EVOLUTSIA.NET

Michael Cecire
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Being someone who works in the field of economic development, I found it very interesting to learn that plans are moving forward to demolish sections of Old Tbilisi to allow for the brand new construction of modern high-rises (reportedly). From the way it sounds, it won’t be the kind of developments like that on Erekle Street, which does a very good job of mimicking a ‘European’ old quarter.

That area is quite charming and interesting, although one kind of gets the sense that the development tries a little too hard to replicate a Western European quartier rather than showcase more indigenous forms of architecture and planning, like that on display in Georgia’s tourist town of Sighnaghi.

Sighnaghi (shown below), which is located in the heights of the Kakheti wine region, was refurbished as an idealized representation of a ‘classical’ Georgian mountain town. This would be a much more appropriate model, if you ask me, for revitalizing Old Tbilisi, as opposed to more pseudo-Western Europe developments. Not to say that Erekle Street is a bad place – I actually enjoy it a great deal – but I think tourists would prefer to see more ‘Georgianness’ in the character of Old Tbilisi developments. But it doesn’t seem that the makeover will have any kind of ‘old’ look at all, from what is being implied.

I spent a little time scouring the internet for plans or renderings of the proposed redevelopment, and I haven’t found anything specifically. But judging from the renderings of other developments by some of the companies involved, the development will probably be a decent looking enough, modern, but ultimately a forgettable bit of construction. This doesn’t mean it’s a bad project, especially considering that the project’s rational is to inject new life (and money!) into the area and helping spur more redevelopment of the Old Tbilisi area. Laudable enough, especially considering the sorry state of much of Old Tbilisi (see below).

But, my concern is that in the process of bringing vitality to a depressed and debilitated part of the city, Tbilisi will lose some of its most wonderful architectural gems in the process. I cannot tell you how much of the contemporary discourse of American urban planning and economic development literature has involved bemoaning 1970s-era Federally-funded demolitions of ‘blighted’ – and often historic – areas of America’s inner cities. The results were often pyhrric at best and at worst, simply disastrous.

The situation here is not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison to some of the most significant sob stories in the history of American urban revitalization, since the ‘blighted areas’ of Old Tbilisi are being replaced with higher value, higher density (one assumes), modern structures. Yet still, it’s important for public officials to look not only at the potential for the development to increase the tax base, to spur greater investment, and create jobs, but also to look at the long-term implications of the development. Will the architecture be as timeless as the old-style Georgian buildings? Will it be one of those developments that, in ten or twenty years, will look hopelessly outdated? Will it need to be torn down and rebuilt? If so, that is not the foundations you want for a beautiful, human-oriented, vital urban fabric. A good urban development is one that ripens with age, like wine.

My fear is that when those historic buildings are gone, they’ll be gone forever. There’s no going back after that. And whatever replaces them may be nice for a few years, but will turn stale and monochrome with time. There is plenty of land in Georgia for new, modern, upscale developments. But there’s only one Old Tbilisi. Refurbishing the existing building stock (that which can be refurbished and do not pose a safety risk), on the other hand, can revitalize the area for generations – in a slower but steadier way. To illustrate my point, I need to only return back to the example of Sighnaghi. Imagine that the Georgian government had decided to tear down all the historic building stock and replace them with modern-style buildings. Yes, Sighnaghi may have still been able to attract attention, but does anyone actually believe that it would have the same charm as it does today? Having allowed a couple of years to elapse between trips to Sighnaghi, I can certifiably report that it is indeed getting much better with time.

Many people come to Old Tbilisi to see, well, oldness. If all that’s left in Old Tbilisi are Western Europe-lookalikes such as Erekle Street and modern high rises, then there’s nothing particularly old about the area, is there? And then what distinguishes it from the rest of the city besides a particular marketing strategy?

I’m not sure if I am necessarily opposed to the redevelopment plans, but I do look at it all very skeptically. I hope that the Tbilisi government is performing all the due diligence. That means more than just healthy ROIs and robust pro formas, but also the more qualitative consequences of their decision. How will it change Tbilisi? Are the loss of architectural treasures worth it? Would refurbishing the historic buildings be a more intelligent long-term strategy?

I suspect, based on the limited information I have available to me, that embarking on the redevelopment process just may not be worth the price of some of Tbilisi’s most wonderful historic architecture.

Related posts:

• INTERVIEW: GREF Director Kelly Uphoff – ‘Education is the key to growth’
• Georgian Local Elections and the Strasbourg Paradox
• INTERVIEW: Levan Ramishvili – ‘We more or less have the right policies’
• The Verdict: Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic Agenda is Dead
• Georgia Needs an Immigration Strategy