RESHAPED URBAN SPACE AND RIVERFRONT IN POST-SOCIALIST CITIES-RIVERFRONT OF TBILISI - DAVIT ASANIDZE

INTRODUCTION

Cities which have gone through the long period of integration in the ex-Soviet Union naturally incorporated a set of principles that are now under pressure. It’s in this context that we review the central question of the relationship between river and city.
At present, territorial planning, as a single system of state spatial planning, is highly unstructured and has very little practical influence, with several urban planning decisions being made with little regard for formal urban planning agencies. One of the key issues in the capital city, Tbilisi, is the lack of green/recreational zones, which is also expressed in the loss of public space along the urban riverfront.

Undermanaged growth of post-soviet city, expiration of the term of the last general plan, and disregard for historical traditions of city planning resulted in an abnormal and complex problem of interplay between Tbilisi and River Kura. The river has been, in the last few decades, striped of its architectural-planning significance. 

Interrelation between Tbilisi city and the River Kura constitutes a complex and challenging urban problem but their transformation is related also with political aims. Kura, as an essential active element of the landscape, is being used to influence the city’s planning character and as political instrument.

FUNDAMENTALS OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT OF TBILISI RIVERFRONT

At all stages of Tbilisi’s development, the braided, multi-channel course of Kura River, was a pervasive influence. In the past, the river was vested with navigation functions also. Apparently, the downgrade of watercourse level throughout the periods was largely caused by the depletion of forest stands alongside its embankments. The River Kura area, as a linear image of Tbilisi composition, also plays important role in the sense of city extension, and has a direct effect on microclimate. The masses of air passing alongside the Kura gorge have a potential for ventilation of the capital. Nowadays, large and small islands between river banks have vanished and the river confined to a single channel, whilst on the 1800 map even gardens of such islands are depicted. The 1800 map (see figure 1) is the first “modern” and accurately drafted map of the city, and is therefore fundamental in understanding past urban processes. This map provides graphical images of densely inhabited districts, the street network, particularly of buildings and parts of the city ruined by the last invasion of Agha-Mahmud-khan in 1795, which makes it trustworthy source to rely on when studying Tbilisi city planning in late eighteenth century.

In studying and analyzing the 1923-1934 first general city plan of Tbilisi, first and foremost we ought to take into account the role of Kharkov’s “GIPROGRAD” institute for planning, which without a doubt had effect on the entire planning structure of the city and its image, as well as on the future fate of Kura and its banks. Regrettably, the project not only prescribed the relocation of most of the city’s core functions to a new location, down the river, which was historically common for Tbilisi’s planning, but it also refrained from conducting a proper analysis and research of the nature and purpose of the river, its composition and development perspectives. Practical works, aimed at reinforcing river banks for subsequent construction of highways, commenced in 1928. In the second half of 1930th, Soviet Authorities demolished watermills and after lowering of river level, embankments were secured and the Rike district was constructed over a reclaimed plot of land.

As a consequence of the construction of main roads dictated by necessity, it’s impossible not to bypass the deterioration of the aesthetic potential of the historic central districts of Tbilisi, as and the Kura riverbanks, a consequence of all these major works. This phenomenon may be observed through the lens of comparative analysis among pre and post construction photo materials (02).

PROJECT OF THE RIKE RIVERSIDE PARK

Rike, which lies along the left bank of the River Kura, is situated between Avlabari and Chugureti districts (see Figure 3). In the middle ages, Rike was the name given to the entire left bank area of Kura, but later this name was substituted by Chugureti. In the 17th century the Rike area served as a competition field for wrestling and for other sport activities. The Avchala road, leading to Russia, started from here. In the 19th century city fairs and markets were arranged here. As Rike is located in the lowest level of the city, on the Kura embankment, the area was usually severely affected by flooding.

In 2009 Tbilisi City Hall took up work on the idea of rehabilitation and development of the city’s historical part. The program united several large scale projects, among them and foremost the renovation of Rike Park.

The project of the 7.5 hectare park was approved by the Tbilisi City Hall in 2010 without any prior public discussions (04). The project’s author is a Spanish architect, Domingo Cabo. The City Hall did not disclose information on details of construction. Among other issues, interested urban specialists were not given the chance to access the data on expenditures. The main shaping element of the Rike Park is a 3D moving fountain, which serves as a connection along the main pedestrian circuit from “Bridge of Peace” towards the promenades assembled over the roof of a new segment of the Avlabari tunnel. The ”tunnel”, running above-ground along the banks but under a ledge which provides an extension for the public space, is used as an element of the park and is well integrated into the entire space. It should nevertheless be noted that the pedestrian zone is restricted to a strip between the river and the new segment of the tunnel, while all remaining areas are overwhelmingly being used as a parking lot.

Here, the “Buda Bar” was opened alongside the promenades. As is the case with franchises from this brand, the “Bar” is required to be enclosed from the surrounding area, further decreasing the provision of actual public spaces within such a large area. Consequently, the area behind the Bar remains cut-off from the river bank. Therefore, this part of the park could not retain the functions of reconnecting the city and the river that were supposedly at the project’s heart, and the “Bar” now acts to artificially split the river with the rest of the Park area. A person walking through the riverside promenade, basically located on the ledge over the tunnel, is blocked landwards by an ungainly wall preventing connections inland.

The cleverly-designed parking lot for 350 vehicles is constructed under the Park. However, during evening and night rush hours the space is half-empty, despite the fact that Gorgasali circus (less than 150 m away) is tremendously overwhelmed by cars parked at the surface. Presumably, this is caused by ineffective management.

The new bridge and the Rike Theatre constitute one single unit, but due to their scale and aesthetics are awkwardly out of context with the surroundings (see Figure 5). Despite the smart location of the bridge, it appears overbearing given the volume of glass, and the bridge produces an extremely conspicuous visual obstruction affecting the view shed along Kura’s gorge. This lack of concern for context in symbolic architecture should definitely be addressed in future interventions. Rike Theatre is particularly hard to perceive for a person walking down the Baratashvili Bridge towards the Park, because the construction is almost fully hidden from sideway view from the inner part of the Park, as if it had been designed to be exclusively viewed from across the river and not by those walking by it.

Construction of the new riverside park doubtless grants overwhelming approval by everyone in the city; however, the project itself caused huge controversy among society, because the connections to the Kura and its landscape deserved very little concern in the project for this recreational zone. The territory was freed from the old ugly restaurants, which was a positive for sure, but the new buildings erected thorough the Park (bridge, theatre, tunnel and cable car station) are absolutely off the context of this historical district. 

Therefore, criticism should be raised towards the options and process surrounding the design and selection of these new structures, currently dominating the area. Here, major landscaping-shaping elements are Metekhi temple, Narikala fortress, Sioni Cathedral, a segment of old Tbilisi settlements, which are harmoniously merged with the River Kura and its banks, and forming the unique territory of Rike. All previous authorities were cautious when making concrete decisions in relation to these areas of the city. Numerous contests had been arranged together with public discussions, and winners were announced more than once. However Rike still remained preserved before the implementation of this Project. Within the city center, this was the only available area which allowed for a frank improvement of the connectivity between the city and the river but, nowadays, this is virtually impossible given the options taken in planning of the new Rike Park and its oversized and ill-fitting constructions (06).

DEDA – ENA GARDEN PROJECT

The greening of the Deda-Ena Garden (former Orbeliani Island) started in 1930s, during the simultaneous construction of the Kura embankments. The area, previously utilized for agricultural and industrial purposes, was transformed into the recreational zone. Unfortunately, this green area (total 9 hectare) has been progressively reduced with the construction of new buildings, during the last 15 years (07).

The new Public Service Hall (the building of which sacrificed a formerly very popular tennis court complex) was successfully added to this territory. The Tennis Courts were of emblematic, often being compared to the “Wimbledon” of Tbilisi, and currently the Service Hall complex occupies a total of five hectares, 2.5 of which is allocated for parking (08).

The project aimed at constructing an iconic public building in the city center along the riverside, which would attach new and interesting shades to the surrounding environment, comparable to the effect of the Guggenheim Museum of Bilbao.
The project for the Public Service Hall was a continuation of the Rike Park project. The project by Italian architect Massimiliano Fuksas was unilaterally approved without preceding tenders or public discussions. The total area of the seven floor building is 2.7 Hectare, and it includes offices and service spaces. It holds a complex program in a sensitive and historically-significant area, which makes it somewhat baffling that the architect didn’t deem it necessary to visit the place and study in situ the impact factors of the space. The river performs an important role in shaping the city and, naturally, development of riverfront infrastructure affects the riverside landscape, determining dramatically the city’s image.

Pedestrian paths alongside the Kura embankments define the planning structure of the territories surrounding river. During Soviet period these sidewalks were much wider and assigned the role of boulevard and riverside promenade; even today the city lamps can be seen along the river embankments. 

Embankment roads were not so overloaded with traffic in earlier decades and thus pedestrian access across them to the riverside promenade was much easier. In 2012, after completion of the construction of Public Service Hall, the cars toll dramatically raised around the area and, with the purpose of widening the roadway, authorities cut off the trees alongside the bank and tapered the pedestrian pavements. Moreover, during the construction process, a large number of trees were additionally cut off for the building site as well as for establishing surface car parking. Such actions give the impression of a general indifference towards nature and the environment.

However, those responsible for transforming the city’s landscape declared that the entire process was well planned and there was no reason to point out the devastating consequences of it as such aftermath was “likely unexpected”. This negligent approach has resulted in loss of dozens of trees. Even more damaging, the image of city’s old park, its functionality, and connection to its adjacent neighborhood have also been sacrificed. As with the Rike project, once again, a disproportionate amount of the surface space is devoted to car-parking, when formerly it included large areas of public space. Given the size and cost of the project, it would not have been difficult to consider the opportunity to create underground parking so as to increase the provision of riverfront public promenades, all-too-rare in central Tbilisi. Given the project’s extremely large budget, adding this element would likely have a minimal impact over the total costs, and would have permitted the off-set of some of the worst negative impacts of the project.

CONCLUSIONS

As we have observed, changes in the post-Soviet cities are supported by huge economic and political transformations. However, this process is still in flux, as a result of a yet-incomplete switch from entirely different systems of land-use planning and, indeed, land ownership. Democratization and regulation processes have been slowly incorporated, but have not been able to keep pace with much-faster trends in development, which are still vastly controlled by private developers and, sometimes, with the complicity of a seemingly unwitting public administration. This leads to a half-baked incorporation of some core values of Western societies, in which some staples, such as environmental protection or public participation, have not been taken transferred or properly taken into account. The ongoing democratization process has not allowed the development of urban management tools to defend fundamental values such as public involvement or environmental qualification resulting in urban interventions that do not include all the interests involved.These transformations of the riverfront, being emblematic projects of a new political, economic and financial power, end up being used as over-priced symbols, with their merits being weighed almost exclusively based on the visual appeal as isolate units, far outweighing rather the consideration of more structural problems of the Kura’s riverfront that indeed direly require attention, such as the provision of riverfront public spaces or reestablishing connection between neighborhoods and across the banks. The two projects along the banks of the Kura are emblematic of the structural problems that still need to be addressed in the planning structures and institutions. In order to further prevent such insensible decisions and events as those triggered by these projects, first and foremost one should address what is the purpose and objective of the territory alongside river banks; only after understanding, and adequately balancing, competing land-uses, should the projects develop into the design stages, in order to avoid the casuistic and often insensible way “iconic” buildings have been dictating all other space arrangements in recent projects, as well as compromising the image of this area of Tbilisi.