Vilnius Zirmunai Triangle LAP by PUPA. Life over space

LOCAL ACTION PLAN FOR ŽIRMŪNAI TRIANGLE IN VILNIUS English Summary of the Local Action Plan 2015 03 24 Vilnius, Lithuania

VILNIUS CITY MUNICIPALITY

Contents

Analytical part

Apartment blocks

Context

Car infrastructure

Planning of the soviet cities Microdistricts renovation challenges

Local action plan

Ĺ˝irmĹŤnai Triangle territory overview

Goals of the local action plan

Urban analysis

Process and implementation

Survey

Finance mechanism

Pedestrian traffic

Process and implementation

SWOT analysis

Top 5 actions

Lithuanian policy overview

Preparation phase 2015 - 2016 First phase 2015 - 2017

Process

Second phase 2017 - 2020

Local Support Group Members

Local action plan chart

Making of the Local Action Plan Recommendations by project partners Development vision Main goals Development vision main drawing Description of main themes Public space system Pedestrian and cycling paths Neighbourhoods

Foreword

Jonas Juodka, Vilnius city councillor, Re-Block Knowledge Ambassador, residents’ community manager

I am a real patriot of my city, therefore the natural decision is to give all my energy to significant projects in Vilnius. I would be happy to see great results that could take the breath away! My special attention is focused on Žirmūnai district, where I live almost 30 years. I truly believe in the future of this district - therefore the project Re-Block is extremely important for the further development. For the first time we have an opportunity to work together in the international network, which has the final goal to foster efficient regeneration in the huge block housing neighborhood. I strongly believe the best practice and experiences of the Re-Block project will be a platform for the transformation of the other residential districts in Vilnius city.

RE-Block

Žirmūnai triangle Local Action Plan, Vilnius

Žirmūnai Triangle in Re-Block

Rūta Matonienė, Re-Block project coordinator, Deputy director at Urban Development Department, Vilnius City Municipality

Most of the Lithuanian population lives in urban areas, where they create the largest part of the country‘s GDP and ensure the country‘s economic stability and prosperity. On average, two-thirds of the urban population lives in apartment blocks, 96% of which were built in Lithuania before 1993. Most of them have become economically inefficient and too outdated to meet modern standards of living. We are significantly lagging behind European standards in accordance with the amount of living space per person, we do not have a rental housing stock, besides, residential houses and their environment are not administered effectively. Modern city dwellers are increasingly feeling the absence of more contemporary residential area planning, as the existing ones lack jobs and services, there is no space for communication or entertainment, secure yards or playgrounds. Since the apartment blocks areas were designed before two or three decades, they lack many necessary things. Moreover, they are becoming the locations where criminality and social segregation start flourishing. A better quality of the living environment can become one of the most important responses to the problems caused by emigration and economic downturn, therefore, over the last decade the Vilnius City Municipality has been looking for innovative techniques for integrated neighbourhood renovation.

A lot of things have already been done: an integrated neighbourhood renovation programme has been launched; standard projects for buildings renovation have been developed; schemes of land designation for residential homes and public spaces have been prepared; new children’s playgrounds and sports fields have been installed; ways to improve the quality of social infrastructure and parking have been searched. The efforts made by the Municipality have already produced tangible results – according to the European Economic Forecast, by the year 2030 Vilnius will retain a stable population. Participation in the project Re-Block is a great opportunity for Vilnius to use the international experience of renovating residential apartment blocks. 10 project partners from all over Europe with the active participation of local communities and business representatives were looking together for models of complex renovation of residential apartment blocks, promoting their integrated socioeconomic development. The models that were developed on the principle of the exchange of experiences included physical and social development of the regions, as well as their more efficient administration. To implement Re-Block project, Vilnius chose part of Žirmūnų eldership – the block between Minties, Žirmūnų and Tuskulėnų streets, hereinafter referred to as Žirmūnai triangle. In consultation with the local community, entrepreneurs, public organisations and politicians a Local action plan for the block has been developed, and later, Progressive management guidelines will be developed, suitable as well for other problematic residential areas requiring renovation. In order to bring a fresh breath into Žirmūnai catchment, it is necessary not only to renovate the buildings, but also to provide more diversity to the area so that it attracts people of a wider range of social classes and ages, creates jobs and builds a united and socially responsible community, which could eventually lead to different lifestyles. Re-Block project is a great start to change.

RE-Block

Žirmūnai triangle Local Action Plan, Vilnius

Preface

About the project

About this publication

Vilnius city municipality administration is participating in the URBACT project Re-Block, which focuses on reviving high rise block neighbourhoods. The project was initiated by the lead partner – the local government of 18th district of Budapest (Hungary). Vilnius is one of the ten partner cities participating in the Re-Block. Pilot territory in Vilnius is Žirmūnai Triangle, a district bordered by three main streets – Minties, Žirmūnų and Tuskulėnų street. Žirmūnai Triangle is one of the many large scale housing estates in Vilnius build during soviet times. Neighbourhood is build more than 60 years ago and now needs urgent revitalization.

This book is a summary of a local action plan prepared for the Žirmūnai Triangle. The book contains information about the territory, process and methodology, development vision and local action plan. The original document is prepared in Lithuanian language. This publication is a summary and translation of the original document.

Project goals Goal of the project is to prepare development vision for the neighbourhood’s revitalization, and prepare local action plan, which defines how to achieve the vision. Priority of the projects, phasing, financing and responsibilities of the stakeholders are covered in the local action plan. Goal is to prepare and the vision and the local action plan working together with local support group, which is consisting of representatives of municipality departments, residents, social associations and entrepreneurs. Objectives of the local action plan Local action plan defines how, when and by whom to improve public spaces of the district, courtyards of the apartment blocks, paths, cycling routes, roads, infrastructure and car parking.

Document was prepared by Re-Block Project in Vilnius is organized by Vilnius city municipality administration, Urban development department together with company PUPA – Public Urbanism Personal Architecture. Project team: Rūta Matonienė, Re-Block project coordinator, Deputy director at Urban Development Department, Vilnius City Municipality Aušra Sičiūnienė, Re-Block project manager, Deputy head at Development Projects Division, Urban Development Department, Vilnius City Municipality Tadas Jonauskis, Re-Block external expert, urbanist, owner Pupa – Public Urbanism Personal Architecture Justina Muliuolytė, Re-Block external expert, urbanist, owner Pupa – Public Urbanism Personal Architecture

SWEDEN Södertälje

LITHUANIA Vilnius Salford UNITED KINGDOM

Gelsenkirchen Magdeburg GERMANY

Budapest HUNGARY

Iasi ROMANIA

ITALY Rome Komotini GREECE

SPAIN Malaga

RE-Block

Žirmūnai triangle Local Action Plan, Vilnius

Re-Block Reviving high-rise Blocks for cohesive and green neighbourhoods

There are ten cities participating in the RE-Block project. All are located in widely diverse parts of Europe, yet the ten target housing estates share very similar problems. Despite great historical and cultural variation, all ten housing estates have evolved to a point where they all need to address multiple physical, social and economic issues. The Partners recognized that these issues are strongly interlinked and need to be tackled in a comprehensive way to lead to sustainable solutions. While the real nature of the issues varies from one housing estate to the other, the overall focus of the Re-Block project agreed by the Partners is to ensure the sustainable rehabilitation of high-rise housing estates by the integrated development of their social and physical environment. Partner cities are aware that achieving this goal exceeds the financial capacity of each municipality, especially when they still suffer from the consequences of the economic crisis. Therefore, the Partners are going to

look for new means of public-private cooperation to ensure lasting rehabilitation. URBACT is a European exchange and learning programme promoting sustainable urban development by enabling cities to work together and to develop solutions to urban challenges. In the REBlock project, a group of qualifi ed experts in the relevant fi elds who are delegated by the Partners, the “Knowledge Ambassadors”, will contribute to the knowledge transfer objective of the project. They will share their positive experiences with the partnership and participate in the development of the first draft of the Local Action Plans for the urban rehabilitation of the ten target areas. Ágnes Böhönyey, Lead Expert about the RE-Block project

URBACT URBACT is a European exchange and learning programme promoting sustainable urban development. It enables cities to work together to develop solutions to major urban challenges, reaffirming the key role they play in facing increasingly complex societal challenges. It helps them to develop pragmatic solutions that are new and sustainable, and that integrate economic, social and environmental dimensions. It enables cities to share good practices and lessons learned with all professionals involved in urban policy throughout Europe. URBACT is 300 cities, 29 countries, and 5,000 active participants. URBACT is co-financed by the ERDF Funds and the Member States.

RE-Block

Žirmūnai triangle Local Action Plan, Vilnius

ANALYTICAL PART

Analytical part

Context

Vilnius - capital of Lithuania Vilnius, capital of Lithuania, is the major economic centre of the country and one of the largest financial centres of the Baltic States. As capital city it is also the largest political, administrative, social and cultural centre. The Parliament and all the Ministries are located in the city; there are 10 colleges and universities, major health care institutions, several knowledge economy clusters, concentrating high technology areas as biotechnology, laser technology, info and telecommunications. In 2012 Vilnius had the fastest internet connection in the world. Vilnius City and Vilnius County together produce the 40% of Lithuania’s GDP. City administrative boundaries cover 401 km2 area, there are 537,152 inhabitants, so the density of the city is very low compared with other cities in the region and Europe – 1340

RE-Block

person/km2. The urban population is slightly growing, as people from all Lithuania move to the capital. The daytime population can easily reach 700 000 due to commuting people from the surrounding towns and villages. The majority of its current population is Lithuanian (57,8%), but as a historic legacy there are other ethnicities such as Poles (17.8%), Russians (14%), Belarusians (4%) and 0,5% of Jews. The historic centre of Vilnius is the Old Town which was declared UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1994 due to its unique architectural character and huge number of architectural monuments. In 2009 at the same time as the Austrian city Linz, Vilnius became European Cultural Capital.

Žirmūnai triangle Local Action Plan, Vilnius

North Town

Project Site

The Left bank CBD

Strategic territory for integrated urban development Old town

Train, Bus stations

Airport

Facts and figures Territory of Vilnius Municipality - 401 km2

Distances to other major cities of the region:

Urbanized area - 39%

Kaunas, second largest city of the country 100km

Density – 1340 person/km2

Klaipėda, port city – 300km

Population in Vilnius – 537 152

Warsaw, capital of Poland - 470 km

Daily population in Vilnius - 673 000

Riga, capital of Latvia - 280 km

Population in metropolitan area - 800 000

Minsk, capital of Belarus - 170 km

Analytical part

North Town

Project Site

The Left bank CBD

Old town

Train, Bus stations

14.000 - 16.000 people/ha 12.000 - 14.000 people/ha 10.000 - 12.000 people/ha 8.000 - 10.000 people/ha 6.000 - 8.000 people/ha 4.000 - 6.000 people/ha up to < 4.000 people/ha

Vilnius city density

Planning of the soviet cities Majority of population of Vilnius live in large scale housing estates so called “microdistricts”, constructed during the soviet era. They are located outside the compact and medieval city centre. Microdistricts in Vilnius were built in between 1945 and 1995. Re-block project site, Žirmūnai Triangle, is one of the oldest estates build in 1964.

Microdistrict – smallest unit of soviet city structure

Large housing estates were built after WWII, when urban overcrowding and housing shortage shifted development of socialist cities towards the mass housing construction. Central government of the USSR prepared a rational city model which helped to achieve desired number of apartments in a cheap and fast way. An officially approved unit of Soviet city organization became a microdistrict. It is self contained residential neighbourhood, covering 1060 ha area. In a microdistrict of size from 5.000 to 15.000 people lived large scale apartment blocks grouped around the common centre, which had common facilities, such as schools, food shops, sport facilities, health services and other conveniences of daily needs. A Group of microdistricts formed larger residential city districts, of 10.000 to 30.000 inhabitants. Centre of the residential district had more and larger facilities and services. It was rather mono-functional 14

RE-Block

planning where working places, industrial sites were spread in between the old town and the residential areas. Most of micro districts were located in large open and green areas on the edges of the cities, where typical layout could be used for another city in any location. Therefore microdistricts had natural boundaries, abundance of green spaces, greenways, and motorways. There was a big emphasis on public transport. Apartment blocks were built from prefab concrete panels, using plain inexpensive designs, mass production techniques, and stereotyped layouts. Therefore all the neighbourhoods in post-soviet cities look alike. Microdistricts and city districts were meant to fulfil all the needs of residents, however to relieve housing shortage, priority was given to housing therefore facilities such as health care, culture buildings came much later or were never built.

Changes of cities after 1990s

In the 1990s, when Lithuania gained independence, market economy changed habits of the citizens that influenced urban environment. Car based developments, such as urban sprawl into suburbia, emerging shopping malls and decay of public transport together with increased amount of private cars became the characteristics of Vilnius city. Number of cars significantly increased, in 10 years it grew 1,6 times from

Žirmūnai triangle Local Action Plan, Vilnius

Project Site

Old town

Microdistric built time

Microdistricts renovation challenges 377cars/1000 inhab. in 2002 up to 623 cars/1000 inhab. in 2012. That created instant lack of car parking spaces in the city.

Microdistricts need renovation

Houses in the large scale estates became less popular, as they are old, outdated and apartments are very small. Many well-off families move to the suburbs and young people choose to live in the other parts of the city. Furthermore green areas, previously quality feature of the estates, became informal parking lots as there is lack of dedicated car parking. Overall entire microdistricts, with the apartment blocks, public spaces and infrastructure need overall renovation. That is one of the priority tasks for Vilnius city Municipality, which is not so easy to implement. After the 1990s most apartments were privatized and that makes renovation the biggest challenge.

Passive participation of residents

Currently 66% of Lithuanian population lives in multifamily buildings built before 1993. More than 6000 buildings need the renovation and only 92 had been renovated in last 10 years in Vilnius.

The main problem is that 97% of flats are privately owned and it isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t required for owners to formalize community of the block. Connection between behaviour and costconsequence isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t well understood. Inhabitants have poor understanding that improved building stock will reduce energy consumption, improve thermal, climate, environmental comfort and be a premium in the marketplace. Another issue is the demographical situation. Majority of inhabitants are elderly people without willingness. Today the biggest challenge is to find solution that would increase not only the thermal resistance of the buildings but will motivate and involve the flat owners to implement sufficiently ambitious whole-building renovation.

Financing

Financing issue for renovation of multifamily buildings is based on the initiative of JESSICA according to the improvement of the energy efficiency in the buildings and Vilnius city municipality contribution is 35 technical projects prepared for renovation in the target area.

Analytical part

Žirmūnai Triangle Territory overview Historical overview Re-Block project site is located in one of the 21 municipal districts/wards in the city called Žirmūnai. The project site has long and interesting history. The first villages in this area are mentioned already in the 17th century. Later the location gained more importance when in the 1825 Tuskulėnai Manor was build. During the WWII the manor was taken by the Soviet state and used for the NKVD (sort of secret police). In the park around the buildings more than 700 victims of the totalitarian regime were secretly buried. The massive graveyard was found in the 1990s when Lithuania gained independence. Now the neoclassical architectural monument together with the Peace Park is important historical and cultural attraction in Vilnius.

Construction of the housing blocks Housing blocks dominating in the territory were built in 1960s, as part of the award-winning residential construction project. Žirmūnai city district was the first district constructed applying urban planning concepts established

RE-Block

in the USSR. The district was composed of three smaller microdistricts. Re-Block project site, is one of them. The triangle was planned as a small functional city within the city: it had clear residential territories, green areas, shopping area, public facilities such as school and kindergartens and an industrial site, where district residents were working. Some single family houses from the original settlements remained in between the apartment blocks. During the last twenty years new dwellings were built and filled green spaces of the functional microdistrict.

Strategic location in the city Re-Block project territory has a lot of potentials because of its strategic location and proximity to cultural, business and commercial hubs. The triangle is very close to the river, the old town of Vilnius, new business district The Left Bank and close to Šiaurės miestelis (“North Town”) growing residential and business district – major redevelopment area of the Žirmūnai ward. Lastly the triangle is part of the area defined by the city council as “strategic territory for integrated urban development”, which makes it priority for investment and transformation.

Žirmūnai triangle Local Action Plan, Vilnius

ies s

Mint

Kindergarten

Youth centre Restaurant “Marceliukes kletis”

Adult Education Centre

Kindergarten Tuskulėnai business centre MAXIMA supermarket

Secondary school

ūnų

st.

Industrial site for redevelopment

Žirm

Education Development Centre

Kindergarten

sk Tu

Tuskulėnai Manor

Public library

ų ėn .

st Peace Park

Re-Block project territory

IKI supermarket

Culture, leisure and sports centre

Facts and figures District built in 1965-1968

Density - 243 residents / ha

Žirmūnai Triangle territory size – 52 ha

47 socialist apartment blocks with 3658 apartments

25% built area;

Number of residents - 12 000

20% roads and infrastructure

Average age of residents: 51 - 65

55% open and green spaces

Ethnicity: 60% Lithuanian, 17% Russian, 14% Poles, 9% other

Analytical part

Connectivity and transport

Žirmūnai triangle has a very good connectivity with the rest of the city. Three major streets, Tuskulėnų, Žirmūnų and Minties, bordering the site ensure good accessibility to the city centre, commercial and business areas, other residential districts. Moreover there are plenty of public transportation lines in those streets. However there are a lot of transport problems within the district. Firstly car parking is a serious issue. There were different car parking norms in the soviet times when the district was planned. Now there are far more cars and solving lack of parking is one of the priority issues in the area Currently in Žirmūnai ward 45,8% of demand for car parking is fulfilled (8822 parking spaces, demand – 16280). In the Re-Block project site the demand is even higher. Secondly there is a lack of appropriate road network within the estate. Narrow service roads form dead ends and make centre of the district hardly accessible. There are plenty of pedestrian paths in the district, however there is no structure nor hierarchy in paths. There are no major routes and secondary paths, some sections of paths go from nowhere to nowhere. That makes orientation in the area very difficult, creates unattractive, dark and unsafe places in the Žirmūnai triangle.

Green and public space

The project area has a lot of green, many trees and open spaces that supposed to act as public space. However the spaces are very outdated and unattractive. Children playgrounds are scattered around the buildings and are usually broken and not inviting and not safe for kids. There are no spaces for teenagers, elderly or families. There is a lack of sport grounds as well. All the space in between the buildings is very monotonous; there is no diversity in public space such as major green structures or parks, semi-private, intimate areas or private gardens for dwelling residents. There is a big discussion in between the planners whether there should appear private and fenced courtyards in the estates. Will it create safety and encourage resident to care of the courtyards? Or whether will it break the urban structure of the estate?

Facilities and program

There are enough of social services and daily facilities in the district. There are three kindergartens, one secondary school, library, school for adults, youth club and several NGOs. There are few supermarkets, commercial centre, restaurants, and a small business centre. However knowing the proximity to the strategic locations, there could be more companies and businesses in the district. Furthermore now the neighbourhood has very old population and there is a significant lack of services for elderly people such as health care centres, meeting clubs and public spaces to do exercises or socialize.

RE-Block

Žirmūnai triangle Local Action Plan, Vilnius

Housing stock

The Re-Block project site is mainly residential area dominated by the large scale prefabricated apartment blocks. There are quite a few new dwellings, single family houses and 59 blocks of flats 5, 9 and 12 storey height constructed in the 1960s. 47 prefab panel houses, with 3658 flats, are planned to be renewed. Majority of the houses were not renovated since their construction, now for almost 50 years, therefore they are very outdated, common spaces in the blocks are not properly maintained and energy efficiency is low. Average heating energy consumption for such house is 25 kWh/m2. That makes 1500 kWh for a typical 60m2 apartment. Prices of such inefficient flats are constantly falling. Comprehensive renovation of the housing stock is the priority project in Žirmūnai triangle and in other microdistricts of Vilnius as well. However the renovation raises many challenges. 98% of the housing stock is privately owned, therefore to renew a building residents have to form a community, prepare a project, apply for funding and implement it. There are several programs from the government and municipality that help to manage and finance such transformation. However residents are very passive and not willing to participate in renovation. The reasons are several: people do not trust company organising the process or representative of the housing community, residents are afraid of unforeseen additional expenses, people are not willing to pay for the spaces that they are not using (apartments from the ground floor don’t want to pay for the roof, apartments form the west of the building don’t want to pay for the eastern walls and etc). Overall in most cases the owners of the flats do lack the feeling of the ownership and responsibility for the block they are living in.

Social environment in Žirmūnai triangle

There are 12000 residents living in the project area. Majority of the population are elderly people and it is one of the oldest districts in the city. Average age is 51-65 years. Such social composition of residents is one of the reasons why it is so hard to start housing renovation. The old generation, which live in the area from the beginning and takes up at least 20% of the population in the target area, cannot see the long term benefit of such project for themselves. Furthermore elderly people are usually very resistant to any new projects, ideas and initiatives. Lastly, one of the problems related to the social environment in the district is the lack of safety. There were 2,317 crimes registered in the Žirmūnai ward in 2005 (it made 48.9 crimes per 1,000 residents per year). Then it was the third highest figure among Vilnius’ wards. In the recent years Žirmūnai ward started crime prevention programme “Safe City” and the number of crimes significantly decreased, however improving safety in the district is one of the tasks.

Analytical part

Urban analysis

Prefab panel houses dominate in the area

There are single family houses in the district, remains from the original settlements

Apartment houses built after 1990s partly destroyed structure of the district

There are quite many social services and commerce and in the district. Although there could be more business in the area knowing potential of the location

RE-Block

Ĺ˝irmĹŤnai triangle Local Action Plan, Vilnius

Good connection to the city: many public transport lines, three major streets and cycling route along the river to the oldtown.

Complex road structure in the district: no major roads in the triangle, service roads form dead-end streets and centre of the district hardly accessible. Car parking is also an issue. 45% of car parking demand is fulfilled.

Complicated structure of pedestrian paths: 40km of paths, no major routes. Paths do not connect in shortest way, corners of the paths are too sharp, therefore people walk on the grass. The curbs are high, pavement is broken. Paths are not suitable for wheelchairs or strollers.

There are plenty of green spaces in the district. However, there is lack of quality spaces: green is outdated and monotonous, public space is converted into parking lots, scrubs and bushes create unsafe places, lack of playgrounds, meeting places for elderly, teenagers. Public space structure do not encourage people to meet and socialize.

Analytical part

Local residents survey Local residents survey was conducted by Vilnius university department of geography and land management second year students. In total there were 415 housholds questioned and 8 public spaces monitored during the week day and the weekend. The goal was to find out more in detail the social structure, daily habits, preferance of transportation and the use of the public space.

„ When did you move to this apartment?“

“Would you recommend this area for your friends or relatives to live ?”

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

2011-20014 2001-2010 2001-2005 1996-2000 1991-1995 iki 1990

50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1

50% 40%

0% 1

100% 90%

80%

70%

60%

60% 80+ m.

50-59 m.

30%

20%

40-49 m.

20%

10%

30-39 m.

All respondents

hard to pasakyti say Sunku

we cangalime afford everything Viską įsigyti be didesnių

sunkumų.

we can affordįsigyti car but for a house Automobilį galime, tačiau or flat /we have reikia to savegerokai butui namui

pataupyti. we can afford household goods Ilgesnio vartojimo prekes, tokias kaip but for atechnika, car we have to save buitinė televizorius,

kompiuteris, įsigyjame be vargo, tačiau automobilį įsigyti sunkiau.

we can užtenka afford food for ir Pinigų tikbut maistui household goods we have to saveprekes drabužiams. Ilgesnio vartojimo

10%

18-29 m. 2

40%

60-69 m.

50%

70-79 m.

Visi respondentai

“Which family income proposal would fit you best?”

90%

30%

yes taip

10%

Visi Allrespondentai respondents

100%

40%

no ne

20%

Age group distribution within neighbourhood.

50%

Inežinau do not know

30%

(pvz. buitinė technika, televizorius, kompiuteris) įsigyti sunkiau.

we can užtenka afford only Pinigų tikfood maisto

produktams nusipirkti.

“Is there any urgent house construction issues, which should be solved ?” 100%

What should be urgently installed or fixed in respondents house. 35.0

90%

30.0

80%

25.0

70%

20.0

60%

15.0

50%

10.0

40%

5.0

30%

0.0

no ne

20%

taip yes

10%

Visi respondentai

0% 1

All respondents

RE-Block

Žirmūnai triangle Local Action Plan, Vilnius

“Why these works have not already been done ? (few possible answers) 70.0

Do you usually go for a walk or other outside activity near your house (in few minutes walking distance)? 100% 90%

60.0

80%

50.0

70%

2 40.0 30.0 20.0

50%

40%

30%

7 10.0

lack of no ownership Savininkai Nėra aiškios agreement neturi pinigų negali susitarti nuosavybės

Visirespondents respondentai All

other Kita

occasionally (about once a month) yes, often (once a week or more often)

10%

9 lack of money Savininkai

rarely or never

20%

0.0

Other

60%

“Do you or your family members have a car? “

Visi respondentai

0% 1

All respondents

“Do you or your family members have bicycle, how many (not child bicycle)? ”

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

no ne

20%

taip yes

10% 0% 1

no ne

10%

Visi Allrespondentai respondents

taip yes

0% 1

“What mean of transport do you usually use to reach work/studies/etc.? 100%

Visi respondentai All respondents

If there was a safe and comfortable possibility to park your car, what distance would still be convenient for your ? 100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50% 40% 30%

other

50%

own / company car

40%

by public transport

20%

by bicycle

10%

on foot

0% 1

Visi respondentai

All respondents

other kita behind Tuskulenai/Zirmunai/ už Tuskulėnų / Žirmūnų / Minties Mintiesstreets gatvės

30% 20%

neighbour courtyard or similar gretimame kieme ar panašiu distance atstumu

10%

within kiemocourtyard ribose

Visi respondentai

0% 1

“How often do you use your car (if have one)? “

All respondents

“Which alternative means of transport would encourage you to refuse your car for everyday use?” 100%

100% 90%

90%

80%

70%

other

60% 50% 40% 30%

almost not using

50%

I use only seasonal

40%

rarely (once a week or the next few weeks)

20%

daily or almost daily

10%

Visirespondents All

0% 1

70%

respondentai

other kita

60%

car sharing possibility with dalinimosi automobiliu su neighbour kaimynais galimybė convenient and safe bicycle paths patogūs dviračių takai

30% better publicviešasis transport conditions patogesnis transportas

20% 10%

Visi respondentai

0% 1

Visi respondentai

Analytical part

Monitoring public space

RE-Block

Žirmūnai triangle Local Action Plan, Vilnius

1. The average number of people in work days per week. 16% 29%

55%

4. The average number of people in work days per week.

710 žmonių per dieną 2.5 žm/min 2.0 1.4 1.6 1.3 vaikai ir paaugliai 1.2 1.0 1.5 darbingo amžiaus žmonės 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 pensinio amžiaus žmonės 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.0

0.5

23%

žm/min

people per 88 žmonės perday dieną

0.4 49%

0.3

0.170.180.18 0.17 0.13 0.12 0.120.12 0.08 0.07 0.03

vaikai ir paaugliai darbingo amžiaus žmonės pensinio amžiaus žmonės

0.2 0.10 0.1

28%

0.0

val

val 1. The average number of people in weekend. 767 perper day 767 people žmonės dieną žm/min 2.5 1.8 2.0 1.5 1.3 1.0 1.5 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 vaikai ir paaugliai 0.7 1.0 darbingo amžiaus žmonės pensinio amžiaus žmonės 0.5 0.0

15%

23%

4. The average number of people in weekend.

62%

children and teens working-age people retirement age people

val

2. The average number of people in work days per week. 19%

20%

61%

0.5

26%

žm/min

82 people day žmonėsper per dieną

0.4

38%

0.3

0.18 0.13 0.130.170.12 0.170.17 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.1 0.02

vaikai ir paaugliai darbingo amžiaus žmonės pensinio amžiaus žmonės

0.2

36%

children and teens working-age people retirement age people

0.0 val

5. The average number of people in work days per week.

1.5

1498 perper daydieną 1498people žmonės

3.5 žm/min 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.5 3.0 2.2 1.9 2.0 2.5 1.7 2.0 1.2 vaikai ir paaugliai 1.5 darbingo amžiaus žmonės 1.0 pensinio amžiaus žmonės 0.5 0.0

22%

32%

1.0 vaikai ir paaugliai darbingo amžiaus žmonės pensinio amžiaus žmonės

420 per day 420people žmonių per dieną

žm/min

0.6

0.7 0.6

0.5

46%

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5

0.6 0.6

0.8 0.8 0.7

0.0

val 2. The average number of people in weekend. 1136 perper day 1136people žmonės dieną 3.0 žm/min 2.5 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.5 2.0 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.3 vaikai ir paaugliai 1.5 darbingo amžiaus žmonės 1.0 56% pensinio amžiaus žmonės 0.5 0.0 children and teens working-age people retirement age people val 19%

25%

3. The average number of people in work days per week. 6%

6.5 žm/min 6.0 5.5 4.3 5.0 4.1 3.6 4.5 4.0 vaikai ir paaugliai3.5 darbingo amžiaus3.0 žmonės 2.5 pensinio amžiaus2.0 žmonės 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

27%

67%

val 5. The average number of people in weekend.

1.5

17%

26%

žm/min

1.0 vaikai ir paaugliai darbingo amžiaus žmonės pensinio amžiaus žmonės

0.5 0.3

57%

children and teens working-age people retirement age people

0.7

310 day 310 people žmoniųper per dieną

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5

0.3 0.3 0.2

0.5

0.3

0.0 val

6. The average number of people in work days per week.

6.2

2716 day 2716 people žmoniųper per dieną

4.5

4.9

3.6 3.7

23%

24%

3.4

2.0 2.3

2.7 53%

day 2959 people žmonės per dieną 5.9per žm/min 6.5 6.0 5.0 4.6 5.5 4.3 4.2 4.2 5.0 3.9 3.9 3.6 4.5 3.5 4.0 3.2 3.1 vaikai ir paaugliai 3.5 darbingo amžiaus žmonės 3.0 pensinio amžiaus žmonės 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

val 3. The average number of people in weekend. 7% 27%

66%

6. The average number of people in weekend.

4.8 1897 perper day 1897 people žmonės dieną 5.0 žm/min 4.0 4.5 3.6 3.8 3.5 4.0 3.5 2.6 2.5 3.0 vaikai ir paaugliai 2.5 1.8 1.5 1.4 darbingo amžiaus 2.0 žmonės 1.1 0.9 pensinio amžiaus žmonės 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

children and teens working-age people retirement age people

val

22%

23%

55%

3090 people žmoniųper perday dieną 6.5 žm/val 5.3 5.0 5.0 6.0 4.7 5.5 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.4 5.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 3.0 3.5 2.5 vaikai ir paaugliai 3.0 darbingo amžiaus žmonės 2.5 pensinio amžiaus žmonės 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

children and teens working-age people retirement age people

Analytical part

val

SWOT analysis SWOT for urban situation

SWOT for social situation

•

Strategic location in the city, proximity to the river, the old town, business and commercial areas;

•

Many active schools, NGOs, youth clubs and social institutions in the district;

•

Good connectivity with the rest of the city;

•

Good public transport connections;

The ward is rather active in implementing various initiatives for the community;

•

Enough of social services and daily facilities;

•

Social or ethnical segregation doesn’t exist;

•

Existing complex urban structure.

•

Many existing residents’ housing association representing interests of housing estates.

Strengths

Weakness •

Housing stock is outdated, with unmaintained common areas and low energy efficiency;

•

Lack of outdoor facilities for elderly people or youngsters, such as health care centres, sport facilities and qualitative public spaces;

•

Lack of car parking spaces;

•

Dead end streets and hard orientation in the district;

•

Monotonous and outdated public space, rundown green spaces;

•

Lack of security due to inefficient street lighting system ;

•

City doesn’t own land for distribution of new estates.

Opportunities

Strengths

Weakness •

Aging population, often not willing to participate in projects and initiatives;

•

Residents do not take care of the block or district they live;

•

Residents lack sense of ownership and sense of community;

•

People do not have trust in housing renovation process;

•

High crime rate;

•

People don’t identify their area as unique one.

Opportunities •

Continuation of the successful initiatives started by the ward, such as “Safe city”;

•

The project site is part of the priority territories for urban development;

•

Delegation of governance on local level by establishing district management entity;

•

Strategic location may attract new businesses and young families to move in;

•

Create board of different stockholders as continuation of ULSG activity for better coordination;

•

There are plenty of spaces in between the buildings for redevelopment;

•

Create better identity and modern image;

•

Complex rehabilitation process will create modern image and good practice for further areas;

•

Allow interested housing units to define their land plots using unique system of fences.

Threats •

Bad image and lack of safety may stigmatize the district;

•

Not willingness and rejection of the residents may stop all good projects and initiatives;

•

Expectation of residents and stockholders for taking part in multilevel governance is raised too high;

•

Political changes might diminish interest in sustainable development and importance of participatory planning.

Threats •

Value of the flats is constantly decreasing;

•

Run down environment creates bad image of the district;

•

Chaotic new construction sites in the area creates conflict with urban structure;

•

City loses urban management power when free land owned by national administrative level not involved in urban planning process;

•

Uncontrolled process of land plots’ fencing will create image of segregation and exclusion. 26 RE-Block Žirmūnai triangle Local Action Plan, Vilnius

Lithuanian policy overview Urban development Spatial planning

Integral approach / multilevel governance

Urban development is regulated by the new Law on Territorial Planning that entered into force in 2014. The cities are planned based on the hierarchical planning system. Integrated territorial planning document was introduced, consisting of master planning and detailed planning documents

For local governance municipality is divided into smaller territorial units â&#x20AC;&#x201C; elderships (Municipal structural administrative unit) where smaller scale local matters are managed such as public space maintenance, social matters and some others. After 2012 new policies were approved on local community self-governance. These elderships are divided into smaller sub-elderships where local residents are electing their representative who represents them at municipal level issues, promotes the care of local environment. These sub-elderships are funded by the national government based on the amount of the residents. The ambition is to improve and create opportunities for local residents more actively participate in city matters.

Main city plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C;masterplan- sets functional zoning, spatial structure, landscape and heritage site protection requirements, main green framework, social and technical infrastructure development principles. Special territorial planning document (special plan) is prepared on city scale based on thematic layers and is meant to detail the masterplan. Here transport, technical infrastructure (water, gas, sewage, heating, waste collection and etc.), heritage sites, landscape framework are detailed with guidelines, new development strategies and protection and prevention regulations. Detailed planning now has to cover entire neighborhoods or larger areas that need more complex and explicit planning. Detail plan will set these layers: land use, new development areas, transport organization, public space organization, landscape elements, infrastructure corridors, social infrastructure, and heritage protection.

Current situation City strategy is set in the main masterplan that draws vision up till 2025 and strategy up till 2015 and it is planned to be prolonged due to sufficiency. Many layers and strategies that are set to be detailed such as housing modernization strategy, smaller scale public space installation and maintenance rules, modernization of parking system and public transport stimulation program and similar, are not yet developed therefore lower scale projects have little integral approach in-between themselves and have little guidance regarding these layers. Zirmunai triangle is already set as an experimental territory for pilot projects related to housing renovation and energy efficient housing development. A new detail plan at the triangle scale could help linking and determining diverse elements and layers. It could set main new development zones, land-use for entire zone, transport organization principles, amount and type of public space and public facilities and other elements.

Such governance model and division into smaller units is still not provided with sufficient financial instruments and multilevel governance lack clear policies or directives on how they should interact in-between regarding urban development or public space maintenance. Re-block project could provide with guidance on how urban renewal process could be managed integrally by all scale governance institutions.

Energy efficiency of the housing stock Lithuania have set the goal by 2020 achieve effective use of existing housing by upgrading and modernizing them including rational use of energy resources. The ambition is to decrease energy loss by 20 % by 2020. Environment ministry Program for Modernization of Multifamily Buildings provides support to home owners with implementation of energy efficiency. The ambition is set to modernize not less than 70% of existing housing stock by 2020. So far Program is not at full force due to complex implementation system, lack of awareness and trust from the residents, the unfavorable economic situation, quick changing multifamily home renovation plans and their failure, complicated program management system and community mistrust government institutions and decisions. However, we should more encourage the process. The first steps could be creation of an active community by exploit the neighborhood and local success stories and the communication should involve relevant stakeholder (central and local government, residents, organizations and etc.).Re-Block project could help with good proposal on renovation marketing policy improvement.

Analytical part

RE-Block

Žirmūnai triangle Local Action Plan, Vilnius

PROCESS

Process

RE-Block

Žirmūnai triangle Local Action Plan, Vilnius

Local Support Group Members Rūta Matonienė

Rima Gražienė

Re-Block project coordinator, Deputy director at Urban Development Department, Vilnius City Municipality

Public library director Artūras Šukys

Jonas Juodka

Manager at company „Homburg valda“

Re-Block Knowledge Ambassador, City councillor, residents’ community manager

Vilmantas Jankūnas

Aušra Sičiūnienė

Head of company “Renew the city” („Atnaujinkime miestą“)

Re-Block project manager, Deputy head at Development Projects Division, Urban Development Department, Vilnius City Municipality

Elvyra Žebertavičiūtė Resident

Vaiva Deveikiene

Juozas Neverauskas

Head of Urban Landscape Division at Urban Development Department, Vilnius City Municipality

Resident Marijona Veliškienė

Klaudija Leone

Resident

Head of Tax authority at Finance department, Vilnius City Municipality Giedrė Čeponytė Head of Greenery Subdivision, at Urban Landscape Division, Urban Development Department, Vilnius City Municipality

Greta Gribačiauskaitė Student at Tuskulėnų secondary school Edgaras Davydovas Student at Tuskulėnų secondary school

Giedrė Bučytė

Doc. dr. Jonas Jakaitis

Chief Specialist at Energy and Housing Division, City Maintenance Department, Vilnius City Municipality

Professor at Vilniaus Gedimino Technical University, Faculty of architecture, Chair of design, resident of the district

Guoda Ropaitė

Petras Demšė

Head of subdivision at Energy and Housing Division, City Maintenance Department, Vilnius City Municipality

Residents’ community manager

Vytenis Urba

Resident

Owner of business in the district: restaurant „Marceliukės Klėtis“, UAB „ Vikšris“, active citizen

Rita Banel

Prof. Dr. Dovilė Krupickaitė Professor at Department of Geography and Land Management, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Vilnius University

Martynas Demšė

Assistant director at „Žiburio“ primary school Kristupas Šulija Student, resident Einora Platukytė

Gražvydas Kaškelis

Student, resident

Teacher at Tuskulėnų secondary school, resident

Toma Smolskytė

Onutė Suncovienė

Manager at company „Vikšris“

Žirmūnai ward alderman

Tadas Jonauskis

Izolina Rima Kučinskienė

Re-Block external expert, urbanist, owner „Pupa – Public Urbanism Personal Architecture“

Manager at company “Žirmūnų dwelling” („Žirmūnų būstas“) Irena Zavaliauskienė Head of youth and children day centre

Justina Muliuolytė Re-Block external expert, urbanist, owner „Pupa – Public Urbanism Personal Architecture“ Process

RE-Block

Žirmūnai triangle Local Action Plan, Vilnius

Making of the Local Action Plan Process of designing development vision and preparing Local Action Plan (LAP) for Žirmūnai triangle took two years. The document was prepared working together with the URBACT Local Support Group (ULSG) consisting of representatives of municipality departments, politicians, residents, social associations and entrepreneurs. The purpose of a core group of around 25 people was to represent their needs, express opinion, consult, give proposals and together with the team of urbanists prepare LAP. There were eight meetings organized with the local support group. Entire LAP preparation process can be divided in three phases: 1 – Research. The few first meeting with the ULSG were meant to getting to know the site, defining problems, challenges and tasks. Result of the study and debates became a base to prepare development vision. 2 – Development vision. Workshop was organized to get first ideas and inspirations for the vision. Workshop task was to define character and program for the project site, while working in small thematic groups. Workshop results

became a base to prepare three development scenarios for the district. The scenarios were “My courtyard”, “Neighbourhoods”, “Green district”. Each scenario emphasised different qualities of the district. Local support group evaluated all scenarios. Combination of qualities from all scenarios became development vision for Žirmūnai triangle. The vision later was upgraded and improved. 3 – Local Action Plan. Local action plan defined what projects need to be done to reach the vision: who is responsible for the projects, when they have to be realized, what are possible financing sources. Feasibility, desirability of the LAP, phasing of projects, was discussed and checked with ULSG during several meetings. The document was revised and improved. Furthermore, knowledge and experience exchange was done during the Re-block project. Project partners visited Žirmūnai triangle during the peer-review session. Project partners gave recommendations for the Žirmūnai triangle. Advices were considered and incorporated in the LAP.

Three project phases (8 meetings) are done involving ULSG and wider audience of residents

Workshop >> 3 scenarios >>

Introduction to the site, problems, challenges, defining the task

Action plan: strategic projects, finance, time, partners

Development vision

2013.10.21

2013.11.18

2014.01.24

2014.02.21

2014.03.07

2014.09.09

2014.09.26

2015.01.30

Process

Recommendations by project partners Recommendations supplied by the KA’s to Vilnius partner During the peer review session in Vilnius knowledge ambassadors from partner cities shared their experiences and gave good recommendations how to improve environment and social atmosphere in Re-Block project site in Vilnius, in Žirmūnai triangle. We got very good suggestions, that varied from ideas how to involve more citizens in the project, apply innovative technologies in transport management, or how to upgrade public spaces smartly. All of them were very useful and inspiring. Melinda Benkő (partner city - Budapest, Hungary) recommendations focused on improvements of physical environment of the district. She suggested applying concept of crime prevention in public spaces through urban design. The concept focuses on design proposals that improve natural surveillance in public areas, such as managing accessibility and urban flows, improving visibility (sight lines), lighting, maintaining area, creating identity. Projects from Budapest, Manchester and Grenoble illustrated that such approach gives great results. Suggestions from Uwe Gerwin and Birgit Wend (partner city Gelsenkirchen Germany) were mainly about district management. They emphasized importance to build trust between inhabitants and experts. Local office in the district could help a lot, as then resident know the person, trust, are empowered and can do more. Furthermore to ensure long term benefits it is very important to ensure that local support group, teamed for the project, continues working after Re-Block is finished. Stefan Kodel (partner city Magdeburg, Germany) emphasized importance of district managers that can create framework and support residents to do what they want and need. Anders Backlander (partner city Sodertalje, Sweden) gave recommendations about physical environment and car parking problems. Firstly it was suggested to make clear what public, private and semi-private areas are. Densification in the district should be done very carefully, not destroying original structure and openness of the district. In the transport management pedestrians should always go first, then bicycles, and lastly cars. Overall broader policies should be tackled to reduce usage of cars and promote alternative modes of transport. Such strategies could be like introducing Mobility Week, which raises awareness of public transport, walking, cycling, or increasing car parking prices, promoting car sharing, introducing “call the bus”, involve social media. Ray Machiter (partner city Salford, England) gave interesting examples about resources management. In Salford they use solar panels to support boiler room and have introduced very successful prepaid heating system. Ray suggested paying 34

RE-Block

more attention to waste management, as “managing waste makes money for the tax payers”. Firstly people need to know why and what to recycle. Information could be spread by giving informative leaflets to put on the fridge, or teaching kids, as then they will teach adults. Silvia Bossio (partner city Malaga, Spain) emphasized how important it is to raise resident’s pride of the district. That can be achieved if more people know about projects and initiates, if they feel part of them. To spread information it is important to talk to key actors, most talkative and important persons spread messages very fast. Furthermore kids could be involved in the project; one could even be part of the local support group. Furthermore place making is important, in Žirmūnai triangle places could be identified by enlarged numbers of houses, or urban furniture, art objects, or even gardens. Recommendations from Böhönyey Ágnes, Re-Block project coordinator 1. Prepare a detailed physical plan for the Žirmūnai triangle in harmony with the actions defined in the LAP In the briefing note for the Peer Review Session and also at the meeting several problematic aspects of the layout of the estate and its surrounding area were mentioned. These need to be considered in a wider territorial context and the inter-relations between them in a systematic way. These issues include: - Access from the Zirmunai triangle is close to the Peace Park and the riverside, which is made difficult by one of the main roads of the city (Zirmunai) - Orientation is problematic in the monotonous environment of the block of houses and system of dead end streets - Lack of parking spaces, sports facilities and facilities for elderly - The layout of green space – although the proportion of the public green area is high in the area, it is so much scattered that it cannot function/serve as public green space and cannot be linked with the Peace Park and other elements of the city’s open space system In addition, my own assessment of the situation is that the main problem is that the Žirmunai triangle, a housing area, enclosed by three main roads (Minties, Zirmunai and Tuskulénai) has no internal structure. There is no clear hierarchical structure of roads, streets and footpaths. Because of the lack of an operational network of roads for cars, and the de facto use of roads by both cars and pedestrians and paths only for pedestrians there are many spontaneous paths cutting through the whole area without a clear indication whether cars or pedestrians should use

Žirmūnai triangle Local Action Plan, Vilnius

them. Based on the above I recommend starting with the elaboration of a Detailed Plan for the Zirmunai area covering the issues of access to the surrounding area, provision of green space and the internal layout of roads and paths. In the planning process you may consider the ideas of the knowledge ambassadors of RE-Block as well on prioritising among traffic modes, creating traffic free zones and system of functional public green areas, establishing a street lightening system also as a measure for the safe city, all in line with the city council decision on integrated urban development in the Zirmunai Triangle. The plan also needs to link with the proposals for the blocks, especially if any demolition or new build is planned (see 2 below). 2. Develop measures to change the social mix of population living in the Zirmunai triangle and get the refurbishment of the blocks started The population composition of Zirmunai is heavily skewed towards older people. The average age of the Zirmunai residents is around 60, and more than 20% of the population belong to the older generation, who are not motivated to being involved in refurbishing the blocks. There is a secondary school in the middle of the housing estate attended by 1000 pupils most of whom come from outside of the area, which means that the school plays no part in fostering the social cohesion of the area. It was also mentioned that prices of the flats are continuously decreasing.

go in line with the general improvement of the physical environment of the area based on the detailed plan for Zirmunai. Any plans for this should also be based on a full economic cost-benefit analysis of the possible options for redevelopment. 3. Fences to develop residentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ownership feeling At the site visit we visited a multi-story building which had its garden fenced. The residents of the block indicated that they look after that area in front of their house. Fencing was not usual at big housing estates and it might not fully comply with the rules. But in this case in my view taking responsibility is the sign of the sense of ownership which need to be developed. If the people living in the blocks knew which piece of their environment they are in charge of, and learn to respect public land as well, there will be no more need for the fences. However, fencing is wildly used in estate refurbishment schemes in England, to mark private/ public boundaries and to control bad parking, anti-social behaviour etc. â&#x20AC;&#x192;

The aim should be to bring younger people and families into the estate which would stimulate the sense of community in the area and provide motivation and resources for the long term refurbishment. The key issue is how to start this process. - One idea is based on the information received on the densification of the population for the area. This could be achieved by offering new construction sites for new private housing development suitable for families and thus bringing in new residents. - The Municipality could adopt a strategy of purchasing those privately owned housing that comes up for sale and offer it for professionals (architects) who could act as protagonists and initiate development while living in block. - A more radical policy would be for the Municipality to sell empty homes for a very low price on the condition that the buyer improves the house at his own cost within 3-5 years. - Demolition and replacement has already proven to be a feasible solution in the area replacing the old wooden family houses by new multi-story buildings which also resulted in the change of residents. Whatever solution the Municipality decides it should Process

RE-Block

Žirmūnai triangle Local Action Plan, Vilnius

DEVELOPMENT VISION

Development vision

RE-Block

Žirmūnai triangle Local Action Plan, Vilnius

Main goals City scale

Neighbourhood

Create legal and strategic tools for managing sustainable and integrated regeneration process;

Form neighbourhood units, which will be base for courtyard improvement projects;

Continue participatory planning experience created as ULSG during Re-Block projec;

Create favourable conditions for implementing new administrative models - neighbourhood (kaimynija).

Speed up and improve renovation process and initiate pilot projects for alternative comprehansive renovation methods;

Involve residents in the planning and designing process, create conditions to initiate and start projects;

Create a typical model for comprehansive housing renovation process that can be used in many neighbourhoods;

Reorganize courtyards, meeting spaces, playgrounds and greenery;

Create sustainable transport city scale system by decreasing the need of personal car;

Create model how to improve and maintain neighbourhood spaces.

Ĺ˝irmĹŤnai Triangle

Apartment blocks

Create socially and economically viable district;

Create comfortable and contemporary living conditions for all;

Create image of modern and innovative district; Develop sense of community, strengthen identity and promote responsibility for common facilities and public spaces; Develop public space strategy and create new public spaces; Reorganize and improve network of cycling and pedestrian paths; Re-organise car traffic by making buildings more easily accessible without creating transit traffic;

Renovate and improve residential buildings by implementing innovative solutions; Create pilot project for demolishing ineffective old house and rebuilding new modern one; Develop a model for establishing new functions; Develop a model for maintaining public spaces around the residential buildings.

Create favourable conditions for private developers to contribute to sustainable and integrated regeneration; Apply smart city strategy to the area implementing energy saving instruments and modern IT; Create better conditions for multilevel governance and community involvement .

Development vision

Development vision Public spaces

Sustainable mobility

Existing public spaces are improved and are linked with the new public spaces into a network. New green district plaza is designed; M.Katkaus street is renovated to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists; wide paths are formed along the bordering main district streets; entrance route to the school is renovated and lightened; pocket public spaces are designed near public library and youth centre.

Public transport

Green courtyards, attractive residential environment Quality green spaces around apartment blocks create attractive residential environment that residents are proud of. Courtyards or the blocks are planned to have maximum amount of greenery, playgrounds and meeting spaces, and least car parking infrastructure. Apartments on the ground floors get new entrances straight to the courtyards.

Neighbourhoods and community Žirmūnai triangle is divided into smaller districts – neighbourhoods. Decisions about the issues of the neighbourhoods will be taken by the resident community. These communities will be in charge of maintaining their courtyards, playgrounds, meeting spaces, car parking. Each neighbourhood consists of average 1000-1500 residents. The division is based on spatial organisation of existing buildings. All initiatives started in the neighbourhoods are encouraged and supported.

New commercial functions Residential buildings along the main streets and along the main paths are adjusted to fit commercial functions in the ground floor. New functions along the main streets, at the edges of the district, will be useful for both - the district and the city; it will create flows and improve safety. More attention are given to the corners of the triangle – new mix use construction marks entrances to the districts.

RE-Block

Sustainable mobility – is walking, cycling, using segways, scooters and other modes of transport, which do not use a lot of energy and do not need a lot of infrastructure. Slow mobility paths connect all the important functions with the district and the surroundings. Bicycle parking racks and sheds are planned next to shopping malls, school, public institutions and apartment blocks.

The vision aims to increase use of public transport; therefore better links are created to connect apartments with public transport stops. Routes to the stops are clearly marked and lightened. Areas around the bus stops are refurbished, bus waiting zone is enlightened, equipped with WiFi, new functions are encouraged.

Reduced car traffic Car traffic is reorganized and clarified, although trying to avoid car transit. Car parking facilities are solved inside neighbourhood individually. The other part of parking is provided along the main streets, next to the public facilities and next to the big commercial centres. Trying to reduce use of private cars, district regeneration process is started with implementation of pedestrian and cycling paths first. Number of car parking spaces is increased gradually, starting with car parking along the streets.

Links to river Neris River Neris is the most popular recreational destination among the residents, therefore new links are formed to connect Žirmūnai triangle with the park along the river. Safe pedestrian crossings and clear route marking will attract resident to spend more time outside and use river bank more.

Žirmūnai triangle Local Action Plan, Vilnius

Public spaces Neighbourhoods Parking area for neighbourhood residents Pedestrian paths Cycling paths Existing plots M.Katkaus street Car entrances to M.Katkaus st. Car parking along main streets Public transport stops Main roads Other roads Connections towards other districts

Viešosios erdvės Kaimynijos Parkavimas kaimynijų gyventojams Pėsčiųjų takai Dviračių takai Sklypų ribos M.Katkaus gatvė Automobilių įvažiavimai į M.Katkaus gatvę Automobilių aikštelės prie pagrindinių gatvių Viešojo transporto stotelės Pagrindinės gatvės Kitos gatvės ir keliai Pėsčiųjų jungtys su kitais rajonais

Development vision

Public space system New public space system is developed in order to provide local residents with places to socialise, to do sports, develop healthier lifestyle , to spend more time outside and to improve living quality. The new main square will develop more clear link towards the river Neris and will provide with the central space for events and activities. Internal M. Katkaus street will be converted to shared spaces with the priority given to the pedestrians and cyclists and will connect all neighbourhoods to one system. New pedestrian and cyclist connections will link existing and new important functions.

Central square

Library square

- as the main square it should provide with the place for the main community events, festivals and celebrations

- new place for small events will be closely linked to the events at the library

- daily use spaces are planned both for the active leisure and passive recreational use

- the square should provide with the spaces for seniors, juniors and families

- green character of the square should be kept and improved with more rich vegetation

Upgraded entrance to the main school

- the should be plenty of places to sit, hide from rain or sun - lighting should fit both situations when there is an event and when it used for daily basis - It will be the main public space for project information dissemination to the local residents M.Katkaus street - it is planned as shared space street - the design should give priority to the pedestrians and cyclists - proper lighting, places to sit and green elements should be planned in order to create more relaxing environment

RE-Block

- traffic calming design .should provide with more qualitative environment for pedestrians - wide pedestrian sidewalks and proper lighting should provide with more safe path for students towards the school - wide bicycle path and bicycle storage facilities should provide with more safe root to the scool and safe bicycle parking Public participation In order to create places fitting the needs of the local residents all new projects should take public participatory approach. Design workshops, public reviews, witness hearings and other community involvement events should be planned in order to define more precise design tasks, the real needs of the community, review the planned design proposals and give opportunities for the community to design their own environment.

Ĺ˝irmĹŤnai triangle Local Action Plan, Vilnius

District public spaces Pedestrian and cycling paths Existing plots Main roads

Pedestrian New public spacepaths system Cycling paths Existing plots Public transport stops Main roads Connections towards other districts

Kuriamos bei atnaujinamos viešos erdvės Pėsčiųjų bei dviračiųtakai Sklypų ribos Pagrindinės gatvės

Pėsčiųjų takai Dviračių takai Sklypų ribos Viešojo transporto stotelės Pagrindinės gatvės Pėsčiųjų jungtys su kitais rajonais

Public space references from other cities Planned neighbourhoods Common areas in the neighbourhoods Existing plots Main roads

Planuojamos kaimynijos Bendros erdvės kaimynijose Sklypų ribos Pagrindinės gatvės

Planned neighbourhoods Possible extension of apartments blocks (balconies, extensions) Existing plots Main roads

Planuojamos kaimynijos Galimybė daugiabučių praplėtimui (balkonai, priestatai) Sklypų ribos Pagrindinės gatvės

Neighbourhoods Car parking within the neighbourhood Existing plots PlentyM.Katkaus of placesstreet to sitand entrances to teh street Car parking along main streets Main roads

Kaimynijos Parkavimas kaimynijos ribose Sklypų ribos M.Katkaus gatvė bei automobilių Easy to maintain green spacesįvažiavimai į M.Katkaus gatvę Automobilių aikštelės prie pagrindinių gatvių Pagrindinės gatvės

Development vision

The central square

Public space system Public space references from other cities

Art in the public space

Such community spaces could be near the library

Spaces for youth and children

RE-Block

Ĺ˝irmĹŤnai triangle Local Action Plan, Vilnius

References for M. Katkaus street

New public spaces are designed for all age and lifestyle residents

New sports zone is planned in the district

Development vision

Pedestrian and cycling paths Pedestrian and cycling infrastructure connects attraction points inside the neighbourhood as well as with surrounding areas. In order to integrate the whole structure with surrounding districts, main connections with Neris river, Kalvariju market, Siaures miestelis, bus stops are planned. M. Katkus street becomes an inside ring, which joins various places of the area. All roads are suited for children, mothers, seniors. Bicycle routes are planed near main pedestrian routes. Bicycle infrastructure is supplemented by links towards attraction points, recreational zones, bicycle parking racks and sheds are planned next to shopping malls, school, public institutions and apartment blocks. Seeking to avoid heavy traffic inside smaller neighbourhoods, public paths are planned between them. Pedestrians - Pedestrian paths should be wide enough in order to pass comfortably; -All main pedestrian roads should be lightened and safe; -Along the roads benches, greeneries and other recreational elements should be planned;

-All bicycle roads should be lightened and safe; -Along bicycle roads recreational zones, bicycle parking racks and sheds should be convenient and safe; -Bicycle storages should be planned in commercial and public use buildings; -Bicycle storages in apartment blocks could be planed in basement level or special outside storages; -Enough bicycle parking racks and sheds should assure easy and comfortable movement in main public spaces. Public transport -Clear and safe pedestrian paths should be planned towards public transport stops; -Stops should be arranged and adopted for safe and convenient waiting; -Sheds, benches, light, information boards, wi-fi zones, bicycle storages should be planned in bus stops, pavilions for commercial function could appear around.

-Paths should be linked with signs towards attraction points, important directions. Bicycle movement -Bicycle paths are planned along main pedestrian paths; -Double-sided bicycle path should not be narrower that 3m, one way path - 1.5m; -The paving of bicycle paths should be flat and clearly separated from pedestrian zones; References from other cities

Recreational pockets along the paths

Dense network of paths

RE-Block

Paths surrounded by greenery

Ĺ˝irmĹŤnai triangle Local Action Plan, Vilnius

District public spaces Pedestrian and cycling paths Existing plots Main roads

Kuriamos bei atnaujinamos viešos erdvės Pėsčiųjų bei dviračiųtakai Sklypų ribos Pagrindinės gatvės

Pedestrian paths Cycling paths Existing plots Public transport stops Main roads Connections towards other districts

Pėsčiųjų takai Dviračių takai Sklypų ribos Viešojo transporto stotelės Pagrindinės gatvės Pėsčiųjų jungtys su kitais rajonais

Pedestrian and cycling paths

Planned neighbourhoods Common areas in the neighbourhoods Existing plots Main roads

Planuojamos kaimynijos Bendros erdvės kaimynijose Sklypų ribos Pagrindinės gatvės

Planned neighbourhoods Possible extension of apartments blocks (balconies, extensions) Existing plots Main roads

Planuojamos kaimynijos Galimybė daugiabučių praplėtimui (balkonai, priestatai) Sklypų ribos Pagrindinės gatvės

Neighbourhoods Car parking within the neighbourhood Existing plots M.Katkaus street and entrances to teh street Car parking along main streets Main roads

Kaimynijos Parkavimas kaimynijos ribose Sklypų ribos M.Katkaus gatvė bei automobilių įvažiavimai į M.Katkaus gatvę Automobilių aikštelės prie pagrindinių gatvių Pagrindinės gatvės

Clear and bright cycling paths

Safe bike parking facilities

Development vision

Wide cycling paths

Neighbourhoods New site management unit called neighbourhood is planned in the Zirmunai triangle. The division of area is based on spatial organisation of existing buildings and spaces. Neighbourhood is spatially related apartment block group. Each neighbourhood consists of average 10001500 residents. Within the neighbourhood residents decide themselves about various issues. These communities will be in charge of maintaining their courtyards, playgrounds, meeting spaces, car parking. All initiatives started in the neighbourhoods are encouraged and supported.

-New construction can be initiated if it spatially forms neighbourhood territory, fills unformed edges;

Within the neighbourhood every apartment block has it’s own site. Community decide how many parking plots they need, where public zones, such as children playgrounds, relaxation areas and other elements will be placed.

-Residents decide themselves how their neighbourhood should look like, which public zones and elements can be used;

Neighbourhood renewal -Seeking integral renewal of the area, priority should be given to neighbourhoods, which plan to renovate their houses; -Renewal project should be prepared for neighbourhood (not only for one apartment block);

-Parking plots should be designed inside the neighbourhood. Resident involvement to neighbourhood renewal -Residents should be involved in the preparation process of neighbourhood development; -Majority of maintanence and repair work could be done by initiative of residents;

-Residents themselves make decisions, take care of their neighbourhood; -In order to encourage residents to take care of their area, neighbourhood courtyard can be fenced.

whole

-Volume extensions, first floor transformations are encouraged Inside the neighbourhood;

References from other cities

Unique identity of the blocks

Courtyards maintained by the community

RE-Block

Additional community spaces

Žirmūnai triangle Local Action Plan, Vilnius

District public spaces Pedestrian and cycling paths Existing plots Main roads

Kuriamos bei atnaujinamos viešos erdvės Pėsčiųjų bei dviračiųtakai Sklypų ribos Pagrindinės gatvės

Pedestrian paths Cycling paths Existing plots Public transport stops Main roads Connections towards other districts

Pėsčiųjų takai Dviračių takai Sklypų ribos Viešojo transporto stotelės Pagrindinės gatvės Pėsčiųjų jungtys su kitais rajonais

Planned neighbourhoods Common areas in the neighbourhoods Existing plots Main roads

Planuojamos kaimynijos Bendros erdvės kaimynijose Sklypų ribos Pagrindinės gatvės

Scheme of the possible neighbourhoods

Planned neighbourhoods Possible extension of apartments blocks (balconies, extensions) Existing plots Main roads

Planuojamos kaimynijos Galimybė daugiabučių praplėtimui (balkonai, priestatai) Sklypų ribos Pagrindinės gatvės

Neighbourhoods Car parking within the neighbourhood Existing plots M.Katkaus street and entrances to teh street Car parking along main streets Main roads

Kaimynijos Parkavimas kaimynijos ribose Sklypų ribos M.Katkaus gatvė bei automobilių įvažiavimai į M.Katkaus gatvę Automobilių aikštelės prie pagrindinių gatvių Pagrindinės gatvės

Community terraces

Meeting spaces

Development vision

Representative courtyards

Apartment blocks Renovation of apartment block should encourage people not only to upgrade house energy efficiency, but also quality of life while improving house inside plan. Flat and balcony extensions, lift construction would highly improve living conditions and value of property. Basement level and roof use would create better conditions for all inhabitants. Private terraces for first floor owners would increase safety and property value. Light construction roof penthouses would extent top floor flats, even new typology flats could appear. Residential buildings along the main streets and along the main paths are adjusted to fit commercial functions in the ground floor. Multi-functionality would develop attractive residential area, generate flows and improve safety. The possibility of new construction can be also considered. New houses should not occupy public places or worsen existing living conditions. New construction could fill edges among existing buildings and form neighbourhood space.

-Balconies should be glassed; -Construction of additional facade in order to improve house efficiency and extend kitchen, dinning, living zones, balconies is encouraged; -Flat roof surfaces should be used for public terraces and placement of renewable resources; -Light construction roof penthouses should extend top floor flats or add new typology flats to the block; -Basement level should be used for bicycle storage, baby buggies; -Along the main streets first floors should be extended and adapted for commercial function, extended volume roof should be used for upper level terraces; -First floor flats should have their own terraces and direct outside access; -New window solutions should increase natural light inside;

Recommendations for renovation of apartment blocks: -Staircases and lift zones should be convenient and safe; -Lifts should be constructed, where needed; -Extend balconies thus a dining table could fit;

References from other cities

Private entrances to the apartments at the ground floors

RE-Block

Playful renovation of houses