Even though social processes across the globe are increasingly being theorised through a resilience lens, this has rarely been the case within the domain of everyday life in the city. The resilience debate also remains highly geographically selective, as regions that have undergone far-reaching systemic change over the past 20 years-including the post-communist states of the former Soviet Union and eastern and central Europe (ECE)-generally remain omitted from it. In order to address such knowledge gaps, an investigation is made of the relationships between social resilience and micro-level socio-spatial change in the built environment of the post-communist city, by focusing on the institutional, spatial and economic underpinnings of apartment building extensions (ABEs) on multistorey residential buildings in the Macedonian capital of Skopje and the Georgian capital of Tbilisi. Both cities contain a wide variety of ABEs, whose reinforced concrete frame constructions often rival the host buildings in terms of size and function. By exploring the architectural and social landscapes created by the extensions, it is hoped to highlight their embeddedness in a set of policy decisions and coping strategies, as well as their controversial implications on the present and future use of urban space.

In this paper, we analyze the evolution of the spatial planning system in the Republic of Georgia, from late Soviet times to the present day, with a focus on its capital, Tbilisi. Through a reconstruction of the changing roles of various professional groups and governmental actors, we try to delineate the possibilities for citizen participation at different points in time. By examining the paths of historical dependence in this evolution, we outline the transformation options that are most likely to succeed now. This is relevant, since the current planning system is not very inclusive, making it hard to observe issues and to adjust to changing preferences in society. Using key concepts from social systems theory (Luhmann) and new institutional economics (North), it is argued that, in the current situation, import of western concepts of participatory planning might not be advisable. Participatory planning, direct citizen participation in spatial governance, is more likely to succeed in a highly differentiated society; in particular, one where the representative democracy, with its separation of powers, is already functional. It could even undermine the fragile process of ongoing institution-building, by reinforcing undesirable informal institutions.

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

No abstract

This paper explores new-build developments in Tbilisi, Georgia. Based on interviews with developers and with residents and neighbours of new-build developments, we examine the burgeoning of new-build housing projects in a lower middle income post-Communist country. By doing so, we respond to Lees’ (2012) recent call for the exploration of new horizons in gentrification research, which would allow us to transcend the boundaries established by Global-North theorizations – such as those surrounding “new-build gentrification”. While theoretically tantalizing, interpreting the observed developments through this lens, which a superficial observation of the phenomenon might encourage, is not fruitful. Instead, the case of Tbilisi illustrates the need for an appropriate assessment of context: rather than representing a revanchist return to the city of the middle classes, new-builds in Tbilisi appear, largely, to accommodate demographic growth and “deposited” diaspora capital. This, in turn, leads to intense rates of construction despite high vacancy rates – a process which could be viewed as a form of remote-controlled urban growth, or tele-urbanization.