Push to Rebuild Brings Protest in Georgia's Capital

By Tara Bahrampour
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 29, 2008

TBILISI, Georgia -- The 1,600-year-old capital of Georgia has seen its share of high-speed redevelopment. The Arabs torched it in the 9th century, the Persians razed it in the 18th, the Soviets demolished entire neighborhoods, and shells fell on it in a 1991 civil war. Each time, the city's people rebuilt, often along the ancient streets' original foundation lines.

Now the city of Tbilisi, an eclectic blend of winding alleys, overhanging wooden balconies, art nouveau detail and muscular Soviet architecture, is undergoing yet another transformation. Developers are eager to pull down many of its old buildings and replace them with bigger, modern ones.

The issue has sparked emotional debate among Georgians over what they envision for the character of their city, home to about 1.5 million people. Some say it needs to become a 21st-century high-rise metropolis that will attract international investors. Others argue that it must protect its unique ambiance. Keeping it old and picturesque, they say, will draw tourists and, in the long term, more economic benefits.

The battle has coalesced around a three-story, 19th-century neoclassical building on Freedom Square, the city's main plaza. Late last month, its owner began to demolish it to build a $5 million business center. But then came a series of demonstrations, with protesters holding signs bearing such slogans as "Stop the Barbarism!"

"The demolition . . . will make a precedent to do the same with other buildings, and then we will lose the most valuable part of our city," said Levan Simonishvili, 23, one of the protesters.

They had little effect; this week the demolition was near complete. But some people say it has woken them to an issue they hadn't thought about before.

Despite neglect and bulldozing when Georgia was a Soviet republic, enough of Old Tbilisi survived that in 2001 the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization nominated it for consideration as a World Heritage site. But the Georgian government did not come up with a management plan, and after six months the recommendation was deferred.

In 2003, reformer Mikheil Saakashvili led the country's Rose Revolution. As the new president, he railed against high-rises erected during the previous administration. A two-year moratorium was imposed on construction in the old part of the city. It has lapsed, though some buildings still have individual protection as historic properties.

Today Saakashvili's government has energetically embraced the free market. The state has privatized resources such as forests, municipal water, energy and health care, prompting critics to charge that instead of developing self-sustaining industries, the government's economic plan depends largely on selling off property -- old buildings included.

Citing Singapore and Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, as models, his administration has minimized or eliminated many regulations in hopes that investors will pour in. They have. The World Bank recently named Georgia the 18th-best country in which to do business. Foreign investment increased by 17 percent last year, and 20 percent of the country's gross domestic product came from real estate development.

Saakashvili also hopes to recast Georgia, with its beaches, mountains and ancient sites, as an international tourist destination. Preservationists say he should look to Europe's capitals, which strictly regulate development in central historic districts, in part to attract visitors.

"The wealthiest cities, they do have historic downtowns or centers, sometimes even creating one where there wasn't one," said Nato Tsintsabadze, secretary general of the Georgian branch of the International Council on Monuments and Sites, a conservation group. "But there is no basic understanding of heritage in this country." In Georgia, officials have heritage programs "because they have to, and they use it in some cases to show patriotism and so on. But I'm afraid that they think it is a field for luxury, and they say we are a poor country and we can't afford it."

Mary Kay Judy, a New York-based architectural conservator who has been coming here for 10 years, said it may be hard for some Georgians to see the value in Tbilisi buildings that are a mere 150 years old when the country is dotted with 5th- and 6th-century churches.

"The urban heritage fabric has never been taken seriously. Everyone just kind of took it for granted," she said. But in Tbilisi, she sees "one of the most dense concentrations of historic buildings anywhere in Europe that still has its historic integrity, and that's what's being lost."

Protests over a building are unusual in a city where elections and politics are what usually bring people into the streets. But the building in question has become a symbol, the subject of graffiti campaigns, photo exhibitions and an international Internet petition.

The historic makeup of the 19th-century square on which it fronts had already been compromised by a large, modern Courtyard by Marriott hotel, and other new buildings are planned there. Elsewhere in Old Tbilisi, structures dating to before the Soviet era are being demolished, some legally, others through unclear processes.

The municipal council that approves demolition and construction permits includes working architects. "They protect their own interests," said Nino Kordzakhia, head of monitoring at the Old Tbilisi District Council, a city agency.

Vice Mayor Mamuka Akhvlediani, who chairs the council, says preservation rules are holding up economic development. While preservationists say that even undistinguished buildings are important to the urban fabric, he maintains that only those with true architectural merit should be protected -- about 500, not the current 1,700.

"So many houses in Tbilisi have historic status but not value," he said. "We can't interest private investors, because all they can do is renovate, not rebuild." Asked about the demonstrations on Freedom Square, he said, "I don't think that this is the protest of people; it's the protest of a group of art historians."

Caught in the middle are the residents of Old Tbilisi. During Soviet days, multiple families were crammed into tiny dwelling spaces. After the fall of communism, they became owners, but many are hardly in love with their properties, which often lack modern conveniences and suffer from structural problems caused by age and a 2002 earthquake.

Many now want their properties torn down and replaced with new ones. Aza Darjania, 62, said she lives in a protected building that is 183 years old and unstable. "Every night it's shaking and we're scared it's going to fall," she said. "Either they should renovate it or build something new."

Often, developers promise new apartments to residents who will let them demolish their old ones, and fierce battles arise between neighbors over whether to accept the offers.

The owner of the Freedom Square building cited weakness in the foundation and walls as the reason for demolishing it. Lasha Papashvili said it would have been possible to rehabilitate it, but he did not investigate the cost. He did, however, hire experts to assess its condition, and the council consulted their report when issuing the demolition permit.

"From an architectural point of view, there is no sense to keep this kind of building here now, today," he said, adding that the new one, which is to house "A-class office space," will look like the old one but have one additional story. He has not yet received a construction permit. Papashvili, who has contributed money to restore rural medieval sites, said more-stringent preservation laws will scare off investors.

"They will have a nice glass of wine . . . and they will go invest somewhere else," he said.

But Mariam Didebulidze, project coordinator at the Fund for Preservation of the Cultural Heritage of Georgia, suggests trying to educate them to another point of view. "We say, 'You want to build in Old Tbilisi because you like it, it's attractive and you see the potential. But if you are all allowed to come in and do everything you want to do, it will be ruined. And so you yourself, with your own hands, ruin your future.' "

"We try now not to fight with somebody," she continued, "but to say, if you preserve this in its main features, then it is a very powerful economic source. The economic dividend of conservation is that if you do it right it will bring and bring and bring."