Tbilisi reinvented: planning, development and the unfinished project of democracy in Georgia

Abstract

In this paper, we highlight the changing developmental patterns and planning strategies for the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, from late communism till the present day. Drawing on extensive fieldwork, interviews, analysis of documents and plans, we reconstruct the change of course from Soviet planning to fragmentation of plans and policies. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Moscow, Moscow actors and Moscow knowledge disappeared behind the horizon. New actors and new knowledge were introduced in the planning and design system. Most notably, architects-turned-developers introduced Western architectural forms and development practices. Foreign advisors and Western-educated Georgians gave weight to Western economic visions of transition. With the Georgian leadership, as well as with the audience at large, attitudes towards planning are very ambiguous, disputing the relevance of government intervention in spatial development, at the same time cherishing certain results of Soviet planning or planning as such. We argue that the developer-led renaissance of urban design ought to be embedded in a reinvented planning system, and that such system in turn can only function in an improved institutional frame. This should include a more clearer separation of powers and unambiguously enforced property rights. Whatever system of spatial governance the Georgian people and its government prefer in the end, choices will have to be made and the coupling of political institutions, law and planning has to be reflected upon, for developers and their creations to contribute sustainably to spatial quality and economic development.

Changing Frames: Citizen and Expert Participation in Georgian Planning

“…Planning in Georgia has largely been the planning of Tbilisi, its historic capital (Suny, 1994;Van Assche et al, 2009). This paper will investigate how citizen and expert participation have evolved in Tbilisi planning since late communism.…”

Commercial Gentrification in Post‐Industrial Neighbourhoods: A Dynamic View From an Entrepreneur’s Perspective

“…Badyina & Golubchikov ) and the market‐based context. Van Assche and Salukvadze () use the term ‘investor‐led urbanism’ to characterise the main features of urban change in formerly centrally‐planned countries in Europe. Investor‐led urbanism in the Estonian context means that the role of enterprises and individual entrepreneurs in the neighbourhoods that are undergoing gentrification is more significant than the role of the public sector (Pastak et al .…”

Tari̇hsel Kirilmalarin Konutlaşmaya Etki̇si̇: Ti̇fli̇s Örneği̇

“…Bunlardan birisi şehrin birbirinden ve şehir merkezinden nispeten kopuk olan mahallelerini birleştirmek için 1966'da açılan metrodur. Böylece Tiflis; Moskova, Leningrad ve Kiev'den sonra SSCB'nin metro altyapısı-na sahip dördüncü şehri olmuştur (Salukvadze ve Golubchikov, 2016; Van-Assche ve Salukvadze, 2013Salukvadze, , 2012Salukvadze, 1996).…”

“…Her ne kadar sağlam olarak nitelendirilseler de inşa edilen apartman blokları aileler için yeterince büyük değildir. Özellikle Sovyet yönetiminin yeni tesis edildiği erken devirde inşa edilen konutlarda ortak olan (mutfak gibi) alanlar halk tarafından benimsenmemiştir (Gadrani, Lominadze ve Tsitsagi, 2018; Van-Assche ve Salukvadze, 2013Salukvadze, , 2012Salukvadze, 1996). giderek yükselmiştir (D'encausse, 2015: 77-82).…”