HY RU EN
Asset 3

Loading

End of content No more pages to load

Your search did not match any articles

Reflective Landscapes: Yerevan, a National Capital

By Vrej Haroutounian

It is a grave situation when a people resign their citizenship or when a resident of a great city, though he may desire to take a hand, lacks the means to participate. That citizen sinks further into apathy, anonymity, and depersonalization. The result is that he comes to depend on public authority and a state of civic-sclerosis sets in….There can be no darker or more devastating tragedy than the death of man’s faith in himself and in his power to direct his future.

Saul D. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, 1971, p. xxvi

I first came to Yerevan in 2003. Yerevan back then was a dark city under construction.

Northern Avenue was not built yet and the fountains located in republic square were being demolished. Yerevan was getting ready for its modern transformation. What I saw around me was both intriguing and exciting. I continued to return for the next few years and in 2011 I decided to focus my research on Yerevan and answer the question of how Yerevan had changed throughout its history and where it was heading.

This article is the introduction to the research that was conducted from 2011-2013. The following series of articles will discuss the effects of post-Soviet independence on the urban landscape of Armenia’s capital city of Yerevan. In order to gain a better understanding of the changes in urban landscapes we must understand the societal processes that allow for their creation, their successful implementation, and their performance. The immediate societal context can provide an understanding about the forces that shape, influence, and ultimately consolidate the urban landscape, thereby exposing questions regarding its changes over time: What causes these changes to happen? Are they top-down, stemming from a governmental or corporate direction? Are they grassroots or ad hoc? Are they methodical and intentional? Finally, how do they affect urban dwellers and their perception of reality?

Cities are constantly changing; some dramatically while others change gradually. Political, cultural, and economic changes give rise to the identity of the urban landscape. As Meining states, “The urban landscape is a mold and mirror of our economy, culture and society” (Meining, 1979, p.165). Lewis adds, “The man-made landscape - the ordinary run-of-the mill things that humans have created and put upon the earth– provides strong evidence of the kind of people we are, and were, and are in the process of becoming. In other words, the culture of any nation is unintentionally reflected in its ordinary vernacular landscape” (Lewis, 1979, p.13)

As the world becomes more interconnected through globalization, economic and political influences move across national borders at an ever-increasing rate. Empires crumble, totalitarian regimes fail, and societies are reconstructed, under a new set of values which are reflected in the urban landscape. How are societal values changing the urban landscapes of Yerevan?

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Armenia has experienced numerous difficulties as a nascent republic, some of which continue to this day. After independence, many changes took place in the urban landscape of Yerevan; new buildings were built and new streets added. A city that was previously behind the Iron Curtain quickly experienced an influx of external influences, drastically changing its urban character over the last twenty years.

Today, Armenia is a very dynamic society. The personal desires and ambitions of its citizens are changing the layout of Yerevan. In order to purchase automobiles, many people sell real estate inherited from the post-Soviet housing privatization. On average, 45,000 new cars enter the country every year, forcing the urban landscape to accommodate them and creating paralyzing traffic congestion in the city center. The increase in real estate investment in the city center has created a huge demand for space, resulting in the encroachment of private development into traditionally public space. This research aims to identify the changes that have taken place in the urban landscape of post-Soviet Yerevan and in doing so, attempts to explain the underlying forces that have contributed to these changes and their implications.

This study looks at the urban landscape as a by-product of societal, cultural, political, and economic value systems, and examines changes in the landscape through empirical research. It aims to answer the question of what has changed in the urban landscape of Yerevan during its transition to an independent republic, when and why  this has happened, and how  these changes took place. In order to answer these questions, several research methods were employed. Rephotography, or repeat photography of the same site during different time periods, was used to document the city’s physical changes over time, creating a “then” and “now” comparison. Semi-structured interviews with relevant stakeholders were used to gain a deeper understanding of local experiences and realities. Finally, thematic content analysis was used as a method of analysis for the data corpus.

In order to better explain the impact of the post-Soviet legacy on Yerevan, this study began with a thorough compilation and analysis of data collected from sources such as books, photographs, maps, and experts in the field. The findings of this research are meant to be a point of departure for further inquiry. By employing future rephotography, the research in this study can be developed further. As Hersperger contends:

In order to develop an effective planning strategy, knowledge about the driving forces of landscape change is helpful. Specifically, knowledge about the importance and contribution of individual political driving forces to landscape change can be helpful in deciding which policies to further pursue. Knowledge about driving forces in general is necessary for an in-depth understanding of the processes of change, for the development of projections of future change, and for the design of policies to guide landscape change (Hersperger, 2010, p.3).

The secondary aim of this research is to show the interrelationship that exists between economic, political, and cultural value systems within a city, and how these values relate to the construction of the urban landscape. As the capital of a post-Soviet state, Yerevan is uniquely poised to demonstrate significant historical shifts in economic, political and cultural value systems, and their impact on the urban landscape– a mirror of the dominant forces operating within a city at a given time.

In its modern history, Yerevan has undergone numerous physical changes. Many of these changes have been motivated by popular credos at a given time, as well as by the presence of ever-changing technologies.

The contemporary experience of Yerevan– its streets, buildings, and layout– is one based on the master plan of neoclassical Armenian architect Alexander Tamanyan. This series of articles will address ideologies, principles, and planning practices– including the Garden City Movement, the City Beautiful Movement and the City of Socialist Man– which provide an understanding of the ideals that would continue to influence the development of Yerevan until the end of the Soviet period. The process of globalization has also had a significant impact on the urban landscape of Yerevan, both in the Soviet eraand in the period following independence. The literature review defines globalization and its influence on the cityscape. The economic philosophy of neoliberalism is also defined and introduced as an influence on the post-Soviet landscape of Yerevan.

Lastly, the literature review seeks to further explain the power of ideology in shaping the urban landscape, including an examination of different urban plans and building typologies.

Top Photo: Same Yerevan square in 1926 and 2006

Sources:

Alinsky, S.D. (1971). Rules for radicals: A practical primer for realistic radicals. New

            York: Random House.

Hersperger, M.A. (2010, May 28). How do policies shape landscapes? Landscape

            changes and its political driving forces in the Limmat Valley, Switzerland 1930-

            2000. Landscape Research Journal

Lewis, P.F. (1979) Axioms for reading the landscape. In D.W. Meining (Ed.), The interpretation

            of ordinary landscapes. New York: Oxford University Press.

Meinig, D. W. (1979). Symbolic landscapes. In D.W. Meining (Ed.), The interpretation

            of ordinary landscapes. New York: Oxford University Press.

Write a comment

If you found a typo you can notify us by selecting the text area and pressing CTRL+Enter