Issuu on Google+

Archis Interventions/Prishtina/SEE with the support of Hackenbroich Architekten Archis Interventions in Prishtina

LEGALIZATION PERMIT VS. PLANNING PERMIT Workshop October 28-29, 2011

Reconsidering the legalization process in the light of urban planning obstacles in Prishtina

(Within the framework of the Archis Interventions’ Project on the Legalization process in Prishtina)

Supported by:

ERSTE Stiftung

Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung


I. Preface Problem identification and main activities 2005-2011  S. 03 Results of the discussion & workshop S. 03 SECTION A – Discussion Outcome I. Challenges of the legalization process Continuation of illegal building activity Situation with building permits Incomplete building regulation

S. 04 S. 04 S. 04 S. 04

SECTION B – Analysis – Workshop Outcome I. Analysis – Workshop Outcome S. 05 I. Case study Dodona Regulatory Plan “Dodona” S. 06 Analysis of urban parameters S. 07 Status of Buildings in October 2011 S. 08 Status of buildings in October 2011 with regards to legalization S. 09 Existing situation - Minimum standards for legalization S. 10 Existing situation -3D view S. 11 Existing situation - photos S. 12 Analysis of urban parameters – worst case scenario  S. 13 Analysis of urban parameters – worst case scenario 3D view S. 14 Analysis of urban parameters – Possible solution  S. 15 Possible solution 3D view S. 16

II. Case study Tophane Regulatory Plan “Tophane” S. 17 Analysis of urban parameters S. 18 Status of Buildings in October 2011 S. 19 Status of buildings in October 2011 with regards to legalization  S. 20 Minimum standards for legalization S. 21 Existing situation -3D view S. 23 Existing situation - photos  S. 24 Analysis of urban parameters – worst case scenario  S. 25 Analysis of urban parameters – worst case scenario 3D view  S. 26 Analysis of urban parameters – Possible solution  S. 27 Possible solution 3D view  S. 28 SECTION c – Public Statement Workshop Facts Public Statement

S. 29 S. 30


Preface

3

Archis Interventions in Prishtina

LEGALIZATION PERMIT VS. PLANNING PERMIT Reconsidering the legalization process in the light of urban planning obstacles in Prishtina Workshop October 28-29, 2011 Archis Interventions Prishtina (a member of the Archis Network) and AI/See initiated and organized a public debate with architects, representatives of the Municipality of Prishtina - Sector for Legalization, the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning, and students of architecture on the topic of recurrent problems in the legalization process. The event took place in Prishtina in October 28, 2011. The following day, and on the basis of the discussion outcome, Archis Interventions, with the support of Hackenbroich Architekten and students of the Faculty of Architecture at the University of Prishtina, analyzed selected sites in order to illustrate problematic aspects of the legalization process as well as potential solutions, and thereby make recommendations on how to improve the legalization process and speed up the issue of building permits. Problem identification and main activities 2005-2011 Since 1999, unauthorized construction (erecting or extending structures without first obtaining a construction permit) has seriously affected the urban structure of Prishtina and given rise to social, infrastructural, and safety problems. More then 70% of the urban fabric has been transformed due to the lack of law enforcement, and the absence of mandatory planning and building standards. During two workshops (2006/2007) held in Prishtina, Archis Interventions (a group of local and international experts) developed strategies that combine various approaches in order to raise public awareness of and sensitivity to environmental qualities and architectural values. An analysis of the problem in Prishtina – which took account of social and safety aspects, and its impact on the future of the city – was published and presented locally and internationally in combination with a strategic development concept for the regulation and improvement of construction. In autumn 2007, this

study resulted with strategic orientations being incorporated in the governance program of Prishtina’s Mayor. In 2009, the Regulation on Treating Building without Planning Permits was adopted by Municipality of Prishtina. During this year, Archis Interventions together with the Municipality produced a Manual that includes minimal technical standards for legalization, and basic recommendations for successful implementation of legalization process in Prishtina. The Manual was adopted by the Municipality and based on its recommendations, the legalization process begun in autumn 2010. As part of the upcoming legalization process, the future prospects of Prishtina and how they can be supported by planning have analyzed in a workshop held in 2010. The workshop developed a key concept by analyzing Prishtina’s potential as the capital of Kosovo, and identified knowledge and education as the key factors for future development. The study, namely “Prishtina-Dynamic City” focuses on the latter’s spatial implications and formulates the major principles of future urban development. This study complements the “Governance Program for Prishtina 2010-2013” adopted by the Municipality in 2010. Results of the discussion & workshop The city of Prishtina has started the process of legalization of buildings erected without building permit. First phase of the process, which implies the registration of informal buildings, was finished in end 2010. About 7000 applications for legalization were submitted by the citizens of Prishtina and are due to be processed. However, illegal building activity is not fully interrupted. This was identified in the discussion organized by Archis Interventions. On the basis of the discussion outcome, Archis Interventions, with the support of Hackenbroich Architekten and students of the Faculty of Architecture at the University of Prishtina, analyzed selected sites in order to illustrate problematic aspects of the legalization process as well as potential solutions, and thereby make recommendations on how to improve the legalization process and speed up the issue of building permits.


Section A

4

I. Discussion Outcome Challenges of the legalization process The Law on Legalization is still in process since 2005, but on the basis of the Law on self governance, Prishtina approved the Regulation and started the process of legalization. About 7000 applications for legalization were submitted during the period of application. However, there is no statistics about how many illegal buildings exist in Prishtina in total and need to be dealt with in certain time (or context). Hence, there is no comprehension whether 7000 illegal buildings, which applied for legalization comprises a substantial figure, and whether those being legalized, will affect regulatory plans’ criteria. Legalization process is based on the manual defining minimal standards. This process needs to be put in a relation with regulatory plans’ criteria, and no contradiction should be allowed in terms of implementation of the legalization process and the regulatory plans themselves. Continuation of illegal building activity Also, more illegal buildings (about 600 new illegal buildings) have been erected since the registration phase ended, which calls for a new response from the Municipality. If this trend continues, Prishtina will be facing permanent postregulation and legalization process. In order for this situation to be prevented, there is an urgent need for a clear legal framework in terms of interpretation of planning criteria, and good functioning of administration in issuing building permits. Situation with building permits A new, additional problem is that the procedure for obtaining a building permit is still too complicated and extremely slow - in some cases it lasts several years. This has been probably used as an excuse by those that erected illegal buildings after the commencement of the legalization process.

If the facts show that such individual cases, who prior to building illegally have applied for building permit but were either refused or their application was subject to bureaucracy and/or subjective interpretation of planning criteria, a new category of illegal building may be created. Regardless of the judging instance (Municipality, Court, etc), individual case decision should apply for those that built illegally after the commencement of the legalization process. Two solutions may apply: 1) destroy, 2) legalize according to the Building Law. Incomplete building regulation Furthermore, binding and coherent building legislation (codes, standards, regulations) has not yet come into force. This allows manipulation in terms of multiple interpretations of building and planning criteria. Therefore, there is a high need to amend bylaws/regulations in order to clarify interpretation of plans and enforce building regulation The overall process - legalization per se, the enforcement of building regulations and the issue of building permits must therefore be radically reorganized.


Section B - analysis

I. Workshop Outcome Analysis – Workshop Outcome In order to illustrate problematic aspects of the legalization process as well as potential solutions in terms of application of two sets of criteria in the very urban blocks - legalization standards in one hand and the regulatory plan’s criteria on the other hand - two cases were selected and surveyed: Dodona and Tophane The survey was conducted during the workshop in October 2011 and information was taken from the owners/occupants of buildings located in the selected urban blocks in both, Dodona and Tophane neighborhoods. Questions that were posed to them are: - Do you have a building permit? - If yes, is it from before the regulatory plan was adopted, or it is issued after the adoption of the plan? - If no, did you applied for legalization? The cases of Dodona and Tophane face similar problems of illegal buildings to be legalized, new buildings with planning permission but exciding the allowed building volume and new, illegal buildings and empty plots. The purpose of the analysis is to show the use of the legalization manual and enable efficient issuance of planning permission.

5


Section B - analysis

6

I. Case study Dodona Regulatory Plan “Dodona” Dodona neighborhood is part of the old city structure and used to consist of one to three floors single family houses, and narrow streets. After the war (year 1999) illegal building activity was identified in Dodona as in other parts of Prishtina, which occurred in the light of social, economic and political transition in the country. This phenomenon was not entirely interrupted even after the adoption of the regulatory plan “Dodona” in 2004. The plan foresees redevelopment of urban blocks, mostly from single family houses into apartment building blocks. Although the plan foresees higher density, it kept the old street pattern - except for three major streets - which in years resulted with low urban quality in terms of traffic flow and parking, and distances between buildings. This problem became visible when new apartment blocks commenced to be built in accordance with the planning parameters. Adding to this the problem of illegally built buildings, observations show that Dodona neighborhood should be carefully treated in the context of both, legalization and planning implementation process.


Section B - analysis

7

I. Case study Dodona Analysis of urban parameters - Existing situation According to the planning parameters inserted from the regulatory Plan “Dodona�, the analyzed urban block consists of five different zones:

Following outcomes have been inserted for the analyzed urban block in terms of the density and height of buildings to comply with planning parameters: - Construction block: cca 13,577 m2 - Number of stories from 3-7 - Soil occupancy from 06-08 - Total building capaity: cca 45, 932 m2


Section B - analysis

8

I. Case study Dodona Existing situation - Status of Buildings in October 2011 Apart from the height (number of full stories) which in few buildings exceeds the limitation of maximum seven floors and the distances between buildings, the selected urban block has been developed so far within the limits of planning parameters: - Number of stories from 2-10 - Soil occupancy: cca 7,677 m2 - Total building capacity: cca 38, 972 m2


Section B - analysis

9

I. Case study Dodona Existing situation - Status of buildings in October 2011 with regards to legalization Despite of the adoption of the plan in 2004, illegal building activity continued in Dodona. In order to stop this phenomenon, the Municipality of Prishtina started the process of legalization late 2010. Based on our survey, 17 buildings remain the same since before the adoption of the plan and are considered legal; 10 buildings have been developed with planning permit, and 10 buildings developed without planning permit, from which, 5 have applied for legalization, and for the rest 5 buildings no information is available. Three potential problems have been identified with regards to minimum standards for legalization, listed under prototype 2, minimal distance, set for in the Manual for Legalization.


1. Case study Dodona

1. Case study Dodona A

Section B - analysis

I. Case study Dodona

for legalization

Existing situation - Minimum standards for it is under construction 10 Buidling is illegal and no legalization

Secton B - ANALYSIS

1.forCase legalizationstudy Dodona

35

35

32 Buidling is illegal and has applied

B?

information whether it applied for Current situation is illegal andbased no islegalization available, and on Minimum legalization standards10forBuidling 31

C 28

?

28 information whether it applied for legalization is available

 32

?

32 Buidling is illegal and has applied

B

for legalization

10 10 Buidling is illegal and no

?

information whetherillegal it applied for observations is considered

Analysis building permit legalization is available  32 of buildings without ? insert only few problems with regards to distance 8 Buidling has a building permit; 28 Buidling is under construction, no between buildings which have opening (windows information whether it applied for and balconies). In all three cases given below, legalization is available, and based on these problems should be resolved based on the observations is considered illegal Manual for Legalization.

C

28

dista

Prob

it is under construction

as g

standards forProt leg legalization is available, and basedAnalysis on of buildings without building per

C Analysis of buildings without building 32 Buidling is illegal permit and has applied observations illegal for legalization insert only few problems with regardsistoconsidered distance between buildings8which have opening (windows Buidling has a building permit; 10 Buidling is illegal and no and balconies). In all three cases given below, information whether it applied for Current situation 10 the 32 31 these problems should be resolved based 8 ?on legalization is available  Minimum standards for legalization 28 Manual for Legalization.

28 Buidling is under construction, no for legalization

31 Buidling has a building permit;

it is under construction

legalization is available

10

35

32 Buidling is illegal and has applied

31  32 1. Case study Dodona

B

A

10 Buidling is illegal and no permit; 31 Buidling has a building10 information whether it applied for it is under construction

thes

Problem A: Win 28 Current situation Buidling is under construction, no Current situation windows in build stan Buidling has a building permit; 31 information Minimum standards for legalizationwhether it applied for Minimum standards for legalization

Secton B - ANALYSIS

A

information whether it applied for legalization is available applied

1. Case study legalization is Dodona available ? ?

 32

31 Buidling has a building permit;

it is under construction B

Ana

Analysis of build Man 31  32 and has 32 Buidling is illegal insert only few p Analysis of buildings without building permit inserts only few Prob 28 Buidling is under construction, no forproblems legalization with regards to distance information between buildings which between building wind whether it applied for have opening (windows and balconies). In allisthree cases stan B legalization available, and based on and balconies). as g given below, these problems should be resolved based on the observations is considered illegal Buidling is illegal and no Secton 10 B - ANALYSIS these problems Prop Manual for Legalization. 8 Buidling has a building permit; information whether it applied for case Manual for Lega

Secton B - ANALYSIS

35

Cur Mini

inse Current situatio betw Minimum standa and

32 Buidling is illegal and has applied

31 Buidling has a building permit; 35

A

it is under construction

35

A

1. Case study Dodona 31

10

31 Buidling has a building permit;

28 Buidling is under construction, no Analysis of buildings without building permit information whether it applied for insert only few problems with regards to distance Problem A: legalization is available, and based on between buildings which have opening (windows observations considered illegal windows in building 32 do not meetisminimal and balconies). In all three cases given below, standards for legalization and should beontreated Buidling hasbased a building permit; these problems should8 be resolved the as given in the Manual for Legalization, under Manual for Legalization.

10

Propotype ? 28 2; Minimal distance-fire protection; Problem A: case [c] when building is between 3-5.5m in windows in building 32 do not meet minimal distance fromforneighboring building; standards legalization and should be treated as given in the Manual for Legalization, under

insert only few problems with regards toM as given in the case between buildings which have opening (w Mib Prob and balconies). InPropotype all three cases2; given Both these problems should be resolved base case [c] when bu that Manual for Legalization. 8 distance fromlega ne 10 Problem A: shou windows in building 32 do not meet cond Problem B: minim standards for legalization and should be Windows in build as given in the Manual for Legalization, u Propotype 2; Minimal distance-fire standards forprotec leg case [c] when building is between 3-5.5m as given in the M distance from neighboring building;

Prototype 2; Min

Problem B: case [a]notwhen b Windows in building 28 do meet mini standards for legalization and should be as given in the Manual for Legalization, u Problem C: Prototype 2; Minimal distance-fire protec Bothisbuilding ha case [a] when building in the plot line;

Problem B: Propotype 2; Minimal distance-fire protection; 8 Windows building 28isdo not meet minimal case [c]inwhen building between 3-5.5m in Problem A: 28 Buidling Problem B: Problem C: Problem A: is under construction, no standards for legalization and should be treated distance from neighboring building; 10 windows in building 32 do not meet minimal 28 that do not meet information whether C: do not Windows in building 28 do not meet minimal standards Both building have windows beside eachProblem other that windows in building 32it applied do notfor meet?minimal?standards 8 10 as given in the Manual for Legalization, under 8 standards for legalization and should be treated legalization is available, and based on ? Problem B: Both building have windows beside In each for legalization and should be treated asPrototype given in the2; Minimal distance-fire meet the minimum standard for legalization. In order to legalfor legalization and should be treated as given in the legalization. o 10 protection; as given in the Manual for Legalization, under observations is considered illegal Windows in building 28 do not meet minimal that do not meet the minimum standard f Manual for Legalization, under Prototype 2; Minimal ize, building 10 should comply with the Manual under same Manual for Legalization, under Propotype 2;Propotype Minimal 2; Minimal 8 10 8 when distance-fire protection; should comply ? forbuilding casestandards [a] is and in the plotbe line; legalization should treated legalization. In order to legalize, buildingw 8 Buidling has a building permit; 10

C Buidling has a building permit;

distance-fire protection; is in the conditions like under building 32 (problem A) distance-fire protection; case [c] when building caseis[c] when building is between 3-5.5m in case [a] when building as given in the Manual for Legalization, should comply with the Manual under conditions like sa b plot line;building; between 3-5.5mC in distance from neighboring building; distance from neighboring Problem C: Prototype 2; Minimal distance-fire protection; 8

? 10

Problem B: Windows in building 8 28 do not meet minimal standards for legalization and 10 should be treated as given in the Manual for Legalization, under 8 8 ? 102; Minimal distance-fire Prototype protection; 10 case [a] when building is in the plot line;

[a] when building is in thebeside plot line; Bothcase building have windows each other thatProblem do not meet the minimum standard for C: legalization. In order to legalize, 10 Both building have windows besidebuilding each other that comply do not meet thethe minimum standard should with Manual underforsame legalization. order to 32 legalize, building conditions likeInbuilding (problem A)10 should comply with the Manual under same

conditions like building 32 (problem A)


Section B - analysis

11

I. Case study Dodona Existing situation - October 2011

Building permit before the adoption of plan Building permit as per regulatory plan Buildings withou building permit Applied for legalization 2010 Uner construction No information if applied fpr legalization (observation indicates it is an illegal building)


Section B - analysis

12

I. Case study Dodona Existing situation - October 2011


Section B - analysis

13

I. Case study Dodona Analysis of urban parameters – worst case scenario If old buildings (with building permit before the adoption of the plan) maximize illegally (without building permit), with for example six floor each, and no consideration to the distance between buildings, the situation of the urban block in terms of planning parameters will escalate, in terms of both, maximum building surface and occupation ratio.


Section B - analysis

14

I. Case study Dodona Analysis of urban parameters – worst case scenario

Case if buildings redevelop ilegaly Buildings withou building permit Applied for legalization 2010


Section B - analysis

15

I. Case study Dodona Analysis of urban parameters – Possible solution If old buildings redevelop according to the planning parameters, the general condition of the urban block in terms of urban parameters (SOI and FSI) is considered correct, only if: - the plots that are used as parking space remain open, as parking or green park - buildings 33, 34 are demolished to allow the street widening, and be compensated as set forth by regulations’ - buildings that applied for legalization obey to the minimum standards for legalization - buildings that did not apply for legalization and/or are under construction obey to the building law and the regulatory plan’s criteria - old buildings that wish to redevelop should consider joint development solution, for example: a) as a joint development of buildings 1, 2, 3 ; b) buildings 11, 12, 13, 14; c) buildings 16, 17; d) buildings 24, 25, 26, 27; e) buildings 9, 29, 30.


Section B - analysis

16

I. Case study Dodona Analysis of urban parameters – Possible solution

Existing buildings Possible new buildings


Section B - analysis

17

II. Case study Tophane Regulatory Plan “Tophane” Tophane neighborhood is also part of the old city structure with single family houses and narrow streets, which after the war (year 1999) commenced to either redevelop into apartment blocks or maximize in volume, without previously seeking building permit. This practice continued also after the adoption of the regulatory plan “Tophane” in 2004. The plan foresees complete redevelopment of existing structure into closed urban blocks of high density. However, individual plots, which are generally very small could not reach agreement for joint development due to the lack of regulation, and therefore the plan was revised in 2008. The revised plan encourages the original idea of closed urban blocks, but the plots which were previously foreseen as green spaces can now develop. According to the revised plan, plots can be developed with different planning parameters, depending on the size of the plot, from 3 floors for plots up to 500 m2, to unlimited for plots above 1000 m2 (see the table above). Although this solution is rather more acceptable given the circumstances with regulations, the urban quality were for example two neighboring buildings may vary extremely in height and volume, is far from being satisfying. Adding to this the problem of illegally built buildings, observations show that Tophane, similar to the Dodona neighborhood, should be carefully treated in the context of both, legalization and planning implementation process.


Section B - analysis

18

II. Case study Tophane Analysis of urban parameters - Existing situation Urban Block “T12” has 7152 m2. This block is an example where no new building is built with planning permit and in accordance with the parameters of the regulatory plan “Tophane”. This situation may change in the very near future. According to the planning parameters inserted from the regulatory Plan “Dodona”, “T12” may have a total building capacity from min. 7,152 m2 to max. 28,608 m2. Number of stories may be from 3 to 10 floors. Number of floors also depends on the distance between the building and the plot line (1/3 of height).


Section B - analysis

19

II. Case study Tophane Existing situation - Status of buildings in October 2011 Following outcomes have been inserted for T12 in terms of the density and height of buildings as it stands now: - Number of stories from 1-4 - Soil occupancy approx. 07 - Total building capacity: cca 14, 295 m2 Apart from the soil occupancy, which is larger (cca 07) than determined by the regulatory plan (max.05), T12 in terms of planning parameters is currently developed within the limitations set forth in the plan. Observations show that this problem is caused by illegal buildings which are built next to the old building of the same parcel, and/or illegal buildings with up to 100% soil occupancy. Significant case is the plot of the traditional house number 39 which should be preserved and the plot should be released from additional buildings in the plot. Also, there are houses that date back from before 1999 which have maximum soil occupancy, and degraded urban conditions (e.g.. houses number 22 and 23). For the sake of this study which focuses on analysis of urban development and illegal building activity after the war, old buildings from before 1999 are considered legal.


Section B - analysis

20

II. Case study Tophane Existing situation - Status of buildings in October 2011 with regards to legalization Based on our survey, 27 buildings remain the same since before the adoption of the plan and are considered legal, and 15 buildings developed without planning permit, from which, 6 have applied for legalization, and for the rest 9 buildings no information is available. Five potential problems have been identified with regards to minimum standards for legalization, listed under prototype 2, minimal distance, set for in the Manual for Legalization: Minimum standards for legalization Analysis of buildings without building permit insert following problems: Problem A: Illegal building 11 has windows in three sides, from which, two are in distance between 0.6-1.2 m from the plot line. Although neighboring buildings 9, 10 have no windows vizavi windows of building 11, buildings 9, 10 cannot redevelop if building 11 fullfils standards for legalization. Also, building 37, which is in the same plot with building 11 cannot redevelop, and may be demolished in order to secure better urban quality for building 11.


Secton B - ANALYSIS

Secton -- ANALYSIS Secton B BA ANALYSIS

Secton B - ANALYSIS

B10

1. Case study Dodona 1. Case study Dodona 1. Case study Dodona 1. Case study Dodona Current situation 1. Case study Dodona B Current situation Minimum standards for legalization

11

2

?

12

37

B

A AA

9 9 9 11 ?

9

? 12 20 11 ? 11 11 ?? 1212 12

Secton B - ANALYSIS

20

?

22

Secton B - ANALYSIS

10

2337

10 37

1. Case study Dodona B B

12

11 11 ? ? 11 20

10 10 ? Secton B - ANALYSIS 20 10 10 37 23 37

11

22

?

24  21

12

?

12

23

29

?

8

25

24 

12 12

26 

26 

21 20

12

?

21 22

? 24

Current Minimum

Problem serious s (current urban pa is allowe

C Current Currentsituation situation  Minimum standards for legalization Current situation B B B Minimum standards Current situation ? Minimum standardsfor forlegalizatio legalizati for legalization B? Problem B: Plots of buildingsMinimum from 20 tostandards 26 face 21 Minimum standards for legalization 23

26

31

Size of plots

25 Problem?B: Plots soil of buildings from 20distance to 26 face (build.20-26 serious occupancy and problems ? 30 (cca. m2) ? 29 20 24  20 ?serious occupancy and distance problems 20 soil (current SOI is21 78%). The table below shows 27 B: Problem B: Plots of buildings ? Problem Plots of buildings from 20 to 26 face 21 20 Problem B: Plots of buildingsfrom fro 24  12 21 ? ? 37 (current Problem B: Plots of buildings from 20 to 26 face is 78%). The table below shows 21 SOI ? urban parameters for the current situation, what serious soil occupancy and distance problems 1052 serious soil occupancy and distan 22? 28 serious soil occupancy and dista 22for24the soil occupancy and distance problems parameters current situation, what 22 by   24  is allowed plan, andserious possible redevelopment 26 urban 22 SOI is 78%). The table below shows 12 24 (current 24  (current SOI is 78%). The table b 26 Size of plots SOI is 78%). The table below shows (current SOI is 78%). The table is allowed by plan, and possible (current redevelopment 26  urban parameters for the current 12 situation, what (build.27-29b  Size of plots urban parameters for Current situation parameters for the current situation, what (cca. m2) 25 Problem urban parameters forthe thecurrent current  urban is allowed and possible redevelopment 23 (build.20-26) scenario 26 Number of SOI FSI by plan, Minimum standards for legalization C Size of plots (cca. m2) s full storeys (m2) (m2)  is allowed by plan, and possible redevelopment 23  26 of 25 is allowed by plan, and possible r 23 scenario Number problems (build.20-26) SOI FSI 26

?22

10

26 

current

is allowed by plan, and possible

Current situation (cca. m2) s full storeys (m2) (m2) 11 20 21 26 30 Buidlings are630illeg accordin situation 1-4 0.78 Size 822of plots 2.14 2248 Problem B: Plots of buildings from 20 to 26 face current 3125 Minimum standards for legalization (build.20-26) scenario Number of SOI FSI Size of plots 1052 by plan Unlimited 0.50 526 4.00 4208 applied the for legaliz serious soil occupancy and distance problems25 situation Size ofSOI plots 1-4 proposed 0.78 822(build.20-26) 2.14 2248 same (cca. m2) s full storeys (m2) scenario Number of Size of plots (m2)FSI 25 (current SOI is 78%). The table below shows 1052 29 by plan Unlimited 0.50 526 4.00 4208 current (build.20-26) scenario Number of SOI solution 257-9 (cca. m2) 410 s 3 3300 full storeys (m2) (m2) ? all Problem B: Plots offorbuildings fromsituation, 20 to 26what face scenario Number of total, SOI 30 29 proposed urban parameters the current situation 1-4(build.20-26) 2.14full current (cca. m2) 0.78 822 s 24 storeys (m2)illeg Size of plots 262248 Buidlings are 27 problems solution 7-9 serious soilbyoccupancy distance 410 3 33001052 (cca. s2248 storeys planning Size(m2) of plots Unlimited 526 4.00 full 4208 is allowed plan, and and possible redevelopment situation 1-4plan 0.78 m2) 8220.50 2.14 (build.27-29) scenario Number of SOI FSIby current of plots proposed (build.20-26 (current SOI is 78%). The table belowSize shows current 1052 by plan(m2) Unlimited 0.50 526 4.00 4208 (cca. m2) C: Buildings s full storeys (m2) Problem 27, 28, 29 have distance situation 1-4 0.78 822 (build.27-29) scenario Number of SOI FSI for plots solution (cca. m2) 7-9 410 31-43300 30 proposed Size of plots urban parameters for the current situation, what ? 28 current situation 0.78 82 31 (build.20-26) scenario Number of SOI FSI 1052 by plan Unlimited 0.50 526 (cca. m2) s full storeys (m2) (m2) Size of plots solution Problem C: Buildings 27,is28, 29 have 3300 Unlimited situation 1-4 0.57distance 360 1.30 820 problems, and recommended to redevelop is (cca. allowed bys plan, possible 12 7-9 m2) fulland storeys (m2) redevelopment (m2) 1052410 by3plan show 0.50 urb 52

1. Case 37 study Dodona 37 22

?

Minimum standards for legalization

37

23

? ?21 ?

37

11

21

1. Case study Dodona 23 37 10 37 10

?

1

A

Section B - analysis Secton B - ANALYSIS 11 ? 12 II. Case study 9 Tophane Secton B - ANALYSIS

10

11

26

current

(build.27-29) scenario Size of plots

Number of

proposed SOI

FSI

by plan P+6 0.40 252 2.50 1575 proposed (m2) 1052 situation 0.57 360 1.30 820 problems,according and630is 1-4 recommended to(build.27-29) redevelop (cca. m2) s areof full (m2) to the plan. Buildings 12, 30,C:31 in storeys solution proposed scenario Number 7-9distance allowed 410b SOI 28, FSIhave 12 Problem Buildings 27, 29 31 25 solution by plan P+6 0.40 252 2.50 1575  7-9 41 current C solution (cca. m2) s full storeys (m2) (m2) 6 0.40 250 2.5 1500 Size of 29 plots Problem C: Buildings 27, 28, have distance Current situation according to the plan. Buildings 12, 30, 31 are in proposed the same plot, where building 30 is illegal; in situation 0.57 360 1.30 820 problems, and is 1-4 recommended to redevelop Size of plots current B C Size of plots (build.27-29) scenario Number of SOI solution 29 6 0.40 250 2.5 1500 630 plan P+6 0.40 252 820 2.50 Number 1575 1-4 822 2.14FSI2248 situation ? 0.57 360 1.30 and isby1-4 recommended to redevelop Minimum fortotal, legalization Number of 0.78 SOIstandards (build.27-29) scenario of in (build.27-29 the same plot, where building 30problems, is illegal; in SOI all three buildings together exceed allowed Unlimited 0.50 4.00 4208 30 according to the Problem plan. Buildings 30, 31 are (cca. s12, storeys (m2) full storeys (m2) (m2) Problem C: Buildings 27, 28, 29526have distance 27, 28, 29 31 29 630 by plan proposed P+6 0.40 m2) 252 C: 2.50Buildings 1575 full (cca. m2)h (cca. m2) s full storeys (m2) 11 20 21 26 30 Problem C: Buildings 27, 28, 29 have distance problems, and Problem B: Plots of buildings from 20 to 26 face serious soil Problem C: Buildings 27, 28, 29 Buidlings are illegal and no information whether they solution according to the plan. Buildings 12, 30, 31 are in 6 0.40 250 2.5 1500 current Size of plots parameters proposed total, buildings together 7-9 410 3 3300 planning in exceed termsthe ofallowed soil occupancy 31 0.57 360 1.30 820 all three problems, and is 1-4 recommended to redevelop same plot, where building 30 is illegal; in current ? P+6 0.40 distance 252 2.50 1575 (build.20-26) of SOI for FSIto solution 6 redevelop 0.40 250 to 2.5 1-4 0.57 360 problems, and isisin recommended to recommended according the 1500 plan. Buildings problems (current SOIscenario is 78%).Number The the legalization is available 29 NumberBuildings of and 20 SOI 12, 30, FSI according tooccupancy the plan. 31 in parameters Size ofare plots same plot, where building 30 is situation illegal; planning in of soilisapplied occupancy 1-4 0.57630252 36t problems, and recommended for plots between 300-500m. The table below (cca. m2) s terms storeys (m2) storeys 30Problem B: Plots of buildings from 20 to full 26 face (m2) (m2) total, all(m2) three buildings together exceed allowed0.40 21 30 ? Problem C: Buildings 27, 28, 29 have distance 6full 0.40 250 2.5 1500 ? 630 bysituation plan P+6 29 (build.20-26) scenario Number of SOI FSI 12, 30, 31 are in the same plot, where building 30 is illegal; table below shows urban parameters for the current situation, 29 31 the same plot, where building 30 is illegal; in current ? ? 12 630 exceed by plan P+6 0.40 25 according to the plan. Buildings 11 all three buildings together allowed 27 29 29 1-4 0.57 360 1.30 820 problems, andbuildings isserious recommended redevelop for(cca. plots between 300-500m. Thetotal, table below m2) full storeys (m2) (m2) 30 31 30 show urban parameters the current situation, Size plots total,?all three together allowed soil252toexceed occupancy andsredevelopmen distance problems planning parameters inapplied termsproposed of soil occupancy in total, allofthree buildings together exceed allowed planning what is allowed plan, and possible situation according to the plan. Buildings 1-4 24 26 for 0.78 822 2.14illegal 2248 and 31 proposed P+6 0.40 by 2.50 1575 Buidlings are have for legalization 22 31 current 27 solution according to the plan.inBuildings 12, 30, 31 are in (build.20-26) scenario Number of 6 0.40 250 SOI FSI  Size of plots 24 1052 by plan Unlimited 0.50 526 4.00 4208 planning parameters terms of soil occupancy planning parameters inthe terms of soil occupancy 12 show parameters forand thepossible current situation, parameters in terms of soil occupancy for(m2) plots between 300same plot, where building solution allowed plan, redevelopment. 6 below 0.40 30 25 6 Number of 0.40 2.5FSI 1500 urban situation 0.78 822 2.14 2248 12 SOI 250 is (current SOI 78%). The table below for plots 300-500m. The (cca. m2) between s full storeys (m2) 30 1-4 the samebetween plot, where building 30 istable illegal; in proposedshows (build.20-26) scenario Number of SOI FSI table ?by 28 the same plot, where building 30 for plots 300-500m. The full storeys (m2) (m2)below 31 30 ? 29 1052 by29 plan Unlimited 0.50 526 4.00 4208 31 500m. The table below show urban parameters for the current current for plots between 300-500m. The table below solution (cca. m2) 410 s 3 3300 full storeys (m2) 7-9 what allowed by and31 possible redevelopment. ? total, all three buildings together exceed allowed 12 ?plan, 29 urban parameters for30 the current situation, 12822 12 28 show urban parameters for0.78 the(m2) current show urban parameters for the current total, all three buildings together proposed 1-4 0.78 2.14 situation, 2248 30 ? situation 822 2.14 situation, 2248 29 current Size of plots 26 situation, allowed by plan, 1-4 and possible redevelopment. total, all three buildings togethere planning parameters in terms soil4.00occupancy Unlimited 0.50 of 526 4208 solution 30 7-9 410 3 3300 12 29 show urban parameters for the current allowed by plan, and possible redevelopment. 1052 12 by plan Unlimited 0.50 526situation, 4.00 4208 Number of SOI FSI 27 situation 1-4 0.78 822 2.14 2248 (build.27-29) scenario Number of SOI FSI  is allowed by plan, and possible redevelopment 23 26 allowed by plan, and possible redevelopment. Size of plots parameters in terms of s 26 27 12 for plots between7-9 300-500m. The below full storeys (m2) (m2) of plots 30 ? proposed 410 table 3Size 3300 1052 plan(m2) Unlimited planning 0.50 526 parameters 4.00 4208 Size of redevelopment. plots (cca. m2) s full storeys (m2) byplan, 21 11 20  26 30 Buidlings are31illegal planning and possible nourban information whether they (build.20-26) scenario 12 and SOIof (build.27-29) scenario Number of SOI allowed FSI by 12 show parameters for0.78 the 822 current 410 3Number 3300 inofterms proposed solution 7-9 1-4 2.14 situation, 2248

C C

current situation Size1052 of plots by plan (build.20-26) proposed scenario (cca. m2) solution s Size of plots current situation (build.27-29) scenario 1052 (cca. m2) by plan s proposed current solution situation Size 630 of plots by plan (build.27-29) proposed scenario (cca. m2) solution s current situation 630 by plan Size of plots proposed (build.20-26) solution scenario (cca. m2) s current situation Size1052 of plots by plan (build.20-26) proposed scenario (cca. m2) solution s Size of plots current situation (build.27-29) scenario 1052 (cca. m2) by plan s proposed current solution situation Size 630 of plots by plan (build.27-29) proposed scenario (cca. m2) solution s current situation 630 by plan proposed solution

1-4 Unlimited Number of full storeys 7-9

0.78 822 0.50 526 SOI (m2)410

2.14 2248 4.00 4208 FSI 630 (m2) 3 3300

for plots between 300-500m. The for plots between 300-500m. The show urban parameters for the cu show urban parameters for the c allowed by plan, and possible red allowed by plan, and possible red

current Number of SOI FSI (build.20-26) scenario Number of SOI 0.50 526 4.00 4208 m2) (cca. s full storeys 30 (m2) (m2) (cca. m2) (m2) of plots full storeys 26 30 are (m2) (m2) solution allowed by plan, Unlimited and possible redevelopment. Size of plots 410 3 s 3300 full storeys Buidlings are illegal and no whether they situation 1-4 0.57 Size 360 1.30 7-9 820 applied for legalization is available Buidlings illegal and 28 no information whether theyinformation 31 (cca. m2) s full storeys (m2) 25 current SOI 30 (build.27-29) scenario Number of SOI FSI 28 current Size of plots 7-9 410 3 3300 (build.20-26) scenario Number of 630 by planFSI P+6 0.40 31 252 2.50 1575 1-4 0.57 360 1.30 820 applied for legalization is available situation 1-4 proposed 360(build.27-29) 1.30 820 applied for legalization is11available 12 current (cca. m2) s full storeys (m2) (m2) P+6(cca. m2) 0.40 252 s 2.50 1575 scenario Number of full storeys SOI FSI (m2) (m2) 0.57they 20 21 26 30 Buidlings situation 1-4 0.78 822 no information whether Number of are SOI illegal FSI and 12 26 24 26 630 by plan P+6 0.40 252 2.50 1575 current situation 1-4 0.78 526 82 solution current (cca. m2) s full storeys (m2) (m2) full storeys 6 0.40 250 2.5 1500 (m2) (m2) Buidlings are illegal and have applied for legalization 11 20 21 24 26 26 11 20 21 26 30 Buidlings26 6 0.40 250 2.5 1500 30 1052 have applied for legalization are illegal and no information whether they by plan Unlimited 0.50 Buidlings are illegal and no information whether they proposed situation 1-4 820 for0.57 legalization situation 1-4 is available current 0.78 822 2.14 2248 12 applied 1052 0.57 by 360 plan 1.30Unlimited 0.50 52 proposed 1-4 360 1.30 820 applied is available solution 6 0.40 250 2.5 1500 24 26for legalization Buidlings are illegal and have applied for legalization 630 P+6 0.57 3600.401.30252 820 2.50 1575 12 1052 0.40 by situation by Unlimited 0.50 526 4.00 4208 1-4plan applied forP+6legalization is 252plan 2.50available 1575 proposed solution 410 proposed 630 by plan proposed P+6 0.40 252 2.50 1575 7-9 20 solution 6 0.40 250 2.5 1500 24 26 Buidlings are illegal and have applied for legalization 41 0.40 250 2.57-91500 24 26 Buidlings are solution proposed solution 6Size of plots illegal and for legalization 7-9 have applied 410 3 3300 20 Size of plots solution 6 Size illegal of plots and have applied for legalization 0.40 250 scenario 2.5 1500 Number of 24 26 Buidlings are (build.27-29) SOI 20 (build.27-29) scenario Number of (build.27-29) scenario Number of SOI SOI FSI (cca. m2) s full storeys (m2) 20 11 20 21 26 30 (cca. m2) s full storeys (cca. m2) current s full storeys (m2) Problem C: Buildings 27, 28,(m2) 29 have(m2) distance 11 20 21 26 30 current 20 current 1-4 situation 0.57 360 0.57 360 1.30 820 problems, situation and is 1-4 recommended to redevelop 20

2026 21 11 11 20 2112 30

 

??

Buidlings are illegal and no information whether they Buidlings are illegal and no information whether they applied for legalization is available


Secton B - ANALYSIS

1. Case study Dodona 1. Case study Dodona II. Case study Tophane

35

side, facing a narro in case window in building 22 should be removed should comply with legalization, listed distance, set for in

Secton B - considered ANALYSIS

Section B - analysis Secton B - ANALYSIS

1. Case study Dodona

 34  34

D

 33 Secton B - ANALYSIS  33

34 33

34

  34

35  33 1. Case studyDodona Secton B - ANALYSIS

1. Case study Dodona

4

 33

34 

E

33

1. Case study

36

Current situation Minimum standards for legalization Current situation MinimumDstandards for legalization E Problem D: Minimum standards for legalization Problem E: Current situation Plots of buildings from 33 to 36 have aboutfor 90% Building 39 is a tra Problem D: Minimum standards legalization 1   recommended to b 34 43 ? Problem of plot coverage, and their main facade is by the D: about 90%  34  Plots of buildings from 33 to 36 have 35 4 40 is the building 40 (  Plots of buildings from 33 to 36 have about 90% 33 33 40 main Building hasmain windows in is itsby rare plotstreet. coverage, and33 their facade the 34 of building 41 (illegal)  35 38 41 of plot coverage, and their main facade is by the 39 ?  side, narrow 33 street, and this should be  33 33 main facing street. aBuilding has windows in its rare (approx 80%. the main street. Building 33 has windows in its? rare 41 35 ?   35in only building 41, bu considered case of legalization. Also, the1street,  side, facing a narrow street, and this be  and this should be facing narrow 4 ashould Secton B -side, ANALYSIS 43 and 38, both ille 40 considered in case of legalization. Also, the window in building 35 is in the plot line and 43 ? considered in case of legalization. Also, the should be preserve window in building 35 is in the plot line and Current situation should be legalized, allline buildings 36 window in removed. building3935If is in should the plot andIf legalized, all buildings treated in conformi Minimum standards for legalization be removed. 36 should comply with minimum for protection of archit should 38 be removed. If legalized, all buildings 42 standards Problem D: 36 should comply with minimum standards for ? Current situationfrom 33 to 36 have about 90% Plots of buildings legalization, listed under prototype 2,listed minimal legalization, under prototype 2, minimal Current situationadministration dec E should comply with minimum standards for Minimum standards Dlegalization of plot coverage, andfor their main facade is by the listed building, buil distance, set in the forhave Legalization. distance, setlisted for in under the Manual for1 Legalization. 33 34 Buidlings are Manual illegal and applied for Minimum legalizationstandards for legalization Problem D: prototype 2, for minimal main street. Building 33 has windows legalization, in its rare

1. Case study Dodona

comply with minim

Problem1 D: Plots facing of buildings fromstreet, 33 to and 36 have about 90% Problem side, a narrow this should be 38 41 distance, set for in the Manual for43E: Legalization. Buidlings are illegal and no information  Problem E: under prototy 43 ? whether they of plot coverage, and their main facade is by the Plots of buildings listed from 33 to 36 have Building 39 is a traditional house and is considered in case of legalization. Also, the  34 applied for legalization is available  33 33 4 L in the Manual 34 1 Building 33 has windows 35Building main street. inand its rare 39 is a traditional house and is of plot coverage, and their mainfor faca window in building 35 is in the plot line  40 Problem E: recommended to be preserved. In the same plot 43 ? 35    1 33 33 side, facing a narrowIfstreet, and all thisbuildings should be should be removed. legalized, main street. Building 33 has window 36 40 ato 4 is the building 40 (fromplot before 1999), and recommended be preserved. Inand theis same 43 ? Building 39 is traditional house 35 40 considered in case of legalization. Also, the  should comply with minimum standards for  41 side, facing a narrow street, and this 1 building 41 (illegal). Appart from soil occupancy 41 40listed under 4 the building before 1999), and 39 40 ? window in building 35 is in the plot line and ? preserved. 1 recommended to38(from be In the same plot legalization, prototype 2, is minimal 43 ?  4 in case of legalization. A (approx 80%. the problem with this plot is not considered ? should beset removed. If legalized, allLegalization. buildings 41 36 distance, for in the Manual for building 41 (illegal). Appart from soil occupancy 40 4 is the building 40 (from before 1999), and ? should 38 41 comply window in building 35 is in the plot li 43 ? only building 41, but also neighboring buildings 39 with minimum ?1 standards for Problem E: 4 (approx 80%. the problem with this plot is not ? should be removed. If legalized, all b and 38, illegal.36In case building 40 legalization, listed under 2, building minimal 41 (illegal). Appart43 from soilboth occupancy 39 39 41 38 ?prototype 41 Building 39 house and 43 is ? 39is a traditional should comply with minimum standa ? 1 distance, set for in the Manual for Legalization. should be preserved, illegal buildings should be 1 also neighboring buildings (approx thebut problem with this plot is not ? recommended to be preserved. In theonly same building plot 80%.41, 43 ? 4 42 39 41 38 legalization, listed under prototype 2 treated in conformity with Problem E: 40 (from before 1999), and 40 4 ? laws that regulate the is the building 43 and 38, both illegal. In case building 39 ? 40 1 only building 41, but also neighboring buildings 43 distance, set for in the Manual for Le ? Building 39 is a traditional house and is protection of architectural heritage. In case the 4 42 building 41 (illegal). Appart from soil occupancy 38 38 ? 1 should be preserved, illegal buildings should be ? 41? 39  recommended to be preserved. In the same plot 43 and 38, both illegal. In case building 39 33 34 1 40 43 ? Buidlings are illegal and hav administration decides that building 39 is not a (approx 80%. the problem with this plot is not Problem E: 19 43 ? 40 4 is thebuilding building41, 40but (from before 1999), treated and ? 1 only also neighboring buildings in conformity with laws that regulate the listed building, buildings 38, 41 and 43 should Problem E: Building is Problem D:are Plots of buildings to legalization 36 have about 90%buildings  Building 39recomis a traditional house should be33preserved, illegal should be 39 is a traditional house 4 33 34 38and 41 43 Buidlings are illegal andand no Buidlings illegal and have from applied for building 41 1both (illegal). Appart from soil occupancy 41 43 and 38, illegal. In case building 39main facade is by the1main 39 40 38 ? comply with minimum standards for legalization, 9  43 ? mended to be preserved. In the same plot is the building 40 of plot coverage, and their street. recommended to be preserved. In protection of architectural heritage. In case the 43 42 ? applied for legalization is th a treated in conformity with laws that regulate the (approx 80%. the problem with this plot is not ? should be preserved, illegal buildings should be 1 38 41 43 Buidlings are illegal and no information whether they listed under prototype 2, minimal distance, set foris the 40 building 4 building 40 (from before 1999) (from before 1999), and 41 (illegal). Appart from soil Building 33 has windows in its rare side, facing a narrow ? 1 only building 41, but also neighboring buildings administration decides thatheritage. building In 39case is notthe a treated in conformity that regulate the  40 442 protection of architectural appliedwith for laws legalization is available in the Manual for Legalization. building 41 is (illegal). occupancy (approx 80%. the with this plot not Appart from soil street, andInthis should considered in case of legalization. 43 and 38,of both illegal. case building 39 40 38 problem 41 protection architectural heritage. Inbe case the 39 ? 42 43 ? listed building, decides buildingsthat 38,building 41 and 43 should administration is not (approx4380%. the problem with this should befor preserved, buildings only39 building 41,a?but also neighboring buildings and 38, Also, the illegal window in building 35be 33 34 1 Buidlings are illegal and have applied legalization administration decides that building 39should is not a is41in the plot line and should ? should comply with minimum standards for legalization, treated in conformity with38, laws that regulate the 1 and only building 41, but also neighborin both illegal. In case building 39 should be preserved, illebe removed. If legalized, all buildings comply with listed building, buildings 38, 41 43 should listed building, buildings 41 and 43 should  21 4 33 34 1 Buidlings applied for legalization 33 34 are 1 illegal and haveare applied for legalization protection ofwhether architectural heritage. In case the 42 38 41 43 Buidlings Buidlings are illegal illegal and and have no information they comply with minimum standards forfor legalization, 43 and 38, both illegal. In case build 40 gal buildings should be treated in conformity with laws that minimum standards legalization, listed under prototype 2, listed under prototype 2, minimal distance, set for 43 ? with minimum standards for legalization, administration decides2, that building 39comply is not 38 41 43 Buidlings are illegal and no information whether they listed underminimal prototype minimal distance, setaManual for should In becase preserved, illegal building regulate the protection of architectural heritage. the distance, set for in the for Legalization. applied for legalization is available the Manual for Legalization. 38 41for43 Buidlings are illegal and no information whether they listed buildings 38, 41 and 43in should applied legalization is available listed prototype 2, minimal administration distance, set for 39 under in the building, Manual for Legalization. 33 34 1 Buidlings are illegal and have applied for legalization in conformity decides that building 39 istreated not a listed build- with laws that r comply with minimum standards for legalization, applied for legalization is available in the Manual for Legalization. protection of architectural heritage. I 42 ing, buildings 38, 41 and 43 should comply with minimum 38 41 43 Buidlings are illegal and no information whether they 38 listed under prototype 2, minimal distance, set for ? 21 administration decides that building applied for legalization is available standards for legalization, listed under prototype 2, minimal in the Manual for Legalization. 21

4

34 

35

 

 

E

listed building, buildings 38, 41 and comply with minimum standards for listed under prototype 2, minimal dis in the Manual for Legalization.

distance, set applied for in the for Legalization. 33 34 1 Buidlings are illegal and have forManual legalization

21

21

38 41 43 Buidlings are illegal and no information whether they

applied for legalization is available


Section B - analysis Secton B - ANALYSIS

23

II. Case study Tophane

2. Case study Tophane

Existing situation, October 2011

32

P+3

27

P+2

?

21 P+2

? 19

18 P+1 P+1 17

20 P+3

26

24

P+2+nk

22

P+3+nk

?

P+2+nk

P+2

33 

P+0 30 28 P+3

P+1

34

P+3

35

P+2+nk

P+0

P+1

16

P+1

25

P+1

P+1

31

29

36

12 P+0

23

11

?

37

P+0

P+3

15 P+0

10

14

9

P+1

38

40

?

P+2

P+0

39

P+1

P+0

41

?

P+2

43

42 P+0

P+2+nk

13

P+0

P+2

?

?

P+3

8

4

P+2

P+1

P+2

7 P+3+nk

6

1

5

Current situation, October 2011 Plot line

P+1+nk

P+0

3

P+1

2

Old buildings from before adoption of the regulation plan, considered legal

P+1+nk

Buildings without building permit

Applied for legalization in 2010

?

No information if the applied for legalization (observation indicates it is an illegal building)

22


Section B - analysis

24

II. Case study Tophane Existing situation, October 2011


Section B - analysis

25

II. Case study Tophane Analysis of urban parameters, Worst case scenario If old buildings (considered legal) maximize illegally (without building permit), with for example four floors for houses and six floors for potential apartment buildings, and no consideration to the distance between buildings, the situation of the urban block in terms of planning parameters will escalate in terms of soil occupation ratio, which according to the plan should not exceed 40%. Maximum building surface would still be within given limitations. Following outcomes may be inserted for T12 in the worst case scenario: - Number of stories from 1-6 - Soil occupancy approx. 0.75 - Total building capacity: cca 20,750 m2 In conclusion, further illegal redevelopment of existing buildings without consideration to the soil occupancy ratio and distance between buildings, would worsen the urban quality of T12 and would expand the problem of fire escape routs.


Section B - analysis

26

II. Case study Tophane Secton B - ANALYSIS

Analysis of urban parameters, Worst case scenario

1. Case study Dodona

Analysis of urban parameters Worst Case Scenario Plot line Old buildings from before adoption of the regulation plan, considered legal Case if old buildings redevelop ilegally Buildings without building permit

Case if empty plots redevelop (currently is the largest backyard in the block)


Section B - analysis

27

II. Case study Tophane Analysis of urban parameters, possible solution T12 may redevelop according to the plan, and at the same time, maintain illegal buildings no. 1, 11, 13, 33, 34, 35, after fulfilling conditions of the minimum standards for legalization; Buildings 18, 19 should be removed to make room for the street widening, and redevelop/ compensate as set forth in municipal regulations; Buildings identified as problems “B” and “C” should redevelop to make room for the street widening and also because of soil occupancy and distance problems, regardless whether applied for legalization or not; Buildings 38, 41 should be treated in conformity with the decision on the status of building 39. In the proposed scenario, buildings 38, 41 are removed. In this case, building 43 should comply with minimum standards for legalization, listed under prototype 2, minimal distance, set forth in the manual for Legalization Old building 37 may be removed/conserved if illegal building 11 legalizes (identified as problem “A”), otherwise building 11 has serious problems with windows in all facades; In the proposed scenario building 37 is removed;


Section B - analysis

II. Case study Secton B - ANALYSIS

28

Tophane

1. Case study Dodona

Analysis of urban parameters, possible solution

ď š

Possible solution existing buildings

Possible possiblesolution new buildings architectural value existing buildings to be demolishe possible new or buildings conserved architectural value to be demolishe or conserved

27 27

Possible solution existing buildings possible new buildings architectural value to be demolishe or conserved

27


Section C

29

Public Statement Without political will, the overall process of planning in general and legalization in particular shall aggravate further. - legalization process (initiated with Archis Interventions studies) has gained full political support, which is not the case with regular planning process. - At present, planning process in general and the issuance of building permits in particular is subject to subjective interpretation of planning criteria, and is characterized with extremely bureaucratic approach by the Planning Department.

We have to make clear, that the administration needs to provide building regulation fast and easy. - the process should not take longer than 3 month for singlefamily houses and 6 month for any other project; - permission of neighbors to have a minimal distance of 3m or other issued are not required from neighbors with illegal buildings; building permission should be based only on the building regulation;

We have to make clear, that all illegal buildings can only be allowed when complying with the building regulation. - illegal buildings need to be stopped. - Illegal buildings that emerged after the legalization process commenced have to confirm to the building regulations, if necessary they have to be changed.

Buildings can only be used when according to building regulation. - illegal buildings can not be used; - there need to be a timeframe to get a building permission/ transform the building to the regulation. After this timeframe and not meeting the building regulation, the building needs to be demolished; the cost has to be paid by the owner.

The city has to enforce the regulations as soon as possible; otherwise the city development is out of control. - there need to be a binding, coherent and public building regulation in print and digital format accessible to the public;

The demand for master plans by block from private parties is not useful; these “mini� master plans are in the duty of the urban planning department. - Individual architects should not made responsible for the entire block, if the municipality needs an urban design for a block they need to organize this work


Section C

30

Workshop Facts About us

Discussion participants

Workshop participants

Archis Interventions, a not for profit branch of the Archis Foundation (also known for its magazine Volume) has set itself the task of providing cities with clues and concepts to revive the public domain and re-energize their urban spirit through joint cooperation with Archis Interventions/Prishtina - with the aim of developing and pro¬posing solutions for the (re-) structuring of urban development.

Florina Jerliu, Archis Interventions/Prishtina Kai Vöckler, Archis Interventions/SEE, Offenbach Wilfried Hackenbroich, Hackenbroich Architekten, Berlin Vlora Navakazi, Archis Interventions/Prishtina Visar Geci, Archis Interventions/Prishtina Luan Nushi, Head of Institute for Spatial Planning Elvida Pallaska, Institute for Spatial Planning, MESP Gezim Kastrati, architect Ilir Museli, architect Naxharije Bucinca, architect, Public Housing Enterprise Idriz Morina, architect Bujar Demjaha, architect, University of Prishtina Behxhet Musliu, Head of Sector for legalization Hazir Zhitia, Sector for legalization Berim Osmanaj, civil engineer, Sector for legalization Nazife Krasniqi, architect, Sector for legalization Lindita Beqiri, Sector for legalization Arion Thaqi, architect, Florina Hoxha, architect, EUP Engineering Zineta Nikocevic, architect, EUP Engineering Iliriana Zhubi, architect, EUP Engineering Ifeta Nikocevic, architect, EUP Engineering Vjosa Vela, MMPH Hideajete Zhuri, MMPH Bekim Salihu, journalist

Florina Jerliu, Archis Interventions/Prishtina Kai Vöckler, Archis Interventions/SEE, Offenbach Wilfried Hackenbroich, Hackenbroich Architekten, Berlin Vlora Navakazi, Archis Interventions/Prishtina Elvida Pallaska, Institute for Spatial Planning, MESP Visar Geci, Archis Interventions/Prishtina

Organization Archis Interventions/Prishtina in cooperation with Archis Interventions/SEE (Project Office Offenbach) with the support of Hackenbroich Architekten

Contact Persons Florina Jerliu (Program Director) Archis Interventions/Prishtina Str. A.Ramadani, n.n. 10 000 Prishtina Republic of Kosovo florinajerliu@gmail.com Kai Vöckler (Program Director, South Eastern Europe) Archis Interventions/SEE Projektbüro Vöckler Nordring 56, D – 63067 Offenbach, Germany kai@voeckler.de

and students of architecture, University of Prishtina: Blerta Zeka Djellza Kpuska Shkelzen Sulejmani Dafinë Gashi Albanor Krasniqi Arta Limani Dardane Uka Lirijan Ibrahimi

Post-production Florina Jerliu Wilfried Hackenbroich Vlora Navakazi Blerta Zeka Djellza Kpuska

and students of architecture, University of Prishtina Supported by Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung ERSTE Stiftung


AIP_2011_Legalization vs planning permit