Towards a Green Capital: Designing a Waterfront in Riga| Final Presentation by Viktorija Prilenska

Towards the Green Capital| designing a waterfront in Riga|

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

project approach working through scales

research & design scales| City Scale Recreational Spaces

• city • waterfront • local

Vision

additional research scales| Waterfront Scale Highway

• delta • metropolitan region

Local Scale Public Space

size=6km

Scenarios

design on finer scale generates research questions for greater scale and vice versa

size=1km

Masterplan

size=36km

2|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

context city of riga overview riga location riga| coastal city in north eastern europe located in daugava delta country capital

highway network

airports

railway network

ferry lines

(1) by nordregio, 2008

concentrates • 1/2 of country GDP • 1/3 of country population /700 thsd/ port city • passenger port • cargo port /largest in the country/

port export|import (2) jana seta, 2009

well connected • highways - all region • air connections - europe & CIS • railway - CIS • ferry - northern europe, germany

3|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

context city of riga metropolitan region

Cesis

Sigulda

river sea

Tukums

Riga

railway connection

Ogre

highway connection

20km

3/32 1h45min-2h

7/52 1h05min-1h15min

6/40 48min-1h01min

garciems

vecaki

janmuiza

lode x1/h 2h10min

x1-2/h 1h56min

cesis

arajsi

ieriki

melturi

ligatne

sigulda

silciems

eglupe

vangazi

x1-2/h 54min incukalns

krievupe

garkalne

x1h 27min baltezers

jugla

ciekurkalns

x1-2/h 34min

riga CS

tornakalns

zolitude

zasulauks

babite x1-3/h 20min

x1-3/h 16min imanta

janavarti

x1-2/h 20min

lielupe

bulduri

brasa priedaine x1-3/h 23min zemitani

x1-3/h 26min

majori

dzintari

dubulti

pumpuri

jaundubulti

asari

melluzi

vaivari

kudra

sloka x1-3/h 51min

smarde

kemeri x1-3/h 1h

milzkalne

x1/h 1h18min tukums 1

x1/h 1h21min tukums 2

(1) beach (above) and (2) nature reserve kemeri (below)

7/56 37min-50min x1-2/h 35min garupe

mangali sarkandaugava

x1-2/h 28min kalngale

vecdaugava ziemelblazma

x1-2/h 25min

3/16 25min-29min

0/9 55min-40min

0/10 1h10min-1h40min

riga metropolitan region|

x1-2/h 1h12min

center of metropolitan region for • work • study • entertainment

city

Salaspils

riga|

nature reserve

Ikskile

Jurmala

daugmale

travel time riga-satellite • 20min - 2h /bus//train/

for recreation people go to • jurmala 20min - 1h • sigulda 1h05min - 1h15min

skirotava gaisma

x1-3/h 18min

rumbula x1-3/h 20min darzini

river

5/47 08min-15min

dole

train lines within Riga

1/20 20min-27min

salaspils x1-4/h 28min

1/14 37min

ikskile

x1-2/h 36min

• coastal villages in the west 25min - 35min

train lines within Jurmala train lines primary bus lines

jaunogre 1/16 50min

ogre

x1-4/h 44min

parogre x1-2/h 46min

secondary bus lines central station station/stop

region intercity connevtions|

4|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

context city of riga problem - shrinkage

preconditions|

economic migration| (1) jana seta, 2009

dissolution of Soviet Union > service sector economy employee

15 years of relative economic decline /1990s, early 2000s/

unemployed

admission to EU in 2004 /european funds, loans > fake economic growth/

student

2007

2008

financial crisis on 2009

70%

resident status before going abroad|

(2) riots in riga, january 13, 2009

based on Krisjane & Bauls (2011) %

numbers| 2 waves of emigration /after 2004, 2009/

20 15

200 thsd. economic migrants /in 8 years, expert evaluation/

10 5

1/4 from the city of riga

0 Riga Riga region

other

Kurzeme

Vidzeme

Zemgale

Latgale

other

proportion of migrants by region|

(3) latvian migrants abroad

based on Hazans (2011)

more than 60% before going abroad were employed /country looses tax-payers/ 5|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

spatial relevance location choice spatial quality place quality criteria|

place quality criteria with spatial implications

diversity| specific amenities| liveliness| culture|

sport facilities recreational areas|cafes| restaurants|shopping public and semi-public spaces /3rd spaces/ well-developed public transport pedestrian|cyclist infrastructure

technology|innovativeness|

what can we do as urban planners? people are attracted to places with high place quality| /city branding/ place quality notion has a spatial component|

talent| spatial component has urbanism related assets|

architecture urban parks heritage

environment|sustainability|

natural|wild places environmental quality reuse of industrial sites

safety|

crime figures /safe urban environment/ based on trip, 2007; brown, meczynski, 2009; lorenzen, 2010;

6|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

spatial relevance strategy attract residents

generate

inward investment

repair the link between the city and the landscape focus on green|open spaces

create

contribute

high-tech businesses + strong international position

what? reduce resident emigration and attract new residents human capital + city branding

spatial quality of the city

redevelopment incentive

how? by creating favourable living conditions examples|

attract

top 10 creative cities in US have extensive recreation facilities /see creative class theory - Florida/

flagship projects

recreational spaces| (1,2) examples from san diego, california

urban regeneration

cities with no high-tech component attract people via high place quality /see experience economy and cities - Lorentzen, Lorentzen/ city branding works /see branding in Turin - Vanolo/

7|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

spatial quality current situation strength & weakness

city development|

strengths| [1] large recreational areas • lakes • forests • beach at city periphery /15.7% blue// 28.0% green/ [2] green river islands in city centre weaknesses| city centre river islands (1) zakusala (above) and (2) lucavsala (below)

nature areas|

[1] areas with poor spatial quality • industrial sites • brownfield sites around city centre /developed along railway lines// late 19th early 20th c/ [2] infrastructure barriers /modernist planning approach/

(3) RER factory industrial site (above) (4) brownfield site at hanzas street (below)

industrial sites|

8|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

spatial quality future situation threat (1) riga development plan| 2006-2012 city development plan| /aimed to improve spatial quality/ [1] built up vacant brownfield sites [2] densify loosely built industrial sites & turn them into mixed use areas [3] built up city centre river islands development proposals by (2) spacegroup (2006, above) and (3) arhis (2006, below)

nature areas|

[4] create new infrastructure connections threat| /no contribution into spatial quality/ [1] development and gentrification of profitable centre locations [2] degradation of other industrial locations

(5) development proposal by schaller architekten (2007, below)

industrial sites|

/shrinkage/ who is going to use new office, retail, residential spaces? 9|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

spatial quality future situation opportunity

opportunity| instead of new built space development new recreational space development

place quality spatial components| create recreational areas with sport facilities (1,2) example of brooklyn bridge park by MVVA (2003 - ongoing)

nature areas|

create public|semi-public spaces improve public transport network improve|create pedestrian|cyclist network connect natural|wild places reuse industrial sites reduce crime figures /create safe environment/

(3,4) example of emscher park, ruhr valley

industrial sites|

10|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

city scale problem statement analysis conclusions| fragmentation & barriers

recreational spaces|

1000

2000

[1] functional levels • large weekly use peripheral spaces

4000m

recreational space provision|

centralities and public amenities|

without barriers

existing public amenities hospital residential green n/a - 150 m neighbourhood green 1 ha - 400 m

quarter green 5|10 ha - 800 m

district green 10|30 ha - 1 600 m

commercial amenity

[2] coherence • fragmentation • interruption by infrastructure

recreational amenity educational amenity cultural amenity planned cultural amenity green spaces in active use central train station

city green 60 ha - 3 200 m

• no small daily use local spaces

bus terminal

[3] accessibility • linear barriers - infrastructure • spatial barriers - industrial sites [4] facilities & safety

passenger port yacht port

centralities & amenities|

airport existing centrality 1000

2000

[1] cyclist paths, planned

planned centrality source: www.rdpad.lv

4000m

urban forest >200|>300 ha - 5 000 m

max distance (m) - min surface (ha)

existing bicysle path

[2] island park, planned

planned bicycle path source: www.rdsd.lv

recreational space provision| with barriers

11|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

city scale problem statement proposal|

riga needs a recreational space network which simultaneously

recreational space network

direct benefits|

indirect benefits|

[1] provides residents with daily use local recreational spaces

[1] improves image of the city [2] attracts human capital

create recreational areas with sport facilities

[2] connects residents to weekly use peripheral recreational spaces via cyclist|pedestrian paths

/according to human capital theory/

create public|semi-public spaces

[3] attracts new businesses that follow human capital

[3] connects all recreational spaces into one system [4] improves spatial quality of the city

relation to place quality spatial components|

improve public transport network improve|create pedestrian|cyclist network connect natural|wild places reuse industrial sites reduce crime figures /create safe environment/

12|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

vision, overall

sea and beach

fresh water salt water neighbourhoods industries, existing port area, planned green spaces green connections vision detailed existing

city scale vision green corridors

fresh water salt water green spaces port area, planned highway railway

satellite towns national reserve

proposed vision regional connection city connection, primary city connection, secondary local connection traffic node

vision detailed|

permeability regional links city links, primary city links, secondary local links

for further elaboration 3 most important corridors selected [1] metropolitan regional corridor • connects riga to satellite towns & nature reserves

satellite towns national reserve

[2] city corridor • connects riga & satellite towns to the sea and the beach [3] waterfront corridor • connects city centre to neighbourhoods

18 • connects neighbourhoods to the riverside

local city riverfront corridor

satellite towns

13|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

city scale vision concept

city center recreational area| (2,3) example of ada ciganlija island, belgrade

1000

2000

4000m

14|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

upgrade existing recreational areas| new facilities, entrances, paths, sport fields, street furniture, etc.

city scale vision recreational spaces

forest| (1) forest park, riga

open green| (2) lake kisezers, riga

community garden| (3) santropolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s edible campus, montreal

1000

2000

4000m

15|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

city scale

fill-in spaces in-between| no relocation of existing functions recreational|public spaces and pedestrian|cyclist paths are in-between the buildings

vision fill-in spaces

corridors go through loosely built sites

green industrial sites| (1) emscher

park, ruhr valley

green residential areas| (2) dockside green, victoria

green mixed use areas| (3) downtown, portland

1000

2000

4000m

market, riga 16|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

city scale

add new traffic nodes & train stops| for better connection between the neighbourhoods and recreational spaces

vision traffic

taking into consideration current and future centralities

existing

new

traffic nodes

train stops

centralities

1000

2000

4000m

17|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

city scale

add linear and spatial links| where it is not possible to make a corridor • dense neighbourhoods • natural barriers /river/

vision links

linear links - pedestrian|cyclist friendly streets linear links spatial links - tiny public spaces integrated into open spaces with other functions

(1) malmo, sweden

spatial links

1000

2000

4000m

18|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

waterfront scale flexible use

motivation why?

shade green|open space

green|open + water = mutual benefits

overflow

coolness

waterfront corridor| [1] space on the edge of green|blue landscapes /mutual benefits/

water landscape flooding

breeze

[2] connects city centre to neighbourhoods number of inhabitants

number of employees

[3] connects neighbourhoods to the riverside

> 1 000

> 2 500

1 000 - 5 000

2 500 - 5 000

5 000 - 10 000

10 000 - 15 000

10 000 - 20 000

15 000 - 20 000

20 000 - 30 000

30 000 - 40 000

> 30 000

> 40 000

[4] space where most people live and work [5] politically easier to develop as a flagship project

1000

2000

1000

4000

number of employees|

2000

4000

number of residents|

19|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

waterfront scale

1800

historical development city - river detachment

no access good access possible access railway river

path/road/highway

industry

ferry line

city park

fortification wall

forest and/or garden

esplanade

/used to be integrated with the city > city market + port

(1, 2)

car traffic development + bridges > detachment/

1915

untill 1860s - defence| river - source of danger > fortification walls facing the waterfront from 1860s to 1930s - integration|

(3, 4, 5)

important functions at the waterfront â&#x20AC;˘ port â&#x20AC;˘ city market no bridges > lively boat traffic

2010 from 1930s to 1980s - ignorance| 2000

port & city market relocated new bridges > cars instead of boats from 1980s - neglect| bridge + land reclamation > busy highway along the waterfront

20|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

waterfront diagnosis map| key problem - accessibility 390m

/busy highway/ distance between crosings up to 3 km

waterfront scale current situation barriers & quality| fieldwork results

860m

210m 290m

is|no access to the water

520m

420m

3.140m [2.850m]

is|no pedestrian crossing

1.150m good/bad quality promenade is/no visual link with water is/no access to water passenger port private yacht port swimming place | informal shing place | informal easy/hard pedestrian crossing no pedestrian crossing easy/hard road connec on easy/hard bridge connec on pedestrian unfriendly pedestrian friendly detour 860m tra c axis tra c node

landmark/under construc on entertainment/under construc on shopping mall old town city market neighbourhood catholic church ortodox church industry green space | high poten al private garden square urban park parking lot distance between crossings

easy|hard get on|off the bridge

easy|hard go under the bridge 21|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

waterfront scale green spaces

current situation barriers & quality|

water

traffic & sequential sections

old town city market other buildings

parking garage street parking highway railway A1

bridge

D3 200

400

600m

22|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

waterfront scale scenarios what to do with the highway?

200

400

600m

200

400

600m

200

400

600m

200

600m

400

D2 10

[1] slow traffic road

40m

D2 10

[2.1] high-speed tunnel

40m

D2 10

40m

[2.2] high-speed tunnel public transport on surface

40m

[3] high-speed tunnel slow traffic road on surface

23|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

waterfront scale

old town old town

most efficient scenario 2.2|

city market other buildings green spaces water

tunnel, park & public transport

parking garage street parking highway railway bridge

highway

bridge A1

buildings, situation change

pedestrian zone

green zone

B1 B2

traffic tunnel

C1 2 C D1

bridge public transport only pedestrian connection

sitting zone D2 D3

cyclist path E1

parking, demolished new parking garage new street parking parking service radius demolished program, relocated governmental plans port to be relocated planned highway

planned bridge

D2 200

400

600m

40m

24|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

local scale location choice why?

transitional space| • old town • central train station • city market low quality space| • intersected by traffic > air & noice pollution • no facilities • no places to stay space, with landscaping potential| • city channel /interrupted by a shopping mall/ • city channel park /possible continuation/ • riverside most difficult location| • traffic & pedestrian flows • centralities

25|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

local scale centralities connections functions

city

users

working living shopping education|culture entertainment|sport tourism

barriers

(1) old town innercity commuting

old town

(2) city market

waterfront recreation innercity commuting entertainment|sports

residents tourists

working tourism culture|education entertainment shopping living

residents tourists

central station workers tourists

visitors tourists workers tourists workers

visitors tourists

intercity commuting tourism shopping

residents tourists

shopping catering tourism entertainment culture

visitors tourists workers

(3) central station

everyday commuters business commuters tourists residents

everyday commuters business commuters tourists

everyday commuters business commuters tourists everyday commuters business commuters residents

city market

visitors tourists workers

residents

creative quarter

city living working

culture entertainment tourism catering shopping

current situation centralities & flows

traffic & functional node| 5 centralities come together • old town • city market • central train station • creative quarter (future) • city

traffic and pedestrian flows come together • public transport stops • public transport end stops > return loops • commuter, visitor, worker, tourist flows

pedestrian flows and centralities are interrupted and separated by highways

(4) creative quarter

26|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

1900

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

1915

reflection|

1930

waterfront scale historical reconstruction growth of barriers

(1) city harbour 1900

1980

2010 (2) railway bridges 1930 tram line important car traffic routes railway bridge riverside built important buildings park

(2) 13 january street 1930

open green space square open space elevation city canal tram line

(3) 13 january street 1960 27|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

local scale strategy eliminate the barriers| park & new connections

phasing | [1.1] high speed tunnel [1.2] waterfront promenade [2.1] relocation of the bus terminal, the shopping mall & the cinema

[2.2] opening the channel & closing the park ring [3.1] attractions - water access places, etc.

built

[3.2] public transport & pedestrian links

important buildings city channel park waterfront promenade

relation to city strategy |

railway slope city channel public transport only all traffic traffic tunnel

[1] elimination of barriers - infrastructure

railway bridge activity hub pedestrian links riverfront

[2] recreational spaces with double function â&#x20AC;˘ attraction â&#x20AC;˘ link between other attractions 28|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

local scale design masterplan

relation to place quality spatial components| create recreational areas with sport facilities create public|semi-public spaces improve public transport network improve|create pedestrian|cyclist connections connect natural|wild places reuse industrial sites reduce crime figures /create safe environment/

29|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

local scale design traffic flows| car & bus

car traffic| redirected car-free zone 50

100

200m

car traffic| existing

100

200m

car traffic| proposed

bus traffic| redirected new stops added â&#x20AC;˘ to facilitate access to city market â&#x20AC;˘ to avoid return loops

100

200m

bus traffic| existing

100

200m

bus traffic| proposed

30|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

local scale design traffic flows| trolleybus & tram

/redevelop trolleybus traffic in a similar way/ trolleybus traffic| redirected 50

100

200m

trolleybus traffic| existing

100

200m

trolleybus traffic| proposed

new stops added • to facilitate access to city market • to avoid return loops

tram traffic| significantly redirected • to cut the area as little as possible • to ‘define’ the market area new stops added • to facilitate access to city market • to avoid return loops 50

100

200m

tram traffic| existing

100

200m

tram traffic| proposed

31|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

local scale design pedestrian flows

new bridges - new shortcuts|

compared to existing situation • pedestrian routs are shorter

pedestrian flows| existing

pedestrian flows| proposed

• all pedestrians - on the surface /before, in underground tunnels/ • suitable for people with disabilities • efficient access to most popular market pavilions /2 out of 5 groups are shown here/

commuters| existing

commuters| proposed

office workers| future *

tram traffic| proposed

*if city market develops catering facilities

32|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

local scale design landscapes| vegetation & paving character

channel park (1) city channel park, riga

slope (2) parc de la marina, viladecans

waterfront promenade (3) battery park, new york

33|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

local scale design edges| relationship with the water

high urban (1) battery

park, new york

smooth slope (2) brooklyn bridge park, new york

terrace (3) 21st c waterfront park, chattanooga

34|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

local scale

church

cathedral & museum

shopping mall

design squares

opera

town hall cinema (planned) university

university

shopping mall museum

riga cs

bus terminal square new

museum artist union

square existing important building

through traffic

green playgrounds

(2) bailey plaza, ithaca city market academy of sciences harbour 15/30x84m

marine center

concert hall

market (3) central market, riga

32x44m

creative quarter 25x44m 32x40m 32x200m

staying

36x72m

52x66m

(4) pioneer courthouse square, portland 20/56x105m

size comparison study

playing

mood creating

semi-private

to existing successful squares /Copenhagen, Portland/

(1) battery park, new york

carlsberg factory patio, copenhagen

(5) berga bazars, riga

35|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

local scale design buildings pavilions viaduct

museum

stage bridge relocated

pavilions| bring unity to waterfront promenade and house important functions /sport equipment rent, etc./

bridge new

la villette, paris

catering

marine center

museum| challenges neglected spaces /symbolic/ stage| open air performances /summer opera festival, etc./

pavilions (1) parc

museum (2) galerie bunker, stephane malka pavilions

marine center| located by the water - flood-proof design

stage (3) regentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s park open air theatre, london

36|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

local scale design topography| designed based on existing

+13 m

buildings existing buildings new +/- 0

canal

37|38

context|

framework|

problem statement|

city scale|

waterfront scale|

local scale|

reflection|

Riga - a Green Capital of Europe create recreational areas with sport facilities; create public|semi-public spaces; improve public transport network; improve|create pedestrian|cyclist network; connect natural|wild places; reuse industrial sites; reduce crime figures /create safe environment/

reflection contribution all scales| city spatial quality improvement

all scales interconnected and supplement each other| city scale| network of recreational spaces every neighbourhood has access to high quality recreational spaces of different functional levels people can move through the city by bike|on foot waterfront scale| accessible & attractive riverside most popular recreational and entertainment venue of the city a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;trademarkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; of the city local scale| /a manifestation of the previous two/ an urban park which is a recreational space in itself and a connector between the centralities

38|38

photo sources

p.3 (1) Exploring the Baltic Sea Region – On territorial capital and spatial integration. 2008. Stockholm: Nordregio. (2) Latvijas Geografijas Atlants. 2009. Riga: Jana Seta. p.4 (1) jurmalaphoto.wordpress.com / Gubumakonis (2) www.travelnews.lv / Ilze Vanaga (KNPA) p.5 (1) Latvijas Geografijas Atlants. 2009. Riga: Jana Seta. (2) balticreports.com / Arturs Budahs (3) Field Workers / www.anglobalticnews.co.uk from September 15, 2011 p.7 (1) en.wikipedia.org / Stephane D’Alu (2) South San Diego Beaches / www.oceanfront-hotels.net p.8 (1) www.panoramio.com / vipe (2) lv.wikipedia.org / ScAvanger (3) www.panoramio.com / valentin0 (4) Hanzas Street / maps.google.com (street view) p.9 (1) RIGAS DOMES PILSETAS ATTISTIBAS DEPARTAMENTS (RDPAD) 2005a. Rigas attistibas plans 2006.-2018. gadam. (2) Zakusala / www.spacegroup.no (3) Daudzstavu dzivojamas ekas jaunbuve Riga, Lucavsala / www.arhis.lv (4) www.panoramio.com / valentin0 (5) New Hanza City / www.schallerarchitekten.com p.10 (1) Two Stunning Examples of Urban Waterfront Renewal / www.fastcodesign.com (2) Pier 1 Brooklyn Bridge Park / www.mvvainc.com (3) When Factories Close Down / supersustainable.org (4) www.essen-fuer-das-ruhrgebiet.ruhr2010.de / Maier-Jantzen (RVR) p.14 (1) lv.wikipedia.org / ScAvanger (2) Venue Information / www.belgraderowing2012.rs (3) Daily Life In Belgrade: Fun For The Whole Family At Ada Ciganlija / www.ambassador-serbia.com from May 10, 2010

photo sources

(4) www.panoramio.com / valentin0 (5) www.flickr.com / dysturb p.15 (1) www.panoramio.com / Renars (2) www.panoramio.com / alinco_fan (3) Top Five Community Gardens / www.radicalmontreal.com from June 1, 2011 (4) www.urbancincy.com / Randy A. Simes p.16 (1) www.flickr.com / dysturb (2) Sustainability / Ecology / www.docksidegreen.com (3) Portland MAX Downtown / light-rail-big.blogspot.nl from June 20, 2009 (4) www.panoramio.com / Davis Klavins p.18 (1) A Look at Cycling in Malmo, Sweden / walkeaglerock.wordpress.com from October 8, 2010 (2) sfpavementtoparks.sfplanning.org p.20 (1) MUNSTER S. 1575. Cosmographia Universalis. (2) www.letonika.lv / ÂŠTilde, 1998 - 2012 (3) www.rigasvesture.lv (4) www.russkije.lv (5) www.zudusilatvija.lv p.25 maps.google.com (satellite view) p.26 (1) lv.wikipedia.org / Digital 1 (2) www.panoramio.com / Davis Klavins (3) lv.wikipedia.org / Janis Vilnins (4) spikeri.lv p.27 (1) Par Uznemumu / Vesture / www.ruterminal.lv (2) www.rigasvesture.lv (3) 13. Janvara iela sesdesmitajos gados / www.kambaris.lv from June 11, 2012

photo sources| references p.33 www.panoramio.com / Svenne102 Parc de la Marina, Viladecans, Barcelona / www.batlleiroig.com Battery Park – Park Of Dreams Million / worldislandparadise.com p.34 en.wikipedia.org / Gryffindor Pier 1 Brooklyn Bridge Park / www.mvvainc.com Chattanooga 21st Century Waterfront Park, Chattanooga, Tennessee / www.hargreaves.com Kalvebod Waves / jdsa.eu p.35 Project: 90 Days / Urban Volleyball / doncrossland.com from July 31, 2010 Bailey Plaza / www.mvvainc.com Piektdien, 22.junija Riga, Doma laukuma, tradicionalais Zalu tirgus / epadomi.lv from June 18, 2012 North America’s Top 12 Public Squares / www.pps.org Berga bazars / www.liveriga.com p.36 www.flickr.com / tsaaby (Tina Saaby) Bunker Gallerie / www.stephanemalka.com openairtheatre.org, Staro Riga 2010 / www.staro.lv

BROWN, J. & MECZYNSKI, M. 2009. ‘Complexcities’: Locational choices of creative knowledge workers. Built Environment, 35, 238-252. HAZANS, M. 2011. Kas sodien dzivo Latvija? Reala demografiska situacija skersgriezuma. LU Ekonomikas un vadibas fakultate. KRISJANE, Z. & BAULS, A. 2011. Latvijas iedzivotaju starpvalstu mobilitate pec Eiropas Savienibas paplasinasanas. Latvijas Zinatnu Akademijas Vestis, 65, 71-85. LORENZEN, M. 2010. Knowledge city models: lessons from a study of the Danish creative class. The 3rd Knowledge Cities world summit: from theory to practice. TRIP, J. J. 2007. Assessing Quality of Place: a comparative analysis of Amsterdam and Rotterdam. Journal of Urban Affairs, 29, 501-515.