Pedestrianization in the centre of Athens: A brief history and some questions

An instrument of Urban Planning in Athenian neighbourhoods

Until the 1990s the case of Plaka remained the only completed plan of an extensively pedestrianized district. Pedestrianization was fragmented for the most part and often the construction of pedestrianized thoroughfares preceded its validation from the Municipal Council of the Local Authority as well as its legalisation by the Ministry through the required modification in the city’s Master Plan (Figure 7) (Kanellopoulou, 2015).

Figure 7: Detail of circular on the design representing pedestrian ways in Master Plans

Source: Archive of the Master Plan of the Municipality of Athens

Apart from providing pedestrian zones to improve daily living in densely populated urban areas, pedestrianization also took on a new symbolic meaning. It became a very successful instrument in the hands of political authorities who found in it an inexpensive means (i.e. not requiring the expropriation of private property) that had immediately visible results for the local community (Τουρή, 2013). As far as the Municipality was concerned, most of the pedestrianization projects were implemented following requests from one or more residents (Παπακωνσταντίνου, 2012). The Municipality’s engineers, who were responsible for these projects, after checking the impact of eliminating traffic from the area that was to become pedestrian and on the broad district as a whole, made recommendations to the Municipal Council for the final transformation of the road into a pedestrian street. Despite their fragmented nature (Map 2) the numerous pedestrian zones produced by the Municipality, visibly changed the feeling at the micro-scale and the attractiveness of the affected streets in Athenian neighbourhoods (Τσιώρα, 1998). They also familiarized Athenians with the concepts of public space free of cars, leisure time, urban green space and pedestrian zone (Ρεμούνδου, Πανέτσος, 1994).

Map 2: The development of pedestrian ways network in the Municipality of Athens (1978-2008)

The Olympic Games of 2004 as a goal since 1990

Following an especially productive decade of pedestrianization projects on the small scale, the early 1990s heralded an era in new urban planning policies and priorities both for the Municipality and the Ministry. The Company for the Unification of Archaeological Sites in Athens (ΕΑΧΑ) (ΦΕΚ 909/B/1997), was created in 1990 and marked the decision of the Ministry to intervene drastically and on the large scale in public space at the city centre. This new agency was responsible for devising and applying the plan to unify the city’s archaeological sites in an uninterrupted walk (Figure 8).

Figure 8: The six zones of intervention in the centre of Athens

Source: Announcement by the Ministry of Environment, Planning and Public Works and the Ministry of Culture (Archive of the Master Plan of the Municipality of Athens)

As Athens gradually became a European capital competitive as a tourist destination after the mid 1990s (Fola, 2011), the restoration of the centre of Athens was perceived as a challenge which would allow a section of the political and media elites to form a coalition around the concept of an essential “face lift” (Κεχαγιά, 2011, Ζιαμπάκας, 2015) of the city’s public space. EAXA started pursuing its target to complete 145 architectural interventions in ten years [3]. EAXA consolidated its role as an agency which designs public spaces, and its reputation was built upon the completion of a particular project thought to be a milestone for Athens. Dionysiou Areopagitou Street, i.e. the road at the foot of the Acropolis hill, was transformed into a two kilometre long pedestrian street in 2001 (Καλαντίδης, 1998). This pedestrian street (Figure 9) connects Thisio rail station with Makriyanni Street and the Pillars of Olympian Zeus. Pedestrianization took on symbolic significance because it signalled the beginning of an era of research and projects of metropolitan range and significance. These projects developed features which affected the aesthetics of space as well as the procurement and construction procedure of the works [4]. As a result, new administrative bodies and new procedures producing public space were initiated, reshuffling radically the way relevant procedures were performed until 1990, when everything lay completely in the hands of the Municipality and the central government.

Map 3: The symbolic and functional importance of Panepistimiou street in the centre of Athens in respect to areas of economic, political cultural and tourist interest

Conclusion

Since the end of the 1990s, pedestrianization on a small scale as a means of improving the urban environment in individual neighbourhoods has been put on the back burner of restoration of public space policies. On the contrary, large scale restoration has been promoted by the Ministry and the Municipality (Σταυρογιάννη, 2014) [8]. Despite the general rhetoric of the government regarding the significance of reclaiming the streets for the inhabitants, walking is still not an easy task in many parts of pedestrianized streets of Athens [9].

At the same time, the spread of different political movements [10], who reclaim public spaces for inhabitants (Καβουλάκος, 2013), as well as restoration policies on a large scale in historical districts and in residential areas has given rise to many questions and queries as well as to the need for public debate on whether policies should focus less on the pros and cons of particular projects’ implementation, and more on residents and citizens’s behaviors and needs who, apart from being the immediate beneficiaries of these projects, are also the creators of public space through their daily practice.

Acknowledgements:

A large part of the data presented in this article is based on interviews and unpublished material from the personal archives of the interviewees. As a result I would like to thank the following: Stratis Koulis, Tasia Lagoudaki, Stefanos Manos, Nouli Melampianaki, Elia Iatrou, Elli Papakonstantinou, Anna Skiada, Vaya Touri and Alexandros Tripodakis. I would also like to thank Stavros-Nikiforos Spyrellis for his diligence on maps 1 and 2 which accompany this text.

[1] Two units within the Ministry of Planning and the Environment (ΥΧΟΠ) are responsible for public space works: the Direction for Urban Planning and the Special Service for Public Works for the Upgrading of Free Public Spaces and Area Renewal (ΕΥΔΕ-ΑΕΚΧΑΠ) (ΦΕΚ 68/Α/1978).

[2] The perimeter was delimited in 1979 (ΦΕΚ 567/Δ/1979).

[3] See the program of the Company for the Unification of Archaeological Sites (ΕΑΧΑ) published in ΦΕΚ 909/B/1997.

[4] The Ministry of the Environment and Energy (ΥΠΕΚΑ) initiated the revision of the legal frame concerning the funding and implementation of public works (see Law 4014/2011 and mainly article 29, complemented by the articles 2 and 2^α of Law 3316/2005).

[5] Project for the remodelling of a broad zone around Panepistimiou street. The project is adopted by the Ministry of the Environment and Energy (ΥΠΕΚΑ), the company Attiko Metro and the Ministers of Finance and Development.

[6] After 2008, the Municipality of Athens reduces expenses for the design of new public spaces and uses the funds to maintain and clean the ones that already exist. Personal interview with Elie Papakonstantinou (02/07/2014).

[7] The funding was rejected from the European Commission, because the investments required have no returns for the public sector and this was considered as an important disadvantage given the circumstances of the economic crisis.

[8] See the project Relaucnhing Athens (www.cityofathens.gr) of the Municipality of Athens.

[9] Personal interviews with Ilias Nomikos (20/05/2013), Dora Fardela (21/08/2013) and Elsa Tsekoura (04/08/2012).

[10] I refer mainly to the Free Spaces movement (see the Observatory of Free Spaces in Athens-Attiki) and to a number of residents’ initiatives (e.g. Filopappou Hills https://filopappou.wordpress.com/).