersdorff, E. (2005), p. 261 84

Pope, A. (2000), p. 267-268 85

Pope, A. (2000), p. 265 86

Interview with Jonas Büchel, 12.12.2006 87

Pope, A. (2000), p. 269 88


26

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 re-

evaluation 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

Interview with Andis Kubla'ovs, 19.12.2006 90


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)

27

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

R"gas Dome (2005a), p. 3 96

+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 Büchel, 12.12.2006

28

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



R"gas Dome (2005a), p. 3

29

!"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:

• Riga long-term development strategy until 2025

103

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


30

• 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

Territory”113

) applies to them, and they have to follow certain regulations which are defined

109

CDD, Riga City Council (2005b) 110

CDD, Riga City Council (2005a) 111

CDD, Riga City Council (2005c) 112

R"gas Dome (2005a) 113

CDD, Riga City Council (2006b)

31

in the document “Building Regulations for Riga Historical Centre and its Protection

Zones”114

.

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

CDD, Riga City Council (2006a) 115

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

32

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 city´s territory, altogether 17.6%. But

116

CDD, Riga City Council (2005b), p. 22 117


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

33

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

CDD, Riga City Council (2005a), p. 5 120


CDD, Riga City Council (2005c), p. 2-3 122

CDD, Riga City Council (2005c), p. 24

34

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


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

CDD, Riga City Council (2006a), p. 7

35

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



R"gas Dome (2005a), p. 3-4

36

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 low-

rise 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

R"gas Dome (2005a), p. 5 130

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

37

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

R"gas Dome (2005a), p. 8 134

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

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

38

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

Interview with Jonas Büchel, 11.12.2006; Interview with Gvido Princis, 15.12.2006 137


Interview with Inese Baranovska and Mario Zetzsche, 17.11.2006

39

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 society”141

. Therefore in my opinion it

would be necessary to create a formal procedure of public participation, not just consultation.

139

Feldman, M. (2000), p. 833 140


Nawratek, K., http://www.rigaplans.net/en/ (14.06.2007)

40

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

41

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 Büchel, at that time consultant at the German political foundation Friedrich-Ebert-

Stiftung, focuses on sustainable restoration of residential buildings, community

participation and socially sound urban planning.148

142

SIA MG, http://www.mg.lv (17.05.2007) 143

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)

42

• 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


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)

43

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



Riga City Development Department (2006), p. 1-19

44

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 town-

houses 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

Own illustration based on Google Maps, http://maps.google.de/ (18.06.2007) 157

SIA MG, http://www.mg.lv (17.05.2007)

45

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

Email interview with Aigars Ku)-is, 07.12.2006 159



Tirons, U. (2006), p. 40 162

Biedri.), A./Liepi.), E. (2002), p. 39

46

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


Koolhaas, R. et al. (2006), p. 57 165



Interview with Astr"da Rogule, 17.11.2006

47

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

Interview with Inese Baranovska and Mario Zetzsche, 17.11.2006 169


IACP, http://www.aivp.org/article1593_english.html (03.06.2007) 171

Bryzgel, A. (2006), p. 21

48

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, cafés 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


Bryzgel, A. (2006), p. 21 174



Bryzgel, A. (2006), p. 21

49

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 high-

rise 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



R"gas Dome (2005b), p. 4 180



Interview with M#ris Gailis, 22.11.2006; Interview with Zaiga Gaile, 14.11.2006 183



50

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, cafés 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


Interview with P%teris Bl&ms, 14.12.2006; Interview with Jonas Büchel, 12.12.2006; Interview with Andis

Kubla'ovs, 19.12.2006 187




Interview with Gvido Princis, 15.12.2006

51

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

52

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

Own illustration based on Google Maps, http://maps.google.de/ (18.06.2007) 193

Zaigas Gailes Birojs (2001 n.p.), p. 2

53

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


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


Interview with Zaiga Gaile, 14.11.2006

54

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

PROJECT201

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

55

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 loft-

style, 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

Interview with P%teris Bl&ms, 14.12.2006; Interview with Jonas Büchel, 12.12.2006 203




SIA MG, p. 13

56

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

Zaigas Gailes Birojs (2005 n.p.): Power Point Presentation “Prezentacija Kipsala_2.ppt”, slide 50 208




Email interview with Edgar Schieder, 10.01.2007

57

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 Büchel, 12.12.2006; Interview with P%teris Bl&ms, 14.12.2006 215



58

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



R"gas Dome (2005b), p. 5 220

Gaile, Z./Cibule, I./Atavs, I. (2005), p. 1

59

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


Based on my own research on !"psala, November/December 2006 223

Email interview with Edgar Schieder, 10.01.2007 224



60

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: AMBASSADOR`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

Gaile, Z./Cibule, I./Atavs, I. (2005), p. 1 227


Zaigas Gailes Birojs (2005 n.p.): “_Baznicas ielas maja_1.jpg” 229


Gaile, Z./Cibule, I./Atavs, I. (2005), p. 4-19 231


61

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 Büchel, 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

Gaile, Z./Cibule, I./Atavs, I. (2005), p. 1 233




62

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

Jansons, V. (2006), p. 20-26 237


63

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



64

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

65

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

66

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 run-

down 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






67

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 Büchel 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









68

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






69

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


R"gas Dome (2005a), p. 9 262

R"gas Dome (2005a), p. 8-13 263



70

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




Schubert, D. (2001a), p. 28-29 269




71

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




Schubert, D. (2001a), p. 28-29 276





72

residents will have left the area, so it will develop in a place, which is exclusively for wealthy

residents.280

Even though today rich and poor people live in the direct neighbourhood, there is

hardly any interaction between them.281

According to the architect, the residents of the

gypsum factory form a close community with many personal contacts, but contacts to the

surrounding unrenovated houses are very seldom.282

The developer makes no attempt to

counteract this development: it rather corresponds well with his aims to develop the area into

a nice and luxury place. The high fences around the gypsum factory give already now the

impression of a gated community and Jonas Büchel claims that at least mentally this fence

already exists around the entire restoration area.283

The redevelopment projects by M#ris Gailis are completely private initiatives. He was

able to buy so much land on !"psala, that now he owns most of the protected historical centre

and is able to develop it according to his personal wishes.284

Since he and his wife live in the

area themselves, they also have a private interest in its development.285

Today, the

neighbourhood is dominated by private space: The gypsum factory and the restored wooden

houses are bordered by fences or walls, cameras symbolise the control about the private

properties and the isolation of the wealthy residents. The restoration projects have created an

area full of contrasts between rich and poor. The city council does not have the measures and

the will to control any of the private developments on !"psala. None of the current

developments – land monopolism, gentrification and segregation – are realised as possible

problems by the city council.286

The only rules that restrict the developments in the protected

historical area are the buildings regulations and the UNESCO regulations, but as can be seen

280







Interview with Gvido Princis, 15.12.2006

73

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





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

74

Dealing with historical architecture

The urban planning expert Jonas Büchel argues, that in Riga there exists a tendency for

“Historismus”, which forms a barrier for both the balanced conservation of historical

architecture and modern developments. “Historismus” means that many architects in Riga,

including Zaiga Gaile, favour the conservation of historical architecture at all costs –

preserving the past is their highest priority and that often prevents modern future-oriented

projects.292

And even more extreme: they demolish historical architecture in order to rebuild it

with new materials in the original look. Thus, the will to preserve does not mean the

completely correct restoration of historical buildings. It rather means the most important

aspect in restoration projects is the historical look, the facade. What is behind does not matter

so much.293

But still, as the !"psala case shows, history is actively and successfully marketed.

This goes well in line with the fact, that restoration projects are usually aimed for a wealthy

target group, and this group is not primarily interested in a 100% correctly restored building,

but in a beautiful historic look – a building that looks historic, but not old, combined with all

possible modern amenities.294

In my opinion, this attitude towards historical architecture must be seen critical, since

it turns historical areas into artificial places that are beautiful, but that lack any authentic

character. The same goes for the planned Jewish memorial museum on !"psala, which in my

eyes uses the history of the holocaust in Riga just to make profit. This very commercial

attitude towards history is, as it was outlined in the theoretical framework above, a typical

feature of a post-socialist city in transformation.

292




75

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

Büchel 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




76

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








77

“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 market-

driven 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



Feldman, M. (2000), p. 845

78

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

Pope, A. (2000), p. 265-269 309





79

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



80

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





81

The lack of effective regulatory instruments also paves the way for the manner in

which the city deals with its historical architecture: Commercial interests seem to be more

important than the historically correct conservation and restoration of historical buildings. 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 post-

socialist 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

82

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.

83

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 Post-

industrial 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

84

Google Maps:

http://maps.google.de/ (18.06.2007)

Gudemann, Wolf-Eckhard:

Bertelsmann Neues Lexikon. Gütersloh: 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 Frühen Neuzeit. In: Misans, Ilgvars

(ed.): Riga und der Ostseeraum – von der Gründung 1201 bis in die Frühe 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 Schöningh 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 Europäische Stadt”,

http://www.klett.de/sixcms/list.php?page=geo_infothek&node=Stadttypen&article=Inf

oblatt+Die+europ%E4ische+Stadt (13.06.2007)

85

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

Kovács, Zoltán:

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 Mühle

(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

86

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 Seehafenstädten –

Anlässe, Ziele, Ergebnisse sowie Forschungsansätze- 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

87

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

Strauß, 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, Iván:

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


88

Interview with Jonas Büchel, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, 11.12.2006

Interview with Jonas Büchel, 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


Es pl#noju R"gu – Long Term Development Strategy of Riga City till 2025. Riga City

Council 2005b


Es pl#noju R"gu – Spatial Plan of Riga for 2006 – 2018. Riga City Council 2005c


Building Regulations for Riga Historical Centre and its Protection Zones. Riga City

Council 2006a


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

89

Photographs


“_Baznicas ielas maja_1.jpg”. 2005 n.p.


Power Point Presentation “Prezentacija Kipsala_2.ppt”, slide 22. 2005 n.p.





90

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.

91

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

92

II. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE APARTMENT 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. 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

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?

_______ years

17. Do you know in which year/period this

house was built?

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?

93

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?

o yes o no

21. If yes, what is your opinion about it?

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


24. Do you have any personal contacts or interactions with the old residents of this

area?

o yes o no


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?

o yes o no

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

o yes o no

94

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

development of this area in the future?

o yes

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?

95

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 ___________________________

7. Actual Income per Month

o < 100 LVL

o 100 – 250 LVL

o 251 – 500 LVL o 501 – 1000 LVL

o > 1000 LVL

II. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE APARTMENT

96

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?

________ years

14. Do you know when this house was...

... built?

o year: ________________

o period: _________________

o don`t know

... renovated?

o year: ________________ o don`t know

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?

97

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


21. Do you have any personal contacts or interactions with the old residents of this

area?

o yes

o no


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

98

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?

o yes

o no

29. Were you invited to participate in the

planning process?

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?