Antonis Kypridemos Dissertation (Stage 6)

Urban, House and Green Spaces Development: the case study of Nicosia, Cyprus after the Turkish invasion.

A study based on quantitative data that researches and analyses the urban, house and green spaces development of the last divided city in Europe, Nicosia.

Student Selected Investigation Antonis Kypridemos | w17028286 Northumbria University March KA7013 2018/2019

Urban, House and Green Spaces Development: the case study of Nicosia, Cyprus after the Turkish invasion.

Antonis Kypridemos | w17028286 Supervisor: Alice Vialard January 2019 A Student Selected Investigation submitted in partial fulfilment for the requirements of the Master of Architecture degree in Northumbria University, Newcastle UK.

Definition of urbanity by the Greek professor of linguistics Georgios Babiniotis:

“All the characteristics of a structural urban environment which create the feeling of a city and the conditions for the smooth, pleasant and creative coexistence of its inhabitants.”

“Urban planning, the science of the spatial organization of human settlements, has its purpose to ensure health and comfort, to improve the quality of life, to protect environmentally and culturally sensitive or notable areas, and to provide necessary infrastructure, which are the elements required for an organized and liveable city” (F. Ioannides et al., 2018) “How the city as our greatest invention makes us all richer, smarter, greener, healthier and happier” (Glaeser, 2011)

Acknowledgements This research study gave me the opportunity to come closer with my home country and gain more knowledge from its most significant historical impact, the Turkish invasion in 1974, until nowadays, always in relation with my field of study.

Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisor Dr Alice Vialard, senior lecturer of the department of architecture and build environment, Northumbria University, UK. Her professional guidance and direction were constructive throughout this process.

Secondly, I want to express my gratitude to Mr Byron Ioannou, a professor at the department of architecture of Frederick University, Cyprus. Also, to Mr Nikolas Patsavos, teacher of architecture in Greece and Cyprus, as well as, Mr Ioannis A. Pissourios, a lecturer at Neapolis University, Cyprus. Their information and help in finding relevant sources and guidance on the selected topic were very prosperous.

Finally, I feel necessary to thank all the survey participants both from the interviews and the questionnaire for their time and help that without their valuable contribution, the survey would not be satisfactory and effective.

Table of Contents 1

2

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 13 1.1

The topic – Establishing the context ..................................................................................... 14

1.2

Research Question ................................................................................................................ 15

1.3

Aims and Objectives .............................................................................................................. 15

Literature Review ............................................................................................................... 17 2.1

Conducting Analysis .............................................................................................................. 18

2.2

The invasion and the refugees .............................................................................................. 19

2.2.1

Historical background ................................................................................................... 19

2.2.2

A disastrous historical event: Its importance and consequences ................................. 21

2.2.3

Refugees rehousing schemes ........................................................................................ 21

2.2.4

Refugees estates ........................................................................................................... 22

2.3

2.3.1

Introduction to Nicosia’s urbanity and urban identity ................................................. 25

2.3.2

The urban development, structure and planning legislation........................................ 25

2.3.3

The characteristics and problems of Nicosia’s urban structure ................................... 27

2.3.4

The Nicosia Master Plan (NMP) .................................................................................... 27

2.3.5

Public Spaces ................................................................................................................. 28

2.4

Nicosia’s house development from 1974 ............................................................................. 30

2.4.1

The term and importance of home ............................................................................... 30

2.4.2

The housing development, its characteristics, structure and typologies ..................... 30

2.4.3

The importance of open and green spaces in a house ................................................. 32

2.4.4

Sustainability and environmental ................................................................................. 32

2.5

Nicosia’s open and green spaces .......................................................................................... 33

2.5.1

Introduction and details for the structure of Nicosia’s open and green spaces........... 33

2.5.2

General strategies and policies of Nicosia for open and green spaces ........................ 33

2.5.3

The case study of central Nicosia: its approach towards open and green spaces........ 38

2.5.4

Nicosia’s relevant departments for open and green spaces ........................................ 40

2.5.5

A Remarkable example of Nicosia’s regional park and green space ............................ 41

2.6 3

Nicosia’s urban development from 1974.............................................................................. 25

Gap in knowledge ................................................................................................................. 42

Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 42 3.1

Quantitative data .................................................................................................................. 44

3.2

The use of the questionnaire ................................................................................................ 44

3.2.1

The explanation for the specified chronical period ...................................................... 44

4

3.2.2

Sample strategy............................................................................................................. 44

3.2.3

Contents of the survey .................................................................................................. 45

3.3

Observations ......................................................................................................................... 47

3.4

Ethical considerations ........................................................................................................... 47

Findings - Discussion ........................................................................................................... 47 4.1

Analysing the results – Comparison with existing knowledge .............................................. 50

4.1.1

Personal details ............................................................................................................. 50

4.1.2

Urban and house development after 1974 and nowadays .......................................... 53

4.1.3

Current (and previous) region of residence .................................................................. 56

4.1.4

Refugee’s houses and estates ....................................................................................... 56

4.1.5

Personal preferences .................................................................................................... 57

4.1.6

Future thoughts and general comments ...................................................................... 61

4.2 Analysis and comparisons of neighbourhood and housing cases of nowadays, during and before the invasion ........................................................................................................................... 62

5

6

7

4.2.1

Before the invasion: an old neighbourhood block ........................................................ 62

4.2.2

Before the invasion: an old traditional house............................................................... 65

4.2.3

During and immediately after the invasion: refugee’s estates and blocks................... 67

4.2.4

Nowadays: suburban area with modern houses .......................................................... 70

4.2.5

Comparisons and conclusions ....................................................................................... 75

Conclusion.......................................................................................................................... 80 5.1

What are the problems and gaps that arise? ....................................................................... 82

5.2

What can be done or proposed to improve urban and house development? ..................... 84

References ......................................................................................................................... 84 6.1

Bibliography .......................................................................................................................... 88

6.2

Journal Articles ...................................................................................................................... 89

6.3

Websites................................................................................................................................ 90

Appendices......................................................................................................................... 92 7.1

Appendix 01: Questionnaire ................................................................................................. 94

7.2

Appendix 02: Questionnaire Results ................................................................................... 100

7.3

Appendix 03: Local Plan of Nicosia: Regions and Municipalities ........................................ 128

7.4

Appendix 04: Local Plan of Nicosia: General Urban Planning ............................................. 129

7.5

Appendix 05: Population and Households Over the Years in Nicosia................................. 130

7.6

Appendix 06: Building Permits in Nicosia, January 2017, 2018 .......................................... 131

7.7

Appendix 07: Ethical Approval ............................................................................................ 132

List of Figures - Tables Introduction Figure 1: Kypridemos, A. (2018). Panoramic urban view of Makedonitissa, Nicosia.

Figure 2: Kypridemos, A. (2018). Aerial view of central Nicosia.

Figure 3: Kypridemos, A. (2018). Aerial view of central Nicosia.

Literature Review Figure 4: Kypridemos, A. (2018). Contacting analysis diagram.

Figure 5: Kypridemos, A. (2018). Map of occupied Cyprus and half-divided Nicosia.

Figure 6: Kypridemos, A. (2018). Dead end next to the border in Agios Dometios, Nicosia.

Figure 7: Kypridemos, A. (2018). Refugee's houses in Anthoupoli, Nicosia.

Figure 8: Kypridemos, A. (2018). Refugee's estates in Anthoupoli, Nicosia.

Figure 9: Oktay, D. (2013). An Analysis and Review of the Divided City of Nicosia, Cyprus, and New Perspectives. Geography, 92(3), p.235.

Figure 10: Kypridemos, A. (2018). Evolution of urban planning and legislation in Cyprus.

Figure 11: Kypridemos, A. (2018). Zaha Hadid's square in central Nicosia.

Figure 12: Kypridemos, A. (2018). Modern houses in Lakatamia, Nicosia.

Figure 13: Kypridemos, A. (2019). An indicative example of a clear plot area calculation.

Figure 14: Kypridemos, A. (2019). Example and table of rates for public green space and social equipment in a neighbourhood block.

Figure 15: Kypridemos, A. (2019). Green spaces arrangement among streets.

Figure 16: Kypridemos, A. (2019). Building distances in a plot.

Figure 17: Kypridemos, A. (2019). Central Nicosia boundaries and green spaces network.

Figure 18: Kypridemos, A. (2019). Central Nicosia’s area scheme and planning zones.

Figure 19: Kypridemos, A. (2019). Athalassa’s park location and table of park types and characteristics.

Methodology Figure 20: Kypridemos, A. (2018). Diagram of the questionnaire's structure.

Findings – Discussion Figure 21: Kypridemos, A. (2018). Results about gender.

Figure 22: Kypridemos, A. (2018). Results about age.

Figure 23: Kypridemos, A. (2018). Results about the occupation.

Figure 24: Kypridemos, A. (2018). Results about the houses/apartments development after the invasion.

Figure 25: Kypridemos, A. (2018). Results about the houses/apartments nowadays.

Figure 26: Kypridemos, A. (2018). Results about the urban development after the invasion.

Figure 27: Kypridemos, A. (2018). Results about modern buildings and infrastructure nowadays.

Figure 28: Kypridemos, A. (2018). Results about the preferred type of house.

Figure 29: Kypridemos, A. (2018). Results about city centre vs suburban area.

Figure 30: Kypridemos, A. (2018). Results about the importance of open, green space and private garden.

Figure 31: Kypridemos, A. (2018). Results about the desirable ratio between buildable space vs open, green space in a plot.

Figure 32: Kypridemos, A. (2019). Indicative pie charts for the various ratios.

Figure 33: Kypridemos, A. (2018). Results about the future development of Nicosia.

Figure 34: Kypridemos, A. (2019). Location and border of the selected area.

Figure 35: Kypridemos, A. (2019). Indication of buildings and covered spaces.

Figure 36: Department of lands and surveys. (n.d.). DLS. [online] Available at: https://portal.dls.moi.gov.cy/el-gr/homepage.

Figure 37: Kypridemos, A. (2019). The location of the house in the urban structure of Nicosia.

Figure 38: Kypridemos, A. (2019). Analysis of the house and calculation of the ratio.

Figure 39: Kypridemos, A. (2019). Diagrammatic representation of traditional houses layout.

Figure 40: Kypridemos, A. (2019). The open, public space (central area) and the private housing area (around the borders).

Figure 41: Kypridemos, A. (2019). Illustration of the buildings, covered spaces in the area (left) and elevations of a typical multi-storey block (right) and Lapithis, P. (2007). State of the art in Cyprus, p.6.

Figure 42: Lapithis, P. (2007). State of the art in Cyprus, p.6.

Figure 43: Department of lands and surveys. (n.d.). DLS. [online] Available at: https://portal.dls.moi.gov.cy/el-gr/homepage.

Figure 44: Kypridemos, A. (2019). The modern suburban area in Engkomi and an indication of the buildings.

Figure 45: Kypridemos, A. (2019). The diagrammatic layout of spaces in a modern house.

Figure 46: Kypridemos, A. (2019). Axonometric representation of a modern house.

Figure 47: Kypridemos, A. (2019). Ground and first-floor area calculation.

Figure 48: Kypridemos, A. (2019). Coverage and ratio calculation.

Figure 49: Kypridemos, A. (2019). Plot development throughout the years.

Figure 50: Kypridemos, A. (2019). Neighbourhood block in Pallouriotissa, 1963 (top) and an indication of the buildings (bottom).

Figure 51: Kypridemos, A. (2019). Neighbourhood block in Pallouriotissa, 1993 (top) and 2009 (bottom).

Figure 52: Kypridemos, A. (2019). Neighbourhood block in Pallouriotissa, 2014 (top) and 2019 (bottom).

Conclusion Figure 53: Kypridemos, A. (2018). New houses under construction and for sale in Lakatamia, Nicosia.

Figure 54: Kypridemos, A. (2018). Modern multi-storey buildings in Nicosia.

Figure 55: Kypridemos, A. (2018). Reconstruction of urban roads in Strovolos, Nicosia.

Tables Table 1: Kypridemos, A. (2019). The introduction and division of the six analysed elements.

Table 2: Kypridemos, A. (2019). Summarized table.

List of Abbreviations CBD = Core Business Development area CYSTAT = CYprus STATistical service DTPH = Department of Town Planning and Housing EU = European Union MOI = Ministry Of Interior NMP = Nicosia Master Plan PSC = Policy Statement for the Countryside PWD = Public Works Department TRNC = Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

Abstract Nicosia is the capital city of Cyprus. Urban, house and green spaces development of Nicosia have seen significant challenges and changes after the Turkish invasion of 1974. This event wholly alternate or stopped the plans and urban strategies of that period. It is important to analyse the development after the invasion and make conclusions that can help in a better future of the urbanity of the city. Uncovering the problems and gaps of these developments could help rework or recreate a new, more sustainable and well planned urban and house developments for Nicosia with better provision and design for green spaces.

This quantitative study makes use of a questionnaire, case studies, interviews and fieldwork to analyse and gather data from residents of Nicosia to compare with existing knowledge and conclude to some results that may bring to the table positives or negatives, as well as, some solutions and proposals for the future. The findings of this study show how successful are the housing and urban development of Nicosia from 1974 until now while focusing in specific subdivisions that considered to be essential and need more emphasis, like the green spaces and sustainability. It starts by establishing the context and setting the aims and objectives.

Then it analyses the existing literature and information for both urban and housing development, as well as, general material about green spaces and policies. Also, is giving some details on the invasion and the refugees rehousing. It moves on to explain the methodology and strategies used, as well as more detailed analysis of the questionnaire.

Findings and discussions around the topic are next with relations to each section of the questionnaire. It ends with conclusions and identifications of problems and some solutions or proposals for the future of Nicosia’s urbanity.

Figure 1: Panoramic urban view of Makedonitissa, Nicosia

1. Introduction 1.1 The Topic – Establishing the Context 1.2 Research Question 1.3 Aims and Objectives

1 Introduction

13

1.1 THE TOPIC – ESTABLISHING THE CONTEXT Nicosia is the capital of Cyprus and currently the only divided city in Europe. Half of it is occupied by Turkey who illegally invaded Cyprus in 1974. From then until now, forty-four years later, 38% of Cyprus land is taken of which a small part belongs to Nicosia (King and Ladbury, 1982). A key element in central Nicosia is the Venetian walls which are virtually intact until today, but a part of them is also occupied. These played a significant role in the city’s urban structure. The centre of Nicosia near and inside the walls is characterised by a vernacular architecture style with a lot of narrow streets and paths (Zetter, 1985). Throughout the years after the Turkish invasion, the urbanity of Nicosia started to expand from these inner walls outwards, mainly to the south and west where the unoccupied parts are.

Compared to other cities inside the European Union (EU), Nicosia is a medium-sized city with a low population density (14.1 people per ha). Other Mediterranean EU cities have higher population density values (Athens 51.9 per ham, Rome 41,7 per ha). From the most recent urban census data of the year 2011, the population of Central Nicosia was 234.000 and 337.000 for the whole city (F. Ioannides et al., 2018). Moreover, the total population of the southern parts for the Republic of Cyprus were 689.471 in 2002, with 69% being urban and 31% rural (Oktay, 2007).

Urban and house development of Nicosia has seen many obstacles throughout the years. The main reason is, of course, the invasion, but many more influenced the process, even before the invasion, when Cyprus was a British colony. It is important to say that Cyprus became independent in 1960 after a liberating war occurred between 1955-1959. From that year a rapid expansion started in Nicosia’s development. Housing and living standards were improved. However, these were profoundly shaken by the events in 1974, just fourteen years later. The Department of Town Planning and Housing (DTPH) in Cyprus, which falls under the Ministry of Interior (MOI) was established in 1951. That was the first and earlier attempt to start introducing some essential legislation regarding planning and urbanity in Cyprus.

“Nicosia is a primate city par excellence” (Zetter, 1985).

This study will focus on Nicosia’s urban, house and green spaces development after 1974, covering the city centre and its adjacent suburban areas. However, the majority percentage of the population was leaving in rural areas before 1974. During the war and before that there were almost no constructions. It was after 1974 when the massive urbanisation of the population started increasing, and this phenomenon lasts until today. The structure of the city and urban areas changed fundamentally because of the invasion.

Terms like city expansion, land speculation, neighbourhood layouts/blocks, urban sprawl, development of houses/buildings and housing life will be examined in more detail.

14

1.2 RESEARCH QUESTION The big issue or controversy in the field of study that will be tackled is whether all this development after the Turkish invasion, which changed everything, was correct, fruitful and prosperous. Otherwise, if it had some specific problems, the study will try to figure out what are these problems, why they happened, and how they can be solved. To summarise the research question is: How much successful was the urban, house and green space development in Nicosia, after 1974 and until today? This question will be answered not only by studying the existing literature but also by conducting quantitative research to hear and learn from the refugees and the resident of Nicosia themselves. Thus, this will enable the possibility to compare the actual numbers and information with the answers and statistical, numerical information from the survey.

1.3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES This research aims at first, to investigate the urban, house and green spaces development in the city centre and suburban areas of Nicosia during the period 1974-2018. Secondly, to gather some results, statistics and answers from data collected through a survey that includes a questionnaire. The questionnaire focuses on specific sections and categories for both the house and urban development in order to make the research and the results more explicit. The sample group includes people of different ages from all the three generations of that period.

Some of them live in urban and others in suburban areas. Also, it aims to gather some conclusions around this critical topic, such as: if that development was successful enough, if something else would be preferable than what it is today or if people are positive/negative around these aspects and their thoughts. Various conclusions on this subject (urban/suburban/house) of this chronical period (1974-2018) could be collected from various ages and generations (1st, 2nd, 3rd generation). A detailed explanation of the methodology and the questions will be explained later in this study.

The main objectives of the study are as follows: i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi.

vii.

To gain an understanding of the refugee’s situation after the invasion and their new homes, as well as their displacement with the new living conditions and urban effects.

To map, research and analyse the development and evolution of homes in both suburban and urban areas of Nicosia during the period specified.

To go into the field through field visits and interviews to collect first-hand data for the proposed research.

To collect data using a questionnaire to create some diagrams, tables, statistical results and conclusions around the topic.

To draw out and represent the various types of buildings/houses and neighbourhood layouts based on surveys, statistics, questionnaires and information collected.

To see if the urban, suburban, house and green spaces development of Nicosia after the Turkish invasion was successful enough, what problems, negatives or positives it had.

To identify any future improvements that can be done based on the problems and weaknesses of the past.

15

All in all, at the end this study seeks to offer some conclusions and bring to the table information gained from statistical data and comparisons between then (1974) and now (2018), between 1st, 2nd, 3rd generation and between urban, house and green spaces development for the capital city of Nicosia. There is a need and an immediate pressure for exploration of the quality, sustainability and shaping of the urbanity and housing with the aim to offer some debates on the future of the Nicosia’s architectural and urban planning, designing and constructing choices. Our city’s image and structure are very important and need focused and careful consideration, especially for a capital city.

“The city is the projection of society on the ground” (Lefebvre, 1968)

Figure 2: Aerial view of central Nicosia

Figure 3: Aerial view of central Nicosia

16

2. Literature Review 2.1 Conducting Analysis 2.2 The invasion and the refugees 2.2.1 Historical background

2.2.2 A disastrous historical event: Its importance and consequences 2.2.3 Refugees rehousing schemes 2.2.4 Refugees estates 2.3 Nicosia’s urban development from 1974 2.3.1 Introduction to Nicosia’s urbanity and urban identity 2.3.2 The urban development, structure and planning legislation 2.3.3 The characteristics and problems of Nicosia’s urban structure 2.3.4 The Nicosia Master Plan (NMP) 2.3.5 Public Spaces 2.4 Nicosia’s house development from 1974 2.4.1 The term and importance of home 2.4.2 The housing development, its characteristics, structure and typologies 2.4.3 The importance of open and green spaces in a house 2.4.4 Sustainability and environmental 2.5 Nicosia’s open and green spaces 2.5.1 Introduction and details for the structure of Nicosia’s open and green spaces 2.5.2 General strategies and policies of Nicosia for open and green spaces 2.5.3 The case study of central Nicosia: its approach towards open and green spaces

2.5.4 Nicosia’s relevant departments for open and green spaces 2.5.5 A remarkable example of Nicosia’s regional park and green space

2 Literature Review

17Gap in knowledge 2.6

2.1 CONDUCTING ANALYSIS Before any further investigation, comparison and individual survey, a literature review was undertaken to gain a fundamental and essential knowledge of the current situation of the topic and the thematic keywords relevant to this study. The chronical period was minimised to the last 44 years when the Turkish invasion happened. Although the urban and house development in Nicosia and Cyprus, in general, started a few decades ago, the primary development and enormous changes to its system begun just after the invasion. Further to the period, the two main thematic terms (urban and housing) got their subdivisions. These came from a first general summarised analysis that was conducted. These subdivisions are considered vital and essential factors and parameters of the urbanity and housing development. Because these two terms are big and very broad, it was imperative, that the research was narrowed down to these more specific subdivisions that could also form the main structure of the questionnaire in the following stages. These subdivisions are: i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi.

Layout and plan Construction (materiality, structure) Open, green space vs build ratio Lifespan Sustainability Overall performance, effectiveness

The second stage of the literature included some more focused and in-depth research on these subdivisions from various articles and books. Both online and in-person, using the website and electronic libraries, as well as, visits and studies in libraries from municipalities, universities, architecture schools and relevant government departments, like the DTPH. This summarises the main stage and source of the literature review. Moreover, as a following stage of the analysis and data collection, site visits, photographic information, interviews and finally the questionnaire were all conducted and happened after all the current data and situation of the topic were collected, reviewed and understood. Also, by having a generally good knowledge of the topic and knowing what the aims and the focus are, the following methodology of conducting analysis and the questions asked in both the interviews and the questionnaire were all clear and specifically focused.

The following parts of this section will review all this literature divided into five parts.

Firstly, it explains the situation regarding the invasion and the refugees, followed by the literature review on the urban development after the invasion. The third part is about house development, and the fourth part focuses on the open and green spaces. The last part explains the gap in knowledge, which is what this study will seek to answer and give some conclusions and possible solutions.

18

Figure 4: Contacting analysis diagram

2.2 THE INVASION AND THE REFUGEES

2.2.1

Historical background

The invasion had a substantial impact on the urban structure of Nicosia and enormously affected its economic and political aspects. It is therefore essential to provide some historical information and give some emphasis on this event. Before 1974, there were not any significant involvements in the housing and construction sector. Only after the Cyprus independence in 1960, some first steps started to appear with basic policies, new stock and amenities with satisfactory gradual progress. However, the invasion of 1974 halted everything that was going on and was planned to progress in the following years.

The invasion occurred in two phases during the 20th of July and 14th of August. The first phase was when Turkish armed troops landed in the north coast of Kerynia. Turkey said this was to protect the Turkish Cypriots from the unstable political conditions of that period. The last and second phase eventually lead to the occupation. Turkey had about four times bigger army and troops than Cyprus. The result was the separation of the island with two different governments: the legal one Republic of Cyprus and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). The government of Turkey only recognises the latter one since 1983 when its unilateral independence occurred. The two sides are now separated by the so-called “green line” (United Nations buffer zone) that disrupts the city’s cohesion and determines in a significant way Nicosia’s physical development. There are occasions where refugees can see their real homes across the border.

19

Figure 5: Map of occupied Cyprus and half-divided Nicosia

Figure 6: Dead end next to the border in Agios Dometios, Nicosia

20

2.2.2

A disastrous historical event: Its importance and consequences

Cyprus had its worst and most disastrous housing, and the urban problem appeared from the invasion in 1974. From a population of 631.000, an estimated 200.000 Greek Cypriot refugees were displaced from the north to the south, and 65.000 Turkish Cypriots moved from the south to the north (King and Ladbury, 1982). The latter ones were comfortably housed in the Greek Cypriots houses which were much more. However, the big problem was for the Greek Cypriots that needed a large amount of accommodation in minimal time.

Around 60% of the refugees were from rural areas (Zetter, 1994).

As it always happens, every war has its numerous dramatic consequences. Similarly, for Cyprus urbanity and housing, the war caused some enormous and painful problems, regional imbalances, as well as, suspension of the production for development plans. The living conditions were awful, and the living standards were decreased significantly. An unorganised construction of refugee houses and buildings started with different types and heights. Small houses and tall buildings exist in the same street. The green and open spaces were limited and not appropriately planned. Industrial areas were close to houses, and the general interaction with the environment was unhealthy and unsustainable.

Apart from the urban and housing-related problems, the invasion had impacts on the Cyprus economy and politics that were truncated and halted. Substantial unemployment rates and difficulties in politics with the relations of the two countries being catastrophic, especially in the next years. All these have impacts to Nicosia’s overall growth; thus affecting its urban development.

Furthermore, impacts on the refugees are apparent. They lost many of their properties and belongings and all these years of displacement profoundly reshaped and changed their social world, formulating new relationships and social lives. Diaspora and the exile made them lose their identity, and new aspirations were created through the rehousing programs for their permanent shelter to the South and new unknown for them areas. Nowadays, there is still a significant number of refugees that are leaving in the refugees' estates, whereas others managed to build their own homes and shelters. Nevertheless, the term “refugees” for Nicosia had an enormous role and played a massive impact on its urban and housing development.

Refugee housing was the primary sector from which the economy and urbanity of Nicosia were restructured gradually around this.

2.2.3

Refugees rehousing schemes

The Cyprus government had to do something quickly to accommodate the refugees. The DTPH was the assigned and entrusted for this job, and by 1979 they managed to house approximately 102.000 refugees by introducing different schemes and programs, such as the “Low-Cost Government Housing Scheme” (Lapithis, 2007). Overall, three action plans were prepared for rehousing the refugees, in 1975-76, 1977-78, 1979-81. Some of them were placed in small family houses and thousands in multi-storey buildings. Generally, these were low cost, made from a reinforced concrete frame as a structure and accompanied by masonry walls. The finish of the walls in most of the cases is paint or sprits and a flat roof made from

21

concrete slabs. Around 36.2% of the housing stock was lost (Lapithis, 2007). Precisely the plans and tasks of the DTPH were: i. ii. iii. iv.

Construction of refugee settlements within urban areas Division of slots, selections of sites and preparation of model housing for the selfbuild housing of the refugees Maintenance and management of the above Decisions of which people were the beneficiaries for both the settlements and the selfhousing areas,

All in all, there were four types of accommodations and rehousing of the refugees. Firstly, are the housing estates where most of them are in the southern peripheries of Nicosia. Secondly, are the refugee camps which existed only in the early months after the invasion with tents as the main shelter in specific locations. The third way of accommodation was by loans for people to build their own house through self-helped programs. The last type is dwellings that were vacated by the Turkish Cypriots who moved to the North, but these were limited and not in good condition (King and Ladbury, 1982). Thus, around 10% of the housing budget was spent on improving these houses. Finally, government loans and schemes financed the construction of thousands of self-build houses and by 1993 around 43.000 housing units were constructed which some of them serve the second generation of refugees, as well (Zetter, 1994).

2.2.4

Refugees estates

The refugee’s estates were the primary way of rehousing. A total of 31 were built by 1980.

Their design and construction were made quickly and with low cost, but in general, they are accepted having the necessary standards. These estates contain single or double-storey terraces houses or small blocks of flats. Usually, they have balconies and shutters, and the plots are small (110-240 sq. m) (Zetter, 1982). They have a small open space and provisions for shops, schools and public centres in their neighbourhood layout. Their location is key to their survival and efficiency. Most of them are located near large regions of Nicosia with access to services and employment sources, as well as excellent infrastructure and facilities.

However, it was difficult to link these new developments with the existing fabric of the regions. Nowadays, most of them still exist with fewer inhabitants, but of course, they have been maintained and partially reconstructed to last longer and repaired.

22

Figure 7: Refugee's houses in Anthoupoli, Nicosia

23

Figure 8: Refugee's estates in Anthoupoli, Nicosia

24

2.3 NICOSIA’S URBAN DEVELOPMENT FROM 1974

2.3.1

Introduction to Nicosia’s urbanity and urban identity

The central location of Nicosia in the heart of the island makes it a magnet for educational and cultural activities, administration, employment, businesses and other services. Therefore, its population reaches 30% of the entire island’s population (Zetter, 1985). Its urban structure can be characterised by being unconsolidated with low density. Agricultural land and rural areas are shrinking by residential land.

Nicosia, like all the other cities, is changing continuously. Nothing stays the same, but instead, it is evolving and either changing its parts or create new ones. Eventually, both historical and current evolution is important to define the city’s urban identity. Urban identity is a significant term for each city. By discovering and knowing this identity, the city and its inhabitants can gain many advantages when this is reinforced and appropriately treated as supported and agreed by many theorists. The identity of a city as professor of architecture Derya Oktay states it can be the “independent image for which people can develop strong identification and affection to attract and hold people” (Oktay, 2002).

It is vital to have a close co-operation between the relevant people, including architects, planners and engineers with the aim for large projects and plans, according to today’s realities, for a better more efficient future of urban structure for Nicosia. Always everything needs to be developed for humanity, the environment and nature, the heritage and the built form of the city.

2.3.2

The urban development, structure and planning legislation

The urban structure of Nicosia can be categorised into four parts. The first is the oldest and most historical one, the walled city that covers about 200 ha. It is the symbol of the city’s heritage and culture. Two main characteristics are the many narrow streets that make it look like a maze and the vernacular building style. Today, unfortunately, it is isolated from the rest districts with poor maintenance of the old buildings and houses. Secondly, is the lifeless buffer zone (20 ha) that as explained earlier cuts through the walled city and separates the two sides. The third one is the core business development area (CBD) next to the walled city that includes libraries, schools, the municipality and other various public and government buildings. The last one is, of course, the residential areas that extend further to areas like Lakatamia, Strovolos and Aglantzia (Oktay, 2007). Some of them are older like Pallouriotissa while others created after, as the urban structure of Nicosia was extending its boundaries throughout the years.

Nicosia’s urban development and planning faced a lot of complex problems and restrictions due to the continuing division of the island. The approval of planning legislation in Cyprus happened in 1972, but it was delayed because of the invasion until 1990 when it enacted (Ioannou, 2016). Now the various urban areas of Nicosia are controlled by local plans which every five years are reviewed and updated. These plans contain maps with land uses, policies, densities and road networks. For the rural area of Nicosia, there is another plan called “Policy 25

Statement for the Countryside” (PSC) that was published in 1990 (Caramondani, 2003). It contains policies, zoning and protected areas maps. This plan replaced the old “island plan” that was forced to stop due to the invasion. Finally, there are some more detailed and focused area plans called “action area plans”.

For every proposed and future development of construction in Nicosia and Cyprus in general, it is necessary to have planning and building permissions. There are specific rules like every country and in some cases, these change according to the zone of the city.

Figure 9: The urban structure of Nicosia (Oktay, 2013)

26

Figure 10: Evolution of urban planning and legislation in Cyprus

2.3.3

The characteristics and problems of Nicosia’s urban structure

The most obvious and common characteristic or problem, as stated by many planners and architects is the low density (urban sprawl). City expansion is high in Nicosia, and its urban sprawl is uncontrolled. High prices of residential land contribute negatively to this phenomenon as people find lower prices away from the city centre and thus expanding more the periphery of urban areas. Many spaces are left between buildings and houses without having good relationships with each other. These, in some cases, are undefined and useless with no practicality and sensitivity. “urban sprawl represents a type of urban growth related to discontinuous spatial development patterns and low densities.” (F. Ioannides et al., 2018)

All the policies and plans must be revised to adapt and integrate better relationship with the environment and sustainability issues. They must promote public participation and have better control over the development of the areas. As it is now more emphasis is given to maximising profit rather than sustainable provisions, like public and green spaces. Stronger planning tools can be introduced to achieve these.

2.3.4

The Nicosia Master Plan (NMP)

The NMP enacted in 2001. It was a significant achievement that helped in the revitalisation and rehabilitation of the city. It was a planned co-operation between the two mayors, and a joint team started in 1979 with the aim of rational development of the city by a good planning strategy. It offered a collaborative planning possibility and was accomplished in two phases.

The first one from 1979-2001 assessed the Nicosia’s urban structure and then developed a series of programmes for its future development. The walled city and the business centre were the emphases on investment programmes and policies to protect and strengthen these 27

areas. The second phase prioritises projects for “halting physical deterioration and socioeconomic disintegration in the walled city” (Oktay, 2007) and included small-scale projects.

Overall, both sides of Nicosia got benefits from it, as the plan had balanced discussions and strategies without any dominations for one of the sides. The projects of the plan were reviewed by the DTPH and the municipality of Nicosia. Although, more key things need to be planned and considered, like the transportation and traffic flow, restoration and maintenance or the green and open spaces.

2.3.5

Public Spaces

Public space is defined as: “the common ground where people carry out the functional and ritual activities that bind a community, whether in the normal routines of daily life or in periodic festivities” (Oktay, 2002) The public spaces for an urban planner were always a central concern and had a vital role in the identity of a city. They are spaces where we share the same space with strangers, in contrast to our homes or workspaces. For the city’s structure, public spaces are areas which are accessible to everybody and various activities may occur, such as walking, relaxing, shopping or talking. Mainly, these are streets and squares. Public, green and open spaces have a high social value and should be considered carefully with their specific functions. They must meet the needs of the people and adapt to the environment of the city. They are necessary key elements of a city’s urban structure which they provide much information and characterise it. Thus, they can contribute to a better, more sustainable and elegant city.

Functional designed public spaces could enhance the image of the city and the quality of life for its residents. An example that is worth to mention, modern and significant example of open space, is the newly designed and constructed Zaha Hadid’s square in the Nicosia’s city centre just outside the walls and next to Nicosia’s municipality. This square completely changed the old image of the centre with new designs, forms and shapes. This addition of public space caused many discussions as to whether it is good or bad for the urban structure and heritage of the city. In fact, architects and other stakeholders had exactly opposite ideas regarding the new modern structure situated in a historical city. Nevertheless, it is something new to the people of Nicosia who can utilise it to walk, talk, relax and sit down admiring the views.

28

Figure 11: Zaha Hadid's square in central Nicosia

29

2.4 NICOSIA’S HOUSE DEVELOPMENT FROM 1974

2.4.1

The term and importance of home

Home is a dominant term in people’s lives. They spend most of their lives inside their homes.

Professor Roger Zetter describes the home as “a living organism of relationships and traditions stretching back into the past” (Zetter, 1999). Similarly, this term has significant importance for the refugees of 1974. Therefore, the housing development of a city has the same essential values as it summarises the homes of the city inhabitants through the years.

2.4.2

The housing development, its characteristics, structure and typologies

House development in the immediate years after the invasion, has been fragmented, unsystematic and unplanned. High continuing land prices and the unstable land market had a negative impact and caused an unconsolidated spread of the city. Any housing finance was difficult to obtain, and materials had high prices. All these led to enormous difficulties for inhabitants, but most residential areas were self-build.

The dominant material was concrete as it contributes to the monotonous construction of apartment blocks with low or no provision for green spaces. Multi-storey housing was relatively common, but they appear to have some problems in their design. They were just designed to serve their primary role as accommodations. However, there is no freedom and opportunities for privacy and interaction with the outdoor space and environment. Balconies and windows are visible from other flats, and there is no real interaction and sense of community.

The main house and building typologies according to Professor of urban planning and design Byron Ioannou are (Ioannou, 2016): i. ii. iii.

Prior to the Turkish invasion in 1974: Cottage style houses with lots of green, garden space around and masonry units with a timber roof.

The 1970s - 1990s: Concrete and flat free-standing houses and buildings with a lot of hard surfaces parking spaces and reduces garden.

The 1990s – today: Modernist houses with few more materials, but concrete remains the major one. Apart from the concrete structure, the steel frame is introduced. Multistorey buildings and blocks on pilotis with the ground surface used as parking spaces.

Start of new modern high-rise buildings with new forms and designs, like Jean Nouvel’s Tower 25 in central Nicosia.

Housing development and policies should be the core of Nicosia’s urbanity and be considered very carefully with provisions for green spaces, sustainability and efficiency in their layout and construction.

30

Figure 12: Modern houses in Lakatamia, Nicosia

31

2.4.3

The importance of open and green spaces in a house

Due mainly to the hot climate of Cyprus, open and green spaces are vital and should be commonly used appropriately in each house. Private gardening and verandas exist almost in every house typology and all of Nicosia’s residential areas. People need to invest in these and increase their green space vs build ratio. This will not only be beneficial to the house but if it happens in all the areas, it can benefit the city environment. Some good examples of benefits are air quality improvement and energy saving. It contributes to the reduction of soil sealing (thus it reduces the urban heat of the island) and makes the places more attractive.

Unfortunately, with the passing of years, the building ratio is increasing over the open, green space ration in a house plot. A major reason for this is that agriculture and gardening activities are decreasing, and rural areas become weaker over city centres and urban activities. For instance, from the current 3rd generation, most of them used to have a big garden with trees and plants. Nowadays our gardens are used differently, adding to the fact that more and more hard surfaces appear like parking or closed and covered areas. For many people, these are new trends and designs. All in all, a new approach needs to be considered towards these aspects because as it is now planning provisions and development trends threat these qualities. Open and green spaces should be included and considered as urban characteristics with controlled policies for their enhancement, promotion and preservation. “green space is a feature of urban development which has been generally neglected” (Ioannou, 2016)

2.4.4

Sustainability and environmental

Designing a house with a good sense and harmony towards sustainability and environmental issues are essential and asset for the overall result. Each construction must correspond effectively to its environment and climate. The Mediterranean climate of Nicosia is relatively hot, with nine months of sun and high temperatures with an average of around 24 Celsius.

Thus, the first things that need to be addressed are both the protection from the sun and its full advantages where is possible. Planners and architects need to have a climate and sustainability expertise when designing. They must make full use of the sun and incorporate environmental issues in their designs. Ecological design and planning are beneficial. Also, proper use of the orientation, natural daylight and ventilation, shadows and relation of the houses with their adjacent environment and other buildings on the site are factors that can increase their performance positively. The wind is another critical thing that needs attention.

Heights, forms, shapes and densities of the houses and buildings, in general, can affect all these factors. Vernacular architecture is the right solution for all these that can improve energy efficiency and comfort. It can be found in Nicosia, especially inside the old city.

Finally, various suitable elements, like verandas, balconies, overhangs, louvres, gardens and porches, can help and boost the efficiency of the house. “design with the climate and with a sense of place” (Oktay, 2002) “basic elements of a good neighbourhood include the presence of environmental and social amenities, optimum densities and a responsive layout, distinct character and identity, and sufficient green spaces” (Ioannou, 2016) 32

2.5 NICOSIA’S OPEN AND GREEN SPACES

2.5.1

Introduction and details for the structure of Nicosia’s open and green spaces

The urban structure of Nicosia is defined by the road network as the primary element which it is arranged based on a road grid. These primary roads surround the urban neighbourhood cells formed by the environmental areas. The latter ones form the open and green spaces of the city. These are areas where citizens may work, relax, move, shop and live are important and vital in the urban structure of the city. To sum up, the cellular structure of the city must consist of suitable and carefully designed environmental areas within and a network of primary roads.

Unfortunately, as this research examines, there is insufficiency in open and green spaces, in both the public and private sectors. Some first actions for the management and distributions of these areas started in the early 1990s when the planning legislation of Cyprus began. The current local authorities responsible for setting and making the local policies for the open and green spaces are the municipal councils of the municipalities for the areas of Nicosia. There is a need for an adequate and a provision for a hierarchy of open, green spaces to contribute and strengthen the overall image and efficiency of the urban, housing structure of this city.

This will also create more opportunities for citizens.

2.5.2

General strategies and policies of Nicosia for open and green spaces

There are some policies and strategies of the municipalities for each area and the DTPH that deal or affect the design and provision of open and green spaces, in both public and private sectors.

To begin with, the latest spectrum of thematic policies regarding landscaping and natural heritage is being updated and prepared to be included in the revised PSC. Although there was a landscape protection policy in the first PSC of the early 1990s, local authorities are now progressively started to include more policies and provisions for landscaping rules, including open and green spaces in all development plans (Moi.gov.cy, n.d.).

The Nicosia local plan of 2011, a long-term planning policy for the development of the city, states that one of their aims is “the creation of an integrated, hierarchical system of green spaces” (Local Plan of Nicosia, 2011). Moreover, another paragraph speaks about aiming for safeguarding satisfactory open spaces in terms of number, size and quality, equally distributed along with the city and connected with means of transport friendly to the environment. However, one of the problems stated in the local plan is: “the lack of open, shaped, hierarchical public or green spaces, especially in the dense cores and some other central areas. Also, problems of maintenance and management of the existing ones, which contribute to the degradation of the quality of life, work kai entertainment of the citizens and the visitors” (Local Plan of Nicosia, 2011)

33

Concerning new developments and buildings that may affect the environmental and landscaping wealth of an area, the local plan warns that visual impacts and views must be carefully taken into consideration along with the creation of hard surfaces, open spaces and the allocation of both short and tall green spaces. Regarding urban open and green spaces, the local plan to achieve a greener town with more open spaces for its citizens uses on its urban structure the hierarchy of regional parks, urban parks, local parks and public green spaces.

For the latter ones, based on a policy, for the approval of a planning permit by the DTPH, the owner of the plot need to grant a specific amount of area for the creation of public, open and green spaces in various residential and urban neighbourhood blocks, with the aim for better quality and more comfort for the area. “the creation of sufficiently open public spaces to contribute to the rational operation and planning of development areas and facilitating the effective utilisation and management of such sites by local authorities� (Xasikos, 2015)

Figure 13: Indicative example of a clear plot area calculation

34

Figure 14: Example and table of rates for public green space and social equipment in a neighbourhood block

35

Additionally, another policy speaks about the provision of green spaces and tree planting in areas adjacent to streets, which must be designed depending on the situation. The latter point concerns the private green spaces outside of the development limits which must be kept safe and maintained away from the urban sprawl so that they continue to be part of the open spaces of the city and its environmental wealth. To help in that, a decree can be issued for the protection of these areas and tree planted areas or forests, especially at the edges of the city boundaries.

Figure 15: Green spaces arrangement among streets

36

The guide of planning regulations specifies some policies affecting open and green spaces in plots for all uses (industrial, tourist). The main one states: “Buildings must be at least 3m away from the border of the plot and 6m gap in between them if in the same plot� (Guide to the interpretation of town planning regulations, 2011). This excludes industrials, tourist and livestock buildings, where there is an increase in the metre’s distances. The taller the building, the more the distance from the border is increased. Also, buildings must have open space from main roads (highways and intercity roads) of 15m. Apart from these, some critical rates that control the open, covered and closed spaces in a plot are the building factor and the coverage rate (growth factors).

37

Figure 16: Building distances in a plot

2.5.3

The case study of central Nicosia: its approach towards open and green spaces

The area of central Nicosia is a worth mentioning example and part of the city to analyse. The area scheme outlines some specific aims and strategies towards its own open and green spaces in the central core of the city. Some of them include the Municipality garden, the Pediaios river axis and the moats along the old Venetian walls. Most of them are not connected and in bad condition. Therefore, at first, they need to be improved and maintained, before new areas and open spaces are created. It is more about their quality than their size, something that reminds us of the well-known quote of “quality over quantity�. Specifically, the following are the aims and priorities of the central Nicosia’s scheme: (Area scheme of Nicosia's city centre, 2017) i. ii. iii. iv. v.

Improving the quality (appearance, permeability, equipment and safety) of existing parks and gardens Unified design for the creation of a green network on roads and public spaces Promote the creation of a small number but essential open public spaces Provide tree planting and increase in green spaces to intermediate and private spaces to contribute to a more sustainable, relaxed and attractive environment.

Introduce greenery and playgrounds in residential areas where the population is expected to increase.

38

Figure 17: Central Nicosia boundaries and green spaces network

39

Figure 18: Central Nicosia’s area scheme and planning zones

2.5.4

Nicosia’s relevant departments for open and green spaces

Nicosia has a few government departments under the Ministry of agriculture, rural development and environment which deal with open and green spaces, among other things.

The department of gardening and greenery is responsible for the maintenance, planting and improvement for the “green” of the city in gardens, parks, squares and more. Also, they do tree-planting and create new parks and green spaces for the city when these are designed and scheduled by the relevant authorities. Another one is the land consolidation department. Their mission is the management and implementation of land redistribution based on the rural policy of the government. Additionally, it prepares and publishes various plans for landscaping and environmental protection. Finally, is the department of forests. Their primary mission is to “protect and promote sustainable forest management […] as well as to improve green spaces” (Moa.gov.cy, n.d.). The department has a specific sector on parks and environment which it offers services like landscaping of green spaces and preparation of plans and schemes for their designs. All in all, these government departments are responsible for the design, implementations and maintenance of all open and mostly green spaces in the city.

40

2.5.5

A Remarkable example of Nicosia’s regional park and green space

Nicosia has some beautiful, open and green areas, but the bigger and most important one is the national urban forest park of Athalassas (840.2 hectares) in the south part of Nicosia. It is a worth mentioning park and a vital element for the urban structure of the city. It is not only green space but also a beautiful place for recreation, training and environmental education, as it has bicycle roads, sports fields, gardens and an education centre. It serves the whole city and is gradually developing a valuable habitat. The construction of buildings and the use of vehicles have been minimised inside the area of the park.

Figure 19: Athalassa’s park location and table of park types and characteristics

41

2.6 GAP IN KNOWLEDGE Previous researchers analysed the historical details of the Turkish invasion and its numerous consequences towards the urbanity of the island and of course, among other factors, like economic, political and social. Information on refugees housing schemes and estates are broadly analysed and discussed. Moreover, literature exists on the urban structure and development of Nicosia that studies its planning legislation, characteristics and problems.

Various articles and books speak about the problems of urban development from its starting point until nowadays and describe briefly all the up to date development plans and policy documents, like the NMP. Also, some planners and professors raised the issue of insufficient and unsatisfactory levels of public, green and open spaces, as well as, sustainability and environmental issues. A few information exists on housing development and some characteristics or problems. However, these are briefly analysed as in general more emphasis is given on the urbanity rather than the term house individually.

The gap in knowledge about this topic that focuses on the capital town of Nicosia is the incorporation of its inhabitants and the method of quantitative data. There is a lack of statistical information and numeric data on the existing literature. Also, it is important to hear not only from the people inside the subject, like architects but also from the people that live with these conditions. Thus, a questionnaire with respondents from all the three generations of that chronical period is what is most needed now. Before any further updates, revisions or creations on any plans and policies, it would be good to have this extra information and data for a more precise and fruitful result. Having the chance to compare the actual data with the collected data from various people and questions based on various subdivisions of the topic, it would appear to be very prosperous. All in all, these are what the next two sections of this research will investigate and analyse.

3 Methodology

42

3. Methodology 3.1 Quantitative data 3.2 The use of questionnaire 3.2.1 Explanation for the specified chronical period 3.2.2 Sample strategy 3.2.3 Contents of the survey 3.3 Observations 3.4 Ethical considerations

43

3.1 QUANTITATIVE DATA A quantitative data methodology is used in this research to develop and form some conclusions around the topic of precise subdivisions and terms. This type of method allows the reader to compare the results of the data, mostly numerically and statistically, with what is already known and reviewed. It can provide useful, credible and interesting information as it is covering many areas on the field of study with the sample group being the actual people who lived or living with the terms tackled in the questionnaire. This type of methodology has not yet been used in-depth for that specific topic; thus, it could provide additional data to the existing ones. The aim is to gain insight into the urban and housing development of Nicosia after 1974 with a focus on specific subdivisions that are explained later in this methodology section. Finally, some definite conclusions, useful identifications and evaluations of the current situation could help for a better, planned and more confident future of Nicosia’s urbanity.

3.2 THE USE OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE 3.2.1

The explanation for the specified chronical period

The development of Nicosia, as mentioned earlier, started a few years before the specified chronical period that this research is analysing. However, it is essential to explain why the year 1974 was chosen and not, for example, any other year. What is essential about that year and why the focus should be from that moment and onwards. The reason is merely the events and consequences of the Turkish invasion. As already explained the urban development, mainly of Nicosia’s, was utterly shocked and changed because of the invasion. Any plans and aims for its development were paused or even cancelled and abandoned. Before 1974, Cyprus was profoundly affected by the British culture and architectural styles. After the invasion, this stopped, and everything changed. Thus, it is better to focus our study from 1974 until today, because that period is what matters more. Of course, it is good to learn from the history and mistakes of the past, but in this case, this possibility is minimised as new plans and trends came after the invasion.

3.2.2

Sample strategy

The selection of participants for answering the questionnaire was purposive for people over 18 years old and people who leave or used to live in Nicosia and in general they have a knowledge and a right image of Nicosia’s urbanity. Obviously, non-adults who are under 18 years old, they would not be able to answer all the questions critically neither they could have an adequate image, experience and opinions on the topic. Thus, it is more accurate and precise if only adults are used. Moreover, the personal details of the participants were asking information about their gender, occupation and age. The first and second were asked clearly for comparing reasons. Nevertheless, the most important and exciting part is the last one, asking about age. The survey divides the participants into three ageing categories: 18-34, 44

35-59, 60+. These are purposely divided this way and are critical towards the survey analysis and answers to the questions later. People from the first ageing group did not have any experiences from the invasion as that happened a minimum ten years before. They could only answer based on the situations after the invasions and possibly after the city already started to rehabilitee and stir up from the consequences that were discussed before. Regarding the second ageing group, most of these people were kids with a maximum age of 15 years old.

Thus, they should have a minimised opinion on that period, but they have an excellent general knowledge of the whole urban development of their city after the invasion. Lastly, people over 60 years old means that they were a minimum of 16 years old, and most of them were adults. This group of people could answer all the questions with complete knowledge and a definite opinion on the subject. To conclude, having a variety of people of different ages and occupations, is usually a good thing for collecting more precise and accurate data is, of course, the data collected is manipulated carefully. Precision and organisation are the keys to gathering the best possible conclusions. In the end, a total of 97 participants have taken this survey giving answers to the questions.

3.2.3

Contents of the survey

The contents of the survey were carefully chosen and structured more efficiently and comfortably for the participant to understand and follow the sequence of the questions. Also, the order is appropriate and makes easier the analysis of the results. The questionnaire starts by asking the participant for some of his personal details. Then, it tackles the two main issues, urban development and housing development. Then continues with the refugees rehousing and movement due to the invasion. Moving on, focuses on the specifically chosen subdivision of open and green spaces. Finally, it ends with future thoughts and general comments.

Personal details: Gender, age and occupation are the three personal details that the questionnaire asks the participants to complete. These are mainly for practical reasons. It is good to know if these results came from males or females, or if the participant has a related occupation towards the topic or something else. Although, the age is more attractive as explained previously.

Urban and house development after 1974 and nowadays: This is the central part of the survey. Here the participants are asked to choose between different scales from extremely bad to extremely good. There are four questions, two about the housing development and two about urban development. Both pairs are asking for two different periods. One asks for their opinion after the invasion and the other one about nowadays. In addition to these, to make it more specific and because these topics cover the last 44 years, some carefully chosen subdivisions take place. For the questions about the house (then and now) and modern buildings of today, the subdivisions are layout and plan, construction, open and green spaces vs build ratio, lifespan, sustainability and overall performance. These were chosen for two reasons. Firstly, they cover the most essential and significant parts of the housing and build development and secondly; they were the most discussed and controversial fields of study made by the previous researches. For the question about urban development (then and now), the subdivisions changed to neighbourhood layouts and blocks, buildings and houses 45

typologies, open and green spaces, infrastructure and public buildings, sustainability and overall performance. Similarly, these subdivisions were chosen for the same reasons.

Current (and previous) region of residence: This small part asks the participants to say in what area or region they live and if they used to live somewhere else before. The purpose for this is to map the movements from both the north to the south (from the refugees) and any movements inside Nicosia’s areas.

Refugee’s houses and estates: The other smaller area of study is the refugees rehousing situation. Thus, it is necessary to ask the participants who said that they are refugees, their rate from 0 to 5 on these rehousing schemes and overall living conditions. Also, it gives them the chance to give their comments. The aim is to evaluate from first-hand experiences the solutions that were made on that period for the rehousing of the refugees.

Personal preferences: The next few questions are asking for personal opinions and preferences of the participants regarding house typologies, city centre vs suburban area and open and green spaces. These three areas are the most desired and burning issues of today’s society. It is interesting to see the results and the order of preferences.

Future thoughts and general comments: The questionnaire ends by asking for the participant’s future thoughts on the topic and gives them a chance to write any general comments regarding the topics that tackle in the previous questions. These two questions are purposely placed last because people will have better knowledge and idea to answer them after they went through all the previous questions.

Figure 20: Diagram of the questionnaire's structure

46

3.3 OBSERVATIONS Observations are fundamental for researches regarding architecture, urbanity and buildings.

Participation, interaction and record of information and data relevant to the field of study is obligatory for real pieces of evidence and studies in the field and environment. This task was conducted throughout the research and was designed to be accurate and make the most of it by carefully selecting the best examples and cases to observe. Both houses and buildings, as well as public spaces like squares, were observed and recorded. This highlight the characteristics of the house and urban development of Nicosia and may reveal some of their problems, too. Specifically, observations were made on Zaha Hadid’s square in the city centre, old and modern houses, houses under construction, old and modern blocks and apartments, refugee’s estates and houses and finally urban reconstructions and landscapes.

Those were well documented with photography, field notes and some small informal interviews made by the owners or people found in the place.

3.4 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS The complete research is undertaken under ethical approval from the Northumbria University and in compliance with the Data Protection Act (2018) criteria. Regarding the questionnaire and any surveys, the participants were fully informed about its scope and the topic and how the results would be used for. It was taken anonymously and voluntarily. The participants could withdraw at any time or skip any questions they wish. Moreover, ethical considerations were undertaken about the observations. Any dangerous potential hazards in the fieldworks were prevented or acknowledged and supported. For any observations or interviews made towards private sites and people’s properties, these were approved with consent forms and permissions from the interviewers or owners. Relevant information about the reason and the scope of the documentation and recording was given, and their identity remained anonymous.

Finally, all data, including photographic material, were saved in private, protected personal hard drive of the researcher and will be deleted after the study is completed to comply with the Northumbria University ethics and policies.

4 Findings - Discussion

47

48

4. Findings Discussion 4.1 Analysing the results – Comparison with existing knowledge 4.1.1 Personal details

4.1.2 Urban and house development after 1974 and nowadays 4.1.3 Current (and previous) region of residence 4.1.4 Refugee’s houses and estates 4.1.5 Personal preferences 4.1.6 Future thoughts and general comments

4.2 Analysis and comparisons of neighbourhood and housing cases of nowadays, during and before the invasion 4.2.1 Before the invasion: an old neighbourhood block 4.2.2 Before the invasion: an old traditional house

4.2.3 During and immediately after the invasion: refugee’s estates and blocks 4.2.4 Nowadays: suburban area with modern houses 4.2.5 Comparisons and conclusions

49

4.1 ANALYSING THE RESULTS – COMPARISON WITH EXISTING KNOWLEDGE The study identified some interesting and valuable results that can be utilised to enhance the overall image and knowledge on the topics that were further investigated in the questionnaire.

It has provided the opportunity to gather some data from a different angle and perspective based on people’s thoughts that currently live within these areas, under conditions or experiences due to the events of the invasion. The next paragraphs will analyse and compare the results with existing knowledge. The analysis is divided into thematic parts to make it more transparent and more organised.

4.1.1

Personal details

The number of male and female that answered the questionnaire was balanced. This could be considered as positive as we can have answers from both genders and a well-adjusted result.

On the other hand, the ageing groups were not reasonably balanced. Most of the participants were middle-aged people of the second generation (72.16%). The first generation had (25.77%) while unfortunately the amount of older people of the third generation is only (2.06%). The good thing is that most of the results came from fresh minds and modern people with a good knowledge of the current situation. The sad thing is the lack of most expert answers and mostly from people that have some memories and information to share when the invasion occurred. Finally, we had a mixture of occupations, which is good to have opinions from people of different expertise and work experience. Students were 12.37% in total, housewives 9.28% and retired 4.12%. The rest 74.23% were other different occupations analysed and shown with detail in the following charts. The most common answer was employees, mostly in a bank. Positively, some answers came from people of relevant jobs, like architects and quantity surveyors. These people gave valuable comments based on their knowledge in the field. As a general conclusion to these first results so far is that the survey was balanced, and there was a variety of people from different social classes answering.

50

Figure 21: Results about gender

Figure 22: Results about age

51

Figure 23: Results about occupation

52

4.1.2

Urban and house development after 1974 and nowadays

To begin with the housing development of Nicosia in the last 44 years question, the most common and overall rate that the participants gave was “Good”. Around half of them (50%) gave this answer to each question. For both then (following the invasion) and now, the subdivisions of layout/plan, construction/materiality/structure, and overall performance/effectiveness were all stable and characterised as “Good”. These are mostly keeping up with the existing knowledge, except a small part for the construction of the refugee’s estates, which is supported by the article of Panos Lapithis that examines the construction and layouts of these estates. These were quickly constructed, and they needed a lot of maintenance and repair in the following years. A small change is visible from “Good” to “Neither Good or Bad” where the questions were asking about the lifespan and sustainability of the houses after the invasion. These subdivisions were indeed unstable, especially in the past, as many articles state. In contrast to nowadays, where things are improving, and the evaluation changed to “Good”. Finally, there is a definite problem regarding the open, green space vs build space. This phenomenon is precisely what has been said before by some professors, like Dr Byron Ioannou. Cover of soil, lots of hard surfaces and lack of green space and gardening is as it looks like a mutual problem, not just nowadays, but also for the previous decades.

Furthermore, the results from the urban side of the topic were a bit different. Starting with the years after the invasion, they appear to be less positive than the housing development. There were more “Neither Good or Bad” answers, and the rate of “Bad” started to be more distinctive, particularly where it asks for the neighbourhood layouts and blocks. Along with the open and green spaces, these subdivisions were the only ones that the rate fall under the average. Thus, emphasis should be given on these. For all the other subdivisions for urban development, as mentioned earlier, the most given answer changes to “Neither Good or Bad”.

All in all, things are more problematic and controversial regarding urban development rather than a housing development.

The last question of this main part was asking about today’s modern buildings and infrastructure. This is a unique one, as those started to appear in the last few years and is something new to the culture and architectural style that Cypriots used to know and have until now. The results were very upright for all the subdivisions, even the ones that previously were low rated, like the lifespan and sustainability or the open, green spaces.

Characteristics are the fact that the option “Good” here was selected every time by more than half of the participants with an average of 57.4 out of 97 participants. These last results are not reliably able to be compared with existing knowledge, as they are new and there is no essential evaluation, but they give a positive overall conclusion about the modern building and infrastructure of Nicosia.

53

Figure 24: Results about the houses/apartments development after the invasion

Figure 25: Results about the houses/apartments nowadays

54

Figure 26: Results about the urban development after the invasion

Figure 27: Results about modern buildings and infrastructure nowadays

55

4.1.3

Current (and previous) region of residence

This small part of the survey included text boxes, and the purpose was to see which regions of Nicosia people are mostly from and to map the displacement of the refugees. As expected, most answers were Strovolos and Lakatamia. The first one is already the biggest area of Nicosia, which has the biggest municipality. The second area is the most promising and expanding area for the future. These statements are supported by the article of urban planner Glafkos Constantinides “Reasons for and consequences of urban sprawl”. It is estimated that the highest number of populations for the coming years will live in Strovolos, then Lakatamia and thirdly in the city centre. The rest suburban areas are by far lower in values (Constantinides, n.d.). Thought-provoking is the fact that only 5 out of 97 answers mentioned a village of Nicosia. All other people are living either in the city centre or adjacent suburban areas. Fascinating is the percentage of 46.88% that said they used to live somewhere else.

This might be because of the notion of Cypriots to change apartments easily in an effort to find something better or cheaper. It is also common that people after they grow up, they might change the area they live opposed to the one they have grown up. Most of the answers said other regions of Nicosia. Apart from that, there is a balance of four answers for each of the followings: regions of Greece, villages of Nicosia and other cities of Cyprus.

Summarising, there is an apparent move towards the capital city, but not necessarily towards the city centre. Suburban big and developed areas are preferred.

Concerning the refugees, 35.05% of them indicated that they are refugees, which is slightly more than the real percentage of 1/3 of the total population. A primary reason for this is the fact that most of those refugees moved to Nicosia rather any other city after the Turkish Invasion and since the questionnaire was given to people that live or used to live in Nicosia, this is more possible, and the result is almost balanced. When asked to answer for their occupied village or region, most of those answered Kyrenia and Morphou. Kyrenia is the closest occupied city to Nicosia, and it is logical that most of the people who lived there, moved to Nicosia.

4.1.4

Refugee’s houses and estates

For the refugee’s houses and estates, the data gathered is an evaluation from 1 to 5 of their living conditions and way of life and possible general comments. Approximately, the results were the same for both the houses and the estates. Their average rate was 2.40 for the estates and 2.33 for the houses.

These two questions were seeking for answers only from people who lived on either of these two types of rehousing. Subsequently, the few comments from them are from first-hand experience and knowledge. A mutual comment was that they had poor construction and their living conditions were neither good or bad. These comments match their overall rating mentioned before, and also the whole result seems logical and balanced based on existing knowledge. “an apartment in Strovolos which was very small and the construction had no good quality” (anonymous participant, 2018)

56

4.1.5

Personal preferences

Firstly, the participants placed in order of preference their ideal type of house they would like to live in. The results were similar to what is already known and to what is already evident from the existing housing typologies of Nicosia. The dominant types were single houses with a minimal advantage on the one-storey and then the two-storey. This is the most common type of housing one will find in Nicosia, and the result here is not a surprise. Apartment choices took the last places below the semi-detached option. This proves that Cypriots prefer their own houses, meaning possibly their own family and property.

Secondly, it was a small debate about the hot issue of city centre vs suburban areas. In the case of Nicosia’s city, the obvious most preferred choice was suburban areas with 62% over 34% for the city centre. This matches the current population rates and previous data gathered from the region of residence part. Also, the table about population distribution of Glafkos Constantinides indicated a decrease from 2011 to 2018 for the Nicosia city centre and an increase for suburban areas, like Strovolos and Lakatamia. Right now, these areas have more population than the city centre (F. Ioannides et al., 2018). Suburban areas in Nicosia have a robust urban structure with lots of amenities and facilities. On the other hand, some severe problems of the city centre, like the traffic jam, the noise and the multicultural populations, make people want to live in areas outside of the heart of the city.

Last but not least, is the issue of open, green spaces, that urgently raised from the literature review and already showed up in the results previously. An overriding 72.92% answered that the existence of open, green and private garden in their ideal home is “Very Important”. Also, 22.92% said “Somewhat Important” and only 4.17% “Not So Important”. Nobody has chosen the “Not At All Important” option, which shows the real need for green and open spaces. As seen before, there is a lack of those in both the urbanity and houses in Nicosia. People need to see greener areas and have more public or open spaces to communicate and share. In addition to that, for more precision, people answered their ideal ratio between buildable vs open, green space in a housing plot. The answer 70%/30% comes first with 34.38%, then is 60%/40% and then 50%/50%. However, these results seem strange, because the option 70% buildable space in a plot with 30% open and green space is still a bit small for adequate open space and compared to the previous preferences of the participants. This could happen possibly because people did not realise the actual proportions of the percentages. Although it is not far away from the expected outcome, the results could match better if the questionnaire had some diagrammatic plots showing precisely what these proportions are. The following figures show the results, as well as the ratio proportions between buildable and open, green space using pie charts.

57

Figure 28: Results about preferred type of house

Figure 29: Results about city centre vs suburban area

58

Figure 30: Results about the importance of open, green space and private garden

Figure 31: Results about desirable ratio between buildable space vs open, green space in a plot

59

Figure 32: Indicative pie charts for the various ratios

60

4.1.6

Future thoughts and general comments

To close this survey, people could select between a scale from “Very Likely” to “Very Unlikely” if they believe Nicosia will have suitable housing and urban development in the future. The results were slightly positive. The option “Likely” was selected by 37.50% of people, while the “Unlikely” was 20.83%. This confirms the upward development of Nicosia’s urban and housing sectors and especially in the last few years with the introduction of new modern designs, plans and ideas; people started to think differently and positively.

Nicosia has many potentials, even now 44 years after the invasion.

Regarding the general comments, people were free to comment on anything in the text box provided based on their thoughts during their time answering the questionnaire. Most of the people’s minds took this opportunity to say their complaints and problems. Thus, they answered negatively while fewer people would think to answer what is going well rather than what is not good. Indeed, all the comments were either problem of the current situation and development or future predictions and opinions, but that does not erase the previous result and positivity of people for the future of Nicosia. Some of the most qualitative comments were: “Renewable energy sources and energy efficiency should be a priority, and the state should fund them” (anonymous participant, 2018) “The words green and sustainable are still unknown in Cyprus!” (anonymous participant, 2018) “Development is carried out in an unstructured way with no respect for the environment and future generations” (anonymous participant, 2018) “There is no plan from the authorities as far as the character of the city is concerned. This is the reason why the houses/buildings in Nicosia differ from each other, and the primary purpose of the developers/construction companies is to make money […]” (anonymous participant, 2018)

Figure 33: Results about the future development of Nicosia

61

4.2 ANALYSIS AND COMPARISONS OF NEIGHBOURHOOD AND HOUSING CASES OF NOWADAYS, DURING AND BEFORE THE INVASION

Further to the findings and results of the survey, some more analysis is made in both the neighbourhood and house context. The small examples and case studies used are divided into three different chronological periods. Starting before 1974 with some details on an old traditional neighbourhood block and a case study of an old house in a suburban area of Nicosia. Furthermore, it analyses the refugee’s estates, houses and blocks to cover the period during the invasion and lastly, it gives details and illustrations on modern blocks with new houses. This part aims to draw conclusions around the thematic divisions used in the survey, but primarily focusing on the open, green spaces which are the main one that needs further exploration and emphasis based on the outcomes and need for further development.

Examples (E) & Case Studies (C)

Period before the invasion

The period during and immediately after the invasion (1974 - 1984)

Nowadays

Neighborhood context

Old neighborhood block (C)

Refugee’s housing estate areas and blocks (C)

Suburban area with modern houses and development (C)

Housing context

Old traditional house (C)

Refugee’s estate and houses (E)

Modern house (E)

Table 1: The introduction and division of the six analysed elements

4.2.1

Before the invasion: an old neighbourhood block

For this part, an old neighbourhood block of 1963 is used as a case study to analyse its qualities and urban contexts. It is located 8,5km away from the city centre in the village of Lakatamia. Although, now this is a very promising and developed suburban area of Nicosia, six decades before it was a village with much fewer residents and houses. The selected block is 15500m2, and it expands to the West of the Arch. Makariou Avenue, which is the main road passing through Lakatamia until today. Additionally, there is a lot of street in between the plots. Most of them are still unused and empty. The number of buildings is limited, creating a lot of open and green surfaces in the area. There is not a proper grid or urban structure, creating cells or a motif. The plots and the streets are scattered in with no geometry.

This is expected because that chronology there was not any planning legislation or area schemes. Private gardening and agriculture during that period was a significant activity.

People used to grow and plant things while expanding the vegetation to their fields and plots.

Even if the plots are still unused, it is recognisable that open and green spaces broadly exist in developed plots, too. It can be said that it was still a rural settlement.

62

Figure 34: Location and border of the selected area

Figure 35: Indication of buildings and covered spaces

63

Figure 36: Scanned cadastral plan of the area

64

4.2.2

Before the invasion: an old traditional house

The old house is located in Lakatamia a few metres away from the block analysed before. It is a pre-invasion traditional house with minimal closed spaces and simple rectangular layout.

The plan of the house is analysed to figure out its ratio between buildable and open, green spaces. All the external areas are separated according to their use. Houses of that period were pertinent of a British colonial cottage with masonry units. They are modest in their size with a timber roof. Their residential building area was about 100 to 150m2 with the rest being open, green spaces around the house, used mainly or gardening. The selected case study is examined in detail using areas and measurements to achieve an average buildable vs open, green space ratio used during that period, as illustrated. “Until the mid-20th century AD, construction methods have varied only slightly. The same building material such as wooden beams, straw, clay mixtures and stones were used in approximate methods� (Ioannou, 2016)

Figure 37: The location of the house in the urban structure of Nicosia

65

Figure 38: Analysis of the house and calculation of the ratio

Figure 39: Diagrammatic representation of traditional houses layout

66

4.2.3

During and immediately after the invasion: refugee’s estates and blocks

The refugee’s estates include both single and multi-storey buildings, mainly terrace houses and apartments. The selected refugee’s estate block, called Anthoupoli, is located next to Lakatamia and 10km away from the city centre. Before the invasion, it was nothing there.

Everything was created after the invasion in 1974 due to the need for rehousing the refugees.

Thus, the area has many refugees, and an analysis of the block is made with old pictures and drawings of the period, along with the separation of buildable and open, green spaces. As seen, the latter ones are minimal within the housing areas. The building heights are not related to the street widths, and there is a variety of building type, even small houses next to large apartment blocks. Although it seems that there is a standard organisation of context inside the block, the layout is unplanned with bad communication towards the environment and green spaces. The refugee’s estate in Anthoupoli includes a variety of buildings and storeys (single, two-storey and multi-storey). In general, the buildings, either houses, apartments or blocks are similar in plan and section. In the centre of the block, there is a bigger open space, where a shopping centre is located. Also, there are some traditional cafes, grocery, butcher shop and a big church. During 1981, primary and secondary schools were created inside this area (Cyprus Highlights, n.d.). Typical apartment blocks have two or three bedrooms with small balconies, a kitchen, a living room, WC and are mirrored so that every floor had two apartments. However, their plan and sections show restricted access to ventilation and sunlight.

Figure 40: The open, public space (central area) and the private housing area (around the borders)

67

Figure 41: Illustration of the buildings, covered spaces in the area (left) and elevations of a typical multi-storey block (right)

Figure 42: Plan and sections of a typical multi-storey block

68

Figure 43: Scanned cadastral plan of the West part from the Anthoupoli’s area

69

4.2.4

Nowadays: suburban area with modern houses

Contemporary buildings and houses in Nicosia have mostly detached two-storey houses or apartments blocks which consists of the final and most recent stage of urbanisation and modern trend in Cyprus. These models are not only appearing in the city centre (mainly apartment blocks), but substantial impact exists in the suburban edges of the areas where are still under development (mainly two-storey houses). A case study of a modern suburban area in Engkomi is analysed, and an example of a two-storey modern house is made and investigated further. Generally, open, green spaces are reduced. Soil is sealed for various purposes, such as parking spaces or pools. Especially the new apartment blocks and multistorey buildings are using their ground floor as parking spaces; thus, the gardening and green space in the plot is significantly reduced from examples of previous years. In the chosen neighbourhood area, the buildings and closed spaces take a lot of space inside the individual plots. This is considerably related to the high building factors and coverage rates of the planning zones for residential areas. Also, it looks like there is only one small open space with some trees in the middle. The rest gaps are just unused plots with no development yet.

The modern house is an example typical to most of the cases nowadays. The plot is 576m2 and the house 200 to 220 m2. The cost is about 325.000 euros, a price which is very close to the average cost of modern houses. People place their public and everyday spaces on their ground floor, while the private ones are on the first floor. They include a garage for a minimum of two cars and living spaces both internally and externally. Verandas and covered external areas are highly preferred. Even more with the high temperature in the capital city of Nicosia, many people place swimming pools in their plot. All these decrease the open and green space ratio. Sealed concrete areas of various uses are replacing big gardens and fields.

Typically, the first floor includes two bedrooms, one master bedroom, storages and bathroom.

All in all, the ratio between buildable vs open, green space is changed to 55%/45%, with open and green space being decreased to approximately 20% from the pre-invasion years. “Contemporary life and the building industry in Cyprus are greatly affected by the proliferation of apartment blocks in the large urban centres� (Lapithis, 2007)

Figure 44: The modern suburban area in Engkomi and an indication of the buildings

70

Figure 45: Diagrammatic layout of spaces in a modern house

71

Figure 46: Axonometric representation of a modern house

72

Figure 47: Ground and first floor area calculation

73

Figure 48: Coverage and ratio calculation

74

4.2.5

Comparisons and conclusions

All in all, there is some clear difference between the years in terms of both housing and urban development in Nicosia. The invasion played a considerable role in this. The research with case studies and a survey analysed the evolution of these fields in specific categories, with the emphasis on the buildable versus open, green spaces. The survey showed a huge gap in this field than any other. The following table shows all the divisions and chronological categories of the analysis made. It is a summary and the main points of what is examined and concluded.

Comparison table & Survey, analysis results Layout and plan

Before 1974 Old neighborhood blocks and houses Simple geometry, small rooms (100150m2). Big spaces externally.

From 1974 to 1984 Refugee’s estates, blocks and houses Small layouts with unplanned urban system and structure. Similar and mirrored plans.

Moderate or poor construction. Typical reinforced concrete frame, structure and columns with masonry walls.

Limited open, green spaces. Small backyards and balconies.

Construction and materiality

Masonry, wood, straw, clay, stones and timber roof.

Buildable vs open, green space

35%/65%, big open, green and gardening space around the house.

Life span

Good. Last for more than sixty years.

Moderate. Last for a limited time. Need maintenance or replacement.

Sustainability

Neither good nor bad for the capabilities of that period.

Not very good. Poor sunlight and ventilation access provision.

Table 2: Summarized table

75

After 1984 until today Modern neighborhood blocks and houses More complex geometries, typically two-storey houses (200-220m2) with modern characteristics, furniture and facilities.

Concrete or steel frame structure with a variety of materials and finishes. New techniques and technologies incorporated.

55%/45, reduced green and open areas while concrete and sealed soil is increased.

More parking spaces, verandas and pools.

Expected good life span with over than 60 years.

Maintenance is limited compared to previous generations.

Very good, new technologies like solar panels and double glazing are used. Better environmental designs.

It is worth mentioning and emphasising the continues ratio of buildable spaces and the unfortunate reduction of the green space inside plots. The building factors and coverage rates of each planning zone should be considered further. Clearly, there are some differences through the years of how much green space is left in the plots. This phenomenon is more visible in apartment blocks and high-rise buildings, rather than individual houses.

Figure 49: Plot development through the years

To conclude, a small block in the district of Pallouriotissa is taken as a case study to see how it changed from the pre-invasion period until today. The area is very close to Nicosia city centre. The aim is to examine its reduction in green spaces and urban transformation. Visual observation and densification of the green areas are critical methods for the valuation.

To begin with, the selected block was divided during the 1930s in 95 plots and used to be grain fields. As the images show, in 1963, there were 47 plots built as flat suburban cottages.

Moreover, in 1993, around 25 of them are being replaced or demolished. It is visible that during the last decades, the green spaces in each plot and the quarter, in general, are reduced.

Planning provisions allow these changes that are clearly affecting the open and green space in neighbourhood blocks. Furthermore, not only legislation is related to this, but also the new trends and way of living. People are getting away from rural life and big gardens with trees, fields and planting. Rural origins are getting less and less while urbanity is getting higher.

There are rarely spots for small parks or green spaces in the blocks. This specific one has no provision for any type of open or green space, expect of course the unused and undeveloped empty plots visible in the images.

76

Figure 50: Neighbourhood block in Pallouriotissa, 1963 (top) and indication of the buildings (bottom)

77

Figure 51: Neighbourhood block in Pallouriotissa, 1993 (top) and 2009 (bottom)

78

Figure 52: Neighbourhood block in Pallouriotissa, 2014 (top) and 2019 (bottom)

79

5 Conclusion

80

5. Conclusion 5.1 What are the problems and gaps that arise?

5.2 What can be done or proposed to improve urban and house development?

81

This research used a quantitative approach with the use of case studies and a questionnaire to study, analyse and gather results on the urban, house and green spaces development of Nicosia after the Turkish invasion in 1974 and until today. This study highlighted the characteristics of these three categories and exposed both positives and negatives. The data of the questionnaire allowed for a double-check with the existing knowledge and comparisons with real, actual numbers and facts. It provided the unique opportunity to hear from first-hand comments and opinions gathered from the city’s residents themselves. These issues affect not only the people that create, plan or design them but also all the inhabitants and the people who live there. Thus, it is beneficial to hear from all the different angles and have the freedom to express our preferences and issues on these subjects. Moreover, this study could provide additional material for evaluation and analysis regarding the architectural and urban world of Nicosia and Cyprus in general. Any future thoughts, plans or changes towards the housing and urban system of the city, could be partly designed with reference to this survey.

5.1 WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS AND GAPS THAT ARISE? The research and analysis of this subject and the data from the questionnaire and the interviews raised some problems and gaps. The findings and discussions of this research further exposed some of these.

The major one, as already stated, is the low density and the sparsely built-up and inhabited city of Nicosia. The areas of Nicosia are designed with very low density, as there were no development plans or planning zone regulations until 1990. This has created many problems, like the need for more infrastructure, more energy consumption and loss of agricultural lands.

As examined, two reasons for this are the strategic spatial choices and the cultural developments, both in the past (profoundly affected by the event of invasion) and contemporary.

Another big problem is the existence of many municipalities with each one wanting to expand further its territory, leading to low densities and expansion of the limits of the local plans. In 1974 Nicosia was the only municipality. Now there are eight, which are too many for the whole area!

Furthermore, some people seem sceptical about the appearance of tall buildings in central areas. Nicosia is small to a medium-sized city and cannot be compared to large cities full of tall buildings and skyscrapers. This started to produce an aesthetic issue. Other smaller issues are the road network and the parking places in the central core. There is no sustainable urban mobility, no good planned accessibility and pedestrian movement or any provisions for bicycles.

Public spaces are another major issue. Cypriots mostly use these as a space to move through, and there is a lack of public squares, green spaces, pedestrian walkways and urban furniture.

Until nowadays, the invasion still has its political problems, which then affects the island’s economy. The economic situation slows down the development of projects. An example of this scenario is the construction of Zaha Hadid’s square, which took many years to complete.

82

Houses need more open, green spaces and must start to be more sustainable and use more energy-efficient technologies and construction. New materials and techniques must be introduced, and the architectural style must start to accept new designs and shapes.

Figure 53: New houses under construction and for sale in Lakatamia, Nicosia

83

5.2 WHAT CAN BE DONE OR PROPOSED TO IMPROVE URBAN AND HOUSE DEVELOPMENT? From the above problems and gaps, but also the complete analysis and conclusions, this study can offer some possible improvements and solutions for the current and future urban development.

Architects and urban planners are the ones that are primarily responsible for reworking and reorienting the urban system towards a new, more efficient and sustainable one.

Firstly, there is a need to protect, improve and revitalise the historical city centre which acts as a reference for the whole city. For example, new shopping malls in suburban areas lead to the decay of the city centre shopping areas and life. City centre needs a restoration of this image and function, as well as, an efficient connection with the other areas of the city. A new development model for the city could be applied with the introduction of more efficient and sustainable forms and types. It is crucial to understand the urban high-density areas and use this as a tool to form and support all the proposals and future reworks or plans. More strict development borders should be planned to avoid extensions, limiting expanded development and promote enclosure of zones. Furthermore, the promotion of public spaces could be made as a bond between the city and its inhabitants.

Interventions are necessary to create more public spaces for communication, social networking and bring life to empty or dead spaces. The incorporation of green is vital. These kinds of spaces can make stronger bonds between the citizens and have a significant role in a public and collective network.

To summarise, Nicosia is a promising city with much potentials. Many signs show that the city started an upward development and moved to another era of new designs, ideas and urban forms. It is an excellent source for investment and could evolve to something useful and attractive in the future.

“cities incorporate opportunities and potential which the players involved in urban planning should explore, study and exploit, in order to improve the qualitative urbanity of a city and in addition the prosperity and the quality of life of its inhabitants� (F. Ioannides et al., 2018)

6 References

84

Figure 54: Modern multi-storey buildings in Nicosia

85

Figure 55: Reconstruction of urban roads in Strovolos, Nicosia

86

6. References 6.1 Bibliography 6.2 Journal Articles 6.3 Websites

87

6.1 BIBLIOGRAPHY Area scheme of Nicosia's city centre. (2017). Nicosia: Ministry of Interior: Department of Town Planning and Housing.

Demi, D. (1997). The walled city of Nicosia. Nicosia: Master Plan.

Esentepe, B. (2013). Space Transformation and Change in Mass Housing In Nicosia, North Cyprus. GazimaÄ&#x;usa: Eastern Mediterranean University.

F. Ioannides, K., Klokkaris, E., Philippou, P., A. Pissourios, I., Achniotis, I., Hadjimichael, G., Serghides, C., Patsavos, N., Artopoulos, G., Sioulas, M. and Christodoulou, C. (2018). The Cypriot city paradigm: Urbanity issues in design and development. Nicosia: Cyprus Architects Association & Domes, pp.49-96, 149-174, 197-222, 243-306, 469-514.

Gaffikin, F. and Morrissey, M. (2011). Planning in Divided Cities. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Guide to the interpretation of town planning regulations. (2011). 2nd ed. Nicosia: Ministry of Interior: Department of Town Planning and Housing.

Hadjri, K., Chatzjichristou, C. and Ozersay, F. (2014). Healing the liminal space: a student project on the Nicosia buffer zone. 6th ed. GAU Journal of Social and Applied Sciences, pp.412-427.

Ioannou, B. (2014). Urban planning and architecture of the city: introduction to basic terms.

1st ed. Thessaloniki: Epikentro.

Ioannou, B. (2016). Town planning, development patterns and the reduction of private gardens in the suburbia of Cyprus. ResearchGate, pp.167-179.

Keshishian, K. (1989). Nicosia: the capital of Cyprus then and now. Nicosia: Mouphlon.

Lefebvre, H. (1968). The right to the city. Paris: Anthropos.

Local Plan of Nicosia. (2011). Nicosia: Ministry of Interior: Department of Town Planning and Housing.

Marankou, A. (1995). Nicosia: a special capital. Nicosia: Leventis Municipal Museum of Nicosia.

Michaelides, D. (2012). Historic Nicosia. Nicosia: Rimal Publications.

Pissourios, I. (2014). Spatial planning in Cyprus: Historical evolution and prospects. In: D. Drakoulis and G. Tsotsos, ed., Historical, social and town planning analysis of the site.

Thessaloniki: Ant. Stamouli, pp.465-480.

Wang, D. and Groat, L. (2002). Architectural research methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

88

6.2 JOURNAL ARTICLES Abu-Orf, H. (2005). Collaborative planning in practice: The Nicosia master plan. Planning Practice and Research, 20(1), pp.41-58.

Abu-Orf, H. (2011). Is planning possible in cities divided by violent conflict? International Development Planning Review, 33(3), pp.321-342.

Bathrellou, E., Lazarou, C., Panagiotakos, D. and Sidossis, L. (2007). Physical activity patterns and sedentary behaviours of children from urban and rural areas of Cyprus. Public Health, 15(2), pp.66–70.

Caramondani, A. (2003). Letter from Cyprus: Coping with the fallout from the 1974 invasion. Planning (1532), p.22.

Constantinides, G. (n.d.). Reasons for and consequences of urban sprawl.

Fereos, S. and Phokaides, P. (2006). Architecture in Cyprus between the 1930s and 1970s. pp.15-19.

Glaeser, E. (2011). Triumph of the City. Journal of Economic Geography, 11(6), pp.10791082.

Gurdalli, H. and Koldas, U. (2015). Architecture of Power and Urban Space in a Divided City: A History of Official Buildings in Nicosia/Lefkoşa. The Design Journal, 18(1), pp.135157.

Ioannou, B. (2016). Post-Colonial Urban Development and Planning in Cyprus: Shifting Visions and Realities of Early Suburbia. Urban Planning, 1(4), pp.79-88.

Irwin, V. (1989). Nicosia's Daring Diplomacy. Politics Collection, 55(9), p.20.

Jalaladdini, S. and Oktay, D. (2012). Urban Public Spaces and Vitality: A Socio-Spatial Analysis in the Streets of Cypriot Towns. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 35, pp.664-674.

King, R. and Ladbury, S. (1982). The Cultural Reconstruction of Political Reality: Greek and Turkish Cyprus Since 1974. Anthropological Quarterly, 55(1), pp.1-16.

Kliot, N. and Mansfeld, Y. (1994). Resettling Displaced People in North and South Cyprus: A Comparison. Journal of Refugee Studies, 7(4), pp.328-359.

Lapithis, P. (2007). State of the art in Cyprus.

Mısırlısoy, D. and Günçe, K. (2016). A critical look at the adaptive reuse of traditional urban houses in the Walled City of Nicosia. Journal of Architectural Conservation, 22(2), pp.149166.

Oktay, D. (2002). Design with the climate in housing environments: an analysis in Northern Cyprus. Building and Environment, 37(10), pp.1003-1012.

Oktay, D. (2002). The quest for urban identity in the changing context of the city. Cities, 19(4), pp.261-271.

89

Oktay, D. (2013). An Analysis and Review of the Divided City of Nicosia, Cyprus, and New Perspectives. Geography, 92(3), pp.231-247.

Pulhan, H. and Numan, I. (2005). The Transitional Space in the Traditional Urban Settlement of Cyprus. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 22(2), pp.161-178.

Pulhan, H. (2006). The Traditional Urban House in Cyprus as Material Expression of Cultural Transformation. Journal of Design History, 19(2), pp.105-119.

Tonkiss, F. (2013). Cities by design: The social life of urban form. Polity Press.

Williams, K. (2016). Achieving sustainable urban form. London: Routledge.

Xasikos, S. (2015). The Law on Town Planning and Planning Value.

Zetter, R. (1982). Housing policy in Cyprus — A review. Habitat International, 6(4), pp.471486.

Zetter, R. (1985). Nicosia. Cities, pp.24-33.

Zetter, R. (1994). The Greek-Cypriot Refugees: Perceptions of Return under Conditions of Protracted Exile. International Migration Review, 28(2), pp.1-15.

Zetter, R. (1999). Reconceptualising the Myth of Return: Continuity and Transition Amongst the Greek-Cypriot Refugees of 1974. Journal of Refugee Studies, 12(1), pp.1-22.

6.3 WEBSITES Cyprus Highlights. (n.d.). Anthoupolis refugee's estate - Cyprus Highlights. [online] Available at: https://www.cyprushighlights.com/2011/12/24/συνοικισμός-ανθούπολης [Accessed 13 Jul. 2019].

Department of Lands and surveys. (n.d.). DLS. [online] Available at: https://portal.dls.moi.gov.cy/el-gr/homepage [Accessed 17 Jul. 2019].

Moa.gov.cy. (n.d.). Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Environment. [online] Available at: http://www.moa.gov.cy/moa/agriculture.nsf/index_en/index_en?OpenDocument [Accessed 18 Jul. 2019].

Mof.gov.cy. (n.d.). Ministry of Finance. [online] Available at: http://www.mof.gov.cy/mof/cystat/statistics.nsf [Accessed 14 Sep. 2018].

Moi.gov.cy. (n.d.). Department of Town Planning and Housing. [online] Available at: http://www.moi.gov.cy/tph [Accessed 19 Aug. 2018].

Moi.gov.cy. (n.d.). [online] Available at: http://www.moi.gov.cy/moi/urbanguard/urbanguard.nsf/0/875bf46b5877e025c2257356005e8 328/$FILE/2-LOCAL-PERSPECTIVES.pdf [Accessed 28 Jul. 2019].

90

Nicosia.org.cy. (n.d.). Municipality of Nicosia. [online] Available at: http://www.nicosia.org.cy [Accessed 22 Aug. 2018].

Northumbria University. (2018). Ethics and Governance. [online] Available at https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/research/ethics-and-governance/ [Accessed 25 Sep. 2018].

Philenews. (n.d.). Cypriot Cities: To exemplify or avoid? [online] Available at: http://www.philenews.com/koinonia/eidiseis/article/622618 [Accessed 16 Oct. 2018].

91

7 Appendices

92

7. Appendices 7.1 Appendix 01: Questionnaire 7.2 Appendix 02: Questionnaire Results 7.3 Appendix 03: Local Plan of Nicosia: Regions and Municipalities 7.4 Appendix 04: Local Plan of Nicosia: General Urban Planning 7.5 Appendix 05: Population and Households Over the Years in Nicosia 7.6 Appendix 06: Building Permits in Nicosia, January 2017, 2018 7.7 Appendix 07: Ethical Approval

93

7.1 APPENDIX 01: QUESTIONNAIRE

94

95

96

97

98

99

7.2 APPENDIX 02: QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

7.3 APPENDIX 03: LOCAL PLAN OF NICOSIA: REGIONS AND MUNICIPALITIES

128

7.4 APPENDIX 04: LOCAL PLAN OF NICOSIA: GENERAL URBAN PLANNING

129

7.5 APPENDIX 05: POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS OVER THE YEARS IN NICOSIA

130

7.6 APPENDIX 06: BUILDING PERMITS IN NICOSIA, JANUARY 2017, 2018

131

7.7 APPENDIX 07: ETHICAL APPROVAL

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144