Public views on urban development and conservation in Limassol by Andreas Papallas

Briefing Paper Public views on urban development and conservation in Limassol Background With a fleet of waterfront towers dwarfing the surrounding post-war housing blocks and a heavily commercialised new marina, Limassol transformed dramatically over the past decade. Urban renewal has found fertile ground in Limassol’s waterfront driven by economic standards adopting blindly the investor’s vision of the ‘contemporary city’. With the completion of a series of tower projects (see figure 1), Limassol’s 180’000 population will have 14 tower projects with a combined height (TCH) of 1703 metres. In context, this will place Limassol above many European cities including Berlin (POP: 3.5M, TCH: 1099), Beirut (POP: 361’000, TCH: 1285), and Vienna (POP: 1,7M, TCH: 1349). However, what do the towers contribute to the city and at what cost? Urban development can alter the identity of a city and change its perception at the local and global levels enduring for many years. Urban renewal projects can be inspiring and succeed in reviving segments of the city where other projects fail, but can also lead to gentrification and failure to respond to citizen’s needs and aspirations.

Indicative Projects Lanitis Old Mansion (3 towers) Olympic Residency (2 towers) The One Oval iHome Limassol (2 towers) Del Mar Limassol Landmark Neocleous Tower Fairways Centre Point Totalserve Towers Limassol Blu Marco Polo (2 towers) Cedars Oasis Icon Residences

Height (m) 3 towers: 510 2 towers: 150 170 75 2 towers: 76 78 93 84 56 63 90 2 towers:144 54 50

Figure 1: Indicative development projects with estimated height.

Therefore, it is worthwhile to question whether the future vision of Limassol as a neo-liberal port city is worthwhile to pursue in this intensity or whether a planning model based on sociability and community engagement would be more suitable. While a comparative study with other cities and an in-depth analysis of the socioeconomic context would be extremely valuable, this briefing paper focuses on a grassroots approach within (the lack of) a

Key findings for policy • Urban development and conservation are not mutually exclusive. • Construction is not development. • Investment and growth can and should go hand-in-hand with conservation understanding that value does not lie solely in monetary figures. • The right of Limassoleans to the waterfront must not be hindered by new developments. • Limassol’s vision of the ‘contemporary city’ must be based on sociability, ethics of care and solidarity incorporating principles of social justice and equality. • The public must be given ample opportunities to provide feedback to development proposals and influence urban planning policy.

mesh spatial design studio

www.meshsds.com

info@meshsds.com

Briefing Paper Public views on urban development and conservation in Limassol participatory planning framework to reveal public desires and opinions. This paper stems from a two-day participatory event where the public utilised an interactive installation to express support or opposition towards development projects as well as aspirations to conserve or redevelop certain areas of the city. The projects and areas selected while not exhaustive, specifically targeted controversial areas to reveal popular trends towards the notions of construction or conservation. Consequently, given the many limitations inherent to such a project, a quantitative analysis of public views does not seem appropriate. The event was titled ‘Parallel Cities: Construction or Conservation’ and was carried out under the auspices of the MITOS Centre of Performing Arts within their residency scheme theYard. Residency.17 at the Old Vinegar Factory on the 2nd and 3rd of February 2017. Method The interactive installation consisted of two elements. First, a moving image depicting the last ten years of social media activity (sourced from Flickr) and second, aerial images of the port-marina area and the waterfront area around Lanitis mansion. The areal images were presented in two versions, one taken in the 1970s and one taken in the last decade. Images were manipulated to depict existing and proposed developments along with information about their height and estimated completion year (figure 2). The images were projected on the two sides of a 7 metre wide structure making use of projection mapping and motion tracking techniques to reveal the projects as the participants move along the structure.

Figure 2: Aerial image of waterfront tower schemes.

The two-day format of the event allowed for inviting participants with roles of influence (such the mayor and municipal councillors) or specific expertise and area of influence (such as architects and academics) on the first

mesh spatial design studio

day while opening to the public on the second day. All participants were given three red and three green stickers and were asked to use them to identify support (green) or opposition (red) towards development projects as well as aspirations to conserve (green) or redevelop (red) certain areas of the city.

Figure 3: ‘Parallel Cities’ interactive installation in practice (public event).

Analysis The event during its private opening had around 130 participants while during its public opening around 110. The invited participants (figure 4) were mostly opinionated about the Old Port Redevelopment (in favour), the Lanitis Old Mansion Towers development (against), The One (equally in favour and against) and the Oval (marginally in favour). It is also noteworthy that this group identified the old waterfront residential blocks as in need of redevelopment. Furthermore, a clear support to the recent development of the Molos area was identified. The public (figure 5) was mostly opinionated about the Old Port Redevelopment (marginally in favour), the Limassol marina (marginally in favour), The One (against), the Oval (equally in favour and against), the Lanitis Old Mansion Towers development (against) and the Olympic Residency (against). It is also noteworthy that this group identified the St. Antonios Area in need of conservation, while identified the G.Digenis Mausoleum as in need of redevelopment (albeit, not the removal of the monument itself). Comparing the two focus groups, there are quite a few similarities in perceptions. Clearly, both groups deem the Old Port Redevelopment successful while oppose the development of the Lanitis Old Mansion to the three-towers scheme. In regards to the other towers (The One and the

www.meshsds.com

info@meshsds.com

Mansion Towers Olympic Residency

Briefing Paper Public views on urban development and conservation in Limassol Limassol Marina Old Port Redevelopment

Lanitis Old Mansion Residence Demolition

Dasoudi

Molos

KEO Winery

TEPAK

Lanitis Old Mansion Residence Demolition

Old waterfront residential blocks

G.Digenis Mausoleum

Enaerios

Oval

The One

Lanitis Old Mansion Towers

Olympic Residency

St. Antonios Area

Limassol Marina

Old Port Redevelopment

Figure 4: INVITATION-ONLY EVENT. Support (dark grey) or opposition (light grey) towards development projects and aspirations to conserve (dark grey)Dasoudi or redevelop (light grey) certain areas of the city. KEO Winery

Oval), the public has a slightly more oppositional view Lanitis Old Mansion than the invited group. Another interesting observation Residence Demolition is that some G.Digenis things are picked up by only one group. Mausoleum For example, the public showed a marginal support to Enaerios the marina development while the expert group has not shown interest to express an opinion. Also the expert Oval group identified the old residential blocks at the waterfront The One as in need for development while the public has not Lanitis Old expressed an opinion. While the more politically-infused Mansion Towers Olympic Residency

“I think that the G. Digenis Mausoleum should St. Antonios Area be a school or something, there is so much Limassol Marina free undeveloped space there it’s ridiculous. [...] It doesn’t mean they have to get rid of the Old Port Redevelopment monument.” - Participant from the public event

areas (the former Turkish-Cypriot quarter, St Antonios area and the G. Digenis Mausoleum) were ignored by the expert group, the public has expressed an interest for the conservation of the St. Antonios neighbourhood and the development of the G. Digenis Mausoleum into an active segment of the city (without necessarily removing the existing monument)

mesh spatial design studio

Figure 5: PUBLIC EVENT. Support (dark grey) or opposition (light grey) towards development projects and aspirations to conserve (dark grey) or redevelop (light grey) certain areas of the city.

Discussion Approaches to urban renewal at the waterfront tend to be driven by neo-liberal economic principles and focus on foreign capital investment or tourism. Whilst there are many positives in attracting wealthy tourists and professionals, it would be negligent to ignore some ramifications of urban renewal such as gentrification, speculation and the displacement of locals from the waterfront. Rejuvenation is not only linked to accumulated investment but also to people density and activity. The right to the waterfront for the average Limassolean must be preserved at all costs. The proposed tower developments must have an accessible and visible public aspect as well as semi-public opportunities for mingling and allow for interaction within. Urban development and conservation are not mutually exclusive. This becomes especially important when dealing with areas of historical interest such as St. Antonios where incentives for conservation and careful rezoning can first, encourage cultural development and enrich social life and second, trigger an increase in value in a more resilient way than what can renewal achieve. Clearly the vision of Limassol as the Dubai of the Mediterranean is not a vision shared by the public. While some Dubaiesque projects are better received than others, many feel that Limassol’s vision should not be a waterfront

www.meshsds.com

info@meshsds.com

Briefing Paper Public views on urban development and conservation in Limassol tower wall, no matter what the architecture is. The public envisions public spaces, greenery and openness (such as Molos and Dasoudi areas) not only at the waterfront but behind the waterfront especially. The participatory event allowed for an unprecedented opportunity to voice opinions regarding the urban realities of the city. Much of the feedback referenced the lack of such opportunities within the planning process. It is without doubt that better communication between the public and the planners is needed with well-structured opportunities for feedback and active involvement in the planning process. The lack of information pertaining to some schemes, whether that relates to appearance and aesthetics or function and public engagement, resonates negatively amongst the participants. Further research Understanding and recognizing the role of the public in the planning process is only a small part of Limassol’s urban future. The need for a public constructive dialogue

emphasising on the needs of the citizens and the image of the city is evident. The ongoing development should be questioned and re-visited in order to identify the advantages and disadvantages of each scheme not only to the city as a fiscal entity, but also in relation to the public realm. Development focused solely on economic growth does not necessarily result in a healthy and fruitful society. A good city is a city of sociability, of ethics of care, of solidarity incorporating principles of social justice and equality. A comprehensive strategy that takes into account the economic, social and cultural principles of the good city in combination with opportunities for investment and growth can allow for a thriving port city celebrated by its citizens and visitors alike. Acknowledgements Authors acknowledge in-kind contribution from the MITOS Centre of Performing Arts, the Cyprus Interaction Lab at the Cyprus University of Technology, the Cyprus Academy of Art and Akis Kleovoulou Photo Studio.

Further reading 1.

Charalambous, N., & Geddes, I. (2015). Spatial memory and shifting centrality. In Vaughan, L (Ed.) Suburban Urbanites. London: University College London Press.

Geddes, I. (2014). From “a miserable town of 150 mud houses” to “the city that never sleeps”: Limassol’s urban development over the past 200 years. Paper presented at the 21st International Seminar on Urban Form, Porto.

Gerasimou, S., & Georgoudis, M. (2011). Sustainable Mobility in Cyprus: the city of Limassol. In A. Pratelli & C. A. Brebbia (Eds.), Urban Transport XVII: Urban Transport and the Environment in the 21st Century: Wit Press.

Kritioti, M. (1988). Limassol, a town in transition. (MSc Advanced Architectural Studies), University College London.

Πηλαβάκης, Κ. Α. (1977). Η Λεμεσός σ’ άλλους καιρούς, Λεμεσός: Εκδόσεις Ονήσιλος. Trans: Pilavakis, C. Α. (1977). Limassol in another age. Limassol: Onisilos Publications.

Σεργίδης, Χ. (2012) Λεμεσός, οινοπόλεως μέστωμα. Λεμεσός: Εκδόσεις Αφή. Trans: Serghides, C. (2012). Limassol. Maturity of a wine city. Limassol: Afi Publications.

Severis, R. C. (2006). Limassol, a town of visionaries: Hellenic Bank.

mesh spatial design studio is a recently established collaboration between Antonis Stylianou, architect and artist, and Andreas Papallas, architect and urban designer, as an experimental practice that combines urban research, design and technology. The human experience and the socio-psychological element to space are central to our work, therefore we have collaborated with experts in a range of fields such as social psychology, computer science and scenic design. Antonis Stylianou is a practicing architect, artist and lecturer/studio tutor at the Cyprus Academy of Art, based in Limassol. During his studies in Architecture (BA, University of Sheffield, 2012; MArch, Queens University Belfast, 2015) his interest in art and sound have led in the exploration of cases of public space design through a cross-disciplinary approach. He has been a researcher and an affiliate at the Recomposing the City research project and his research has been presented at the Postgraduate Symposium at Queen’s University Belfast in 2015. As an artist, Antonis has presented his personal work in 2013 (Complications and Other Comforts) and 2016 (Exposed) in his hometown. Current interest lies in the study, understanding and construction of environments where design, technology, art and sound can co-exist. Organised by:

www.meshsds.com

Andreas Papallas is currently a Research Fellow at the Cyprus Interaction Lab at the Cyprus University of Technology and a practicing architect based in Larnaca. With a background in Architecture and Urban Design (BA, University of Sheffield, 2013; MPhil, University of Cambridge, 2016), he has recently completed posts as a Visiting Fellow to the University of Cyprus and as a Researcher at the Centre for Urban Conflicts Research while has briefly worked at the UN OHCHR’s RTCYPP. His research and design work has been presented and exhibited in Oxford, Cambridge, London, Madrid, Nicosia and San Francisco. Andreas is a frequent guest lecturer at the University of Cyprus and a visiting critic at the University of Nicosia and University of Cyprus. Current interest lies in evaluating, analysing and visualising complex urban conditions.

Supported by: