Urban Densification of Large Housing Estates in the Context of Privatisation of Public Open Space: the Case of Imanta, Riga

Abstract

Urban regeneration with a view to efficient use of urban areas has been a strategy for urban development for decades. Densification is used as a planning approach to promote the implementation of the compact city model and to discourage urban sprawl. The central parts of the city are usually of high density, so the areas outside the city’s historic centre are seen as potential sites for urban densification. In many European cities large-scale residential areas built after the Second World War occupy a significant part of the territory outside of the city’s historic centres. Today, these housing areas are in most cases sleeping areas with great potential for development. Densification of urban areas outside of urban nuclei is not an easy task, and deals with a whole series of challenges.
The paper examines the existing approaches focused on densification in large housing estates. In order to define the typical challenges of this process, the examples of infill developments in large housing area Imanta in Riga are analysed. The analysis of infill development in Imanta showed four possible approaches. Some approaches contribute to the improvement of public space for neighbourhood inhabitants in general, still some approaches tend to isolate the new development and inhabitants from the surrounding territory.

Full text

Architecture and Urban Planning
doi: 10.2478/aup-2018-0014
2018 / 14
© 2018 Sandra Treija, Uģis Bratuškins, Alisa Koroļova
This is an open access article licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), in the manner agreed with
Sciendo.
105
Urban Densication of Large Housing Estates
in the Context of Privatisation of Public
Open Space: the Case of Imanta, Riga
Sandra Treija, Uģis Bratuškins, Alisa Koroļova, Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
Abstract – Urban regeneration with a view to efcient use of urban areas
has been a strategy for urban development for decades. Densication is used
as a planning approach to promote the implementation of the compact city
mo del and to di sc our age urb an sp raw l. Th e ce ntr al pa r ts of the city ar e us u -
ally of high density, so the areas outside the city’s historic centre are seen as
potential sites for urban densication. In many European cities large-scale
re s id ent ial area s bui lt af t er the Se con d Wor l d War oc cu py a si g ni can t pa rt
of the territory outside of the city’s historic centres. Today, these housing
areas are in most cases sleeping areas with great potential for development.
De nsi ca t io n of ur ba n are as ou tsi de of urb an nu cl ei is not an easy ta sk, and
deals with a whole series of challenges.
The paper examines the existing approaches focused on densication in
large housing estates. In order to dene the typical challenges of this process,
the examples of inl l developments in large housing area Imanta in Riga are
analysed. The analysis of inll development in Imanta showed four possible
approaches. Some approaches contribute to the improvement of public space
for neighbourhood inhabitants in general, still some approaches tend to iso-
late the new development and inhabitants from the surroundi ng territory.
Keywords – Inl l development, large housing estates, urban densication.
Int r o du c t Io n
The concept of a compact city in the context of sustainable de-
velopment focuses on an urban regeneration model, with an in-
creasing role of densication policy. It combines both quantitative
parameters and requirements for high-quality urban environment.
Many European urban planning strategies use densication as
one of the tools to promote sustainable urban regeneration [1].
However, implementation of this idea faces signicant contradic-
tions between the global interests of the whole society and those
of individual citizens [2]. Most people, developers and businesses
are trying to implement their private interests, which can only
be met at the expense of public interest. For example, entrepre-
neurs tend to place businesses in areas that are easily accessible
by private transport and provide extensive parking facilities.
Another exa mple rela tes to housing choic es ‒ most fa m ilies pr e -
fer a housing in sprawling suburbs, which poses a serious global
environmental and social challenge from the global perspective
of sustainability.
Within the overall trend of urban densication, the inll
projects in large housing estates come to the fore. In many
Western and Northern European cities, large housing estates are per-
ceived as degraded territories inhabited in general by low-income
people [3]. For that reason, these neighbourhoods face variety of
problems like poverty, high risk of criminality, etc. [4]. In Riga,
similarly as in other cities of Eastern Europe, large housing
estates are easily accessible from the city centre and still acco-
modate an important share of residents. Still it is obvious that
post-war housing does not respond to demands of contemporary
housing standards; green open space is poorly managed, as well
as lack of information and motivation prevents inhabitants from
taking action for neihgbourhood improvement [5]. The construc-
tion of new homes with different housing standards attracts new
residents to these areas and thus leads to creation of a mix in-
come community.
However, an analysis of inll projects points to possible risks
and conicts. Inll development in large housing estates is par-
ticularly challenging because of controversial guidelines in the
concepts of these objects ‒ the relationship of public and private
space. This article discusses the motifs for densication of large
housing estates, the main challenges of inll development and,
through case studies, analyses the inll approaches to public/
private space in large housing estate Imanta in Riga.
I. I n fI l l P ro j e ct s fo r ur b a n de n s I f Ic at I o n
I n l a rg e Hou sI n g es tat e s
Large housing estates represent an important part of
the housing stock in Central and Eastern European countries.
They serve as home for a large proportion of inhabitants, in
some countries reaching up to 40‒50 %. So, in 2016, 41.8 %
of EU- 28 population resided in ats. Among the EU Member
St ates th e highe st pro portion of people liv i ng in a ts was in Spain
and in Latvia (both 66.1 %) [6]. Today many neighborhoods suf-
fer from aging building stock and aging population [7]. Still,
both physical infrastructure and public services exist in these
are a s. The amount and concent r ation of housi ng, af for d abi l ity of
housing comparing to other types of residential development,
as well as high demand for dwellings leads to a scenario, where
housing estates will continue to be an important part of housing
stock for a large proportion of population in Central and Eastern
European cities in the foreseeable future [8].
Urban densication in form of inll developments has been
seen as a correct answer to many of these questions. It is highly
preferred and highlighted policy in urban areas aiming both for
more sustainable and more economically efcient urban struc-
ture. In addition, inll developments often have other additional
goals and benets. Carefully planned and implemented, inll de-
velopments can affect vitality, social structure and attractiveness
of a neighborhood. On the other hand, inll projects are often
protested by local residents [9].
Inll projects have been implemented for several decades
as one of the ways in the regeneration of large housing es-
tates in different countries of Europe. In many largest cities of

San dra Trei ja, Uģis B ratuš kins , Alisa K oroļova , Urban D ensi cation of La rge Hous ing Est ates in t he Conte xt of Pri vatis ation of P ublic Op en Spac e: the Ca se of Iman ta, Ri ga
Architecture and Urban Planning
2018 / 14
106
Eastern Europe, new construction activity in large-scale districts
includes both public and commercial buildings and residential
buildings [10]. Research in Poland showed that new construction
in large-scale districts has not caused physical or social deg-
radation. Furthermore, these processes supported prevention
of the negative phenomena of physical and social declining, in
Western countries named as “large housing estate syndrome”.
Also, it has been found that in recent years the large-scale dis-
tricts in Poland have been undergoing numerous transformations,
which include intensication of residential development by con-
struction of new individual multi-family buildings or complexes.
These developments are represented by higher standard and dis-
tinctive physiognomy (architectural detail, the colour and shape
of the buildings), thus, fostering inow of new residents and af-
fecting formation of enclaves of a higher socio-economic status
within existing estate. These processes lead to an increase in
the socio-spatial diversication of these estates [10]. So for example,
introduction of high quality residential development at the fringe
of the la r ge ho usi n g estat es beca me quite pop u lar in Soa. Inve s -
to r s are ch oosi ng the s e areas to ta ke the advan t age of the ex istin g
infrastructure. These new developments of higher quality in terms
of design and construction rstly appeared at the periphery of
the housing estates, but later also in the inner courtyards of resi-
dential areas. This new construction can be described as chaotic,
in a way it began to ll in the generous expanses of open space
between the pre-fabricated high-rises. In some cases it leads to
critical outcome, when new structures appeared in very short time
in di st ressing pr oxi m ity to the wi ndows of unwa r y re sid e nts [11].
II . cH a l l e ng e s o f Inf I l l d ev e l o Pm e n t
As inll projects are located inside existing urban structure,
they generate impacts of many kinds and various targets. Urban
nature and ecosystem is affected as well as existing infrastruc-
ture an d servic e str ucture. In addit ion , loca l resi dent s expe r ience
several changes. Their customary and common environment
changes. Sometimes, it is a question of diminishing green area ‒
parks or forests [12]. From a resident’s point of view, a small piece
of “wasteland” can be an important place to recover. New resi-
dents are moving in. The use of services (the utilization degree)
may change. Quite often inll developments increase the need
for parking space in the neighborhood. Often, these changes are
becoming more and more restrictive in the use of public space.
It is considered that the increasing number of closed-off (“pri-
vatized”) areas in cities has a negative impact on residents of
particular districts and housing estates, leading to growth in
criminal rates and so increasing fear of crime. The necessity to
improve safety standards is often mentioned by developers as
an argument to defend this type of development [13]. Still, other
opinions explain this process with growing social polarization,
which is followed by the wish to emphasize one’s social status,
wh ich, among other th i ngs, in cludes th e wish to live in prot ected ,
monitored district with its “own” public space and amenities
with limited accessibility to wider public [14]. The popularity of
closed communities stems mainly from the idea of privatization,
which encourages economic and political decisions that support
the construction sector, but the lack of political stability is also
important here.
According to various researchers, in case of gated communi-
ties, appropriation of space involves mainly the following:
•
limit in public access, which is in contradiction with
the rules of modern urban planning;
•
exclusion of inhabitant participation, decrease of socially
oriented activities, which in a way result from lack of plac-
es, which might support engagement in community life;
•
growing spatial segregation and homogenization of the es-
tate community, emphasizing the fact that newcomers
are of a similar social status, but the neighbouring com-
munity is assumed to threaten the level of safety and so
is excluded;
• development of spatial barriers, which cause, for exam-
ple, trafc jams.
Gated communities are becoming of high demand because
people value security and the architectural aesthetics. However,
from the social perspective they cause many problems. Limiting
the construction of gated communities is a challenge faced by
city authorities in var ious regions of the world [13].
II I . In f I l l P ro j e ct s I n la r ge H ou sI n g
esta t e Im a n t a I n r I ga
However, the majority of working places, as well as entertain-
me nt and cultural in stit u tion s are concent r ated in the cen t r al pa r t
of Riga , the wid e spre a d off er on th e real es t ate ma r ket , as wel l as
the prevalence of auto-dependent lifestyles, lead to the expansion
of the city. The neighbouring municipalities of Riga are the only
territories in Latvia with a positive dynamics of the population
growth. Undergoing transformation processes has affected also
the large-scale residential estates [15]. As approximately 60 %
of Riga’s residents live in large-scale estates, which compose
40 % of the housing stock in the city, the future of these areas
is an urgent topic in the context of urban development in Riga.
The large housing estates were planned as residential areas
with an appropriate network of consumer service, educational
and recreational institutions applying similar principles of spatial
organization. Green areas in those districts covered 40–45 % of
the territory. Open courtyards offered space for household,
parking and recreational functions. With denationalisation of land
properties during the 1990s, the land ownership structure was
fragmented. The legal basis for new construction in the non-built
areas (i.e. green open spaces) was created [16]. The increasing
demand for housing in Riga led to the development of inll
projects. Previous research data shows that about 50 residential
buildings were constructed in the public open spaces of large
housing estates.
Imanta is a typical large housing estate in Riga with about
50 000 inhabitants. The original idea of Imanta conformed to
the concept of an ideal neighborhood, with green and natural ter-
ritories both inside the courtyards and also surrounding the whole
neighborhood from the inner and from the outer border.

San dra Trei ja, Uģis B ratuš kins , Alisa K oroļova , Urban D ensi cation of La rge Hous ing Est ates in t he Conte xt of Pri vatis ation of P ublic Op en Spac e: the Ca se of Iman ta, Ri ga
Architecture and Urban Planning
2018 / 14
107
Fig. 1. Inll buildings in large housing estate Imanta [Picture: S.Treija].
The structure of the district is based on a clear semi-circular
scheme the core of which is a vast green zone. It consists of 5
smaller urban units (mikrorajons), in which mostly residential,
but also some public buildings were planned [17]. Starting with
the end of the 1960 s, whe n the co nstruct ion of Imant a was st a r te d ,
until this time, Imanta has witnessed developmental processes.
The 21st century has been marked by a new residential
development in Imanta. The new inll development varies in
scale and attracts various inhabitant groups. Some of those new
projects have a private fenced outdoor space, on-site security and
even car speed-limit design measures.
The rst inll development movement in Imanta started in
the time of economic boom, with the last project being constructed
in 2008. Currently a new wave of inll development started with
Dammes Liepas pr oje ct con str ucted in 2017 (Fig. 1). The projects
were analysed using on-site observations and evaluation of in-
ll development according to characteristics of gated commu-
nities presented in section “Challenges in inll development”.
Analyses allowed to illustrate the impact of new development on
the quality of public open space for both residents of new housing
and those from neighbouring building blocks.
The rst inll project in Imanta ‒ Cit yZen ‒ has been
acknowledged as the “Best new project of the year 2005” in
the nomination “Best Residential Building”. CityZen project
includes 2 building blocks (Table I) with a fenced territory
(Table II). The outdoor environment offers children’s playground,
picnic amenities and even Japanese garden available for apart-
ment owners in the inneryard. The territory has a 24-hour se-
curity ensured by 18 video cameras. Also, Solaris built in 2006
and Dammes Liepas buil t in 2017 ha ve a fence d outd oor en viron -
ment and on-site security (Tables I and II). Both projects offer
children’s playground with emphasis on protected, safe envi-
ronment. The territory of Dammes Liepas additionally prov ides
tab l e I
Inf I ll Bu I l dI n g s (20 04‒2017) In l a rge Hous I n g e st at e I m an ta [18] ‒[22 ]
No. Project Year of construction Number of buildings/apartments Number of
oors
1CityZen 2005 2 buildings/ 53 apartaments 2/7
2 Imantas Pērles 2006 2 buildings/ 156 apartments 12/16
3 Solaris 2006 2 buildings/ 360 apartments 25
4 Metropolia 2007 5 buildings/ 600 apartments 15
5Progresa 3 2008 1 building/ 31 apartments 6
6 Dammes Liepas 2017 2 buildings/ 120 apartments 7/8
tab l e II
CHa r a Ct e r I st I C s o f P u Bl IC sPa Ce In I n fI ll BuI l dI n g s I n I m an ta [au t Ho rs of tH e ar tI Cl e]
No. Project Fenced outdoor space Public space
accessible for community
Public functions on the ground oor
1CityZen
2 Imantas Pērles
3 Solaris
4 Metropolia
5Progresa 3
6 Dammes Liepas

San dra Trei ja, Uģis B ratuš kins , Alisa K oroļova , Urban D ensi cation of La rge Hous ing Est ates in t he Conte xt of Pri vatis ation of P ublic Op en Spac e: the Ca se of Iman ta, Ri ga
Architecture and Urban Planning
2018 / 14
108
a basketball eld and green outdoor environment with ameni-
ties for passive recreation. The projects offer outdoor (Dammes
Liepas, Solaris) and underground (Solaris) car parking available
for apartment owners. However, closed fenced territory is not
a distinctive feature of every inll project in Imanta. So, for exam-
ple, Metropolia even being a fenced area with much attention to
on-site security, also offers a public playground, which has been
constructed by project developers next to the Metropolia territory.
The architects of Imantas Pērles had a different approach
(Table I). The project differs from other cases with its openness
of fer i n g out d oor am enit ies and child r en playg round avai lable for
everyone. Furthermore, the rst oor of apartment blocks offers
pu bli c servic es: child r en’s play roo m, gym and sa u na. In th i s way
it allows to support community life not only for those who own
or rent an apartment in the project, but promotes the creation of
more liveable environment in general and encourages commu-
nication with neighbours. Still in some cases developers decide
to construct individual blocks following the principles of already
ex isting hous i ng. So Progresa 3 is an indiv idual 6- s tore y hou sing
block with no additionally developed outdoor amenities.
Table II illustrates how inll development in large hous-
ing estate Imanta correlates with three criteria and shows that
there are four approaches. The analysis of location (Fig 1.) and
characteristics of six inll projects show, that they are implement-
ed mostly in areas originally intended as green open space. In one
case, also in the most comprehensive ‒ Metropolia (Project 4),
the new inll volumes actually continue the idea of the original
district planning for high-rise buildings in the central
part of the district. In the case of Solaris with high-rise
buildings (Project 3), the area originally designed for public func-
tions is being built. It is located in the core of the district near
the forest area. The rest is built in an open green space.
Fig 2. Open access playground in Metropolia [Photo: S.Treija]. Fig. 3. Fenced outdoor space in Dammes Liepas [Photo: S.Treija].
Fig. 4. Public functions on the ground oor in Imantas pērles [Phot o: S.Treija].
F i g . 5 . I n f i l l d e v e l o p m e n t w i t h n o e x t r a a p p r o p r i a t i o n o f o p e n s p a c e
in Progresa 3 [Photo: S.Treija].

San dra Trei ja, Uģis B ratuš kins , Alisa K oroļova , Urban D ensi cation of La rge Hous ing Est ates in t he Conte xt of Pri vatis ation of P ublic Op en Spac e: the Ca se of Iman ta, Ri ga
Architecture and Urban Planning
2018 / 14
109
con cl us Io n
Many European cities advocate urban densication as a sus-
tainable urban strategy to promote the development of com-
pact city concept in order to share resources and infrastruc-
ture reaching maximum efciency and reducing the necessity
for daily mobility. The strategy is positioned as the contrary to
the car-based urban sprawl that the cities promoted in the second
half of the 20th century.
Great part of the housing stock in many cities consists of
dwellings in large-scale housing estates that were planned with
the aim to provide sufcient outdoor space for various urban
activities. Not always these outdoor spaces are used purposefully.
In that case, urban densication dominates in the form of inll
development in green open spaces.
The processes, which include spatial and functional changes
in physiognomy of large-scale housing estates, may be both
planned and spontaneous. They both mainly are caused by the ac-
tivities in real estate market on the one hand and by the usage of
urban planning tools aimed at improving the livability in those
areas on the other.
Inll development in large housing estates often causes variety
of threats, like creation of gated communities and social segrega-
tion. The reason for such development is social polarization and
people’s wish to live in protected, monitored area. Furthermore,
gated communities raise even more challenges, such as trafc
congestions, spatial segregation and isolation and a decrease in
social contacts.
The case studies of the recent inll developments in large-
scale housing estate Imanta in Riga, Latvia, showed that both in
the patterns of new residential houses and new public buildings
the interventions generally have followed the originally dened
spatial planning principles of the estate being well integrated into
the surrounding environment.
As an added value to the new interventions, the overall im
-
provement of the adjacent open space may be observed in most
cases. However, the better quality of the outdoor environment
being directly next to the new residential buildings mainly has
not led to any improvements in the outdoor space next to the for-
mer buildings.
Since the new inlls are laid in the former open green spaces
thus decreasing the total area of them, one can evaluate public
benet obtained as a result of the new interventions. The analysis
showed four types of inll development in the Imanta large hous-
ing estate, some of them showing spatial segregation thus possibly
leading to social isolation and segregation, still some cases being
considered as positive examples of inll development:
•
Inll development with fenced adjacent outdoor space
accessible for limited group of users and with no public
services incorporated in the indoor space – no benets
for wider community.
•
Inll development with fenced adjacent outdoor space
accessible for limited group of users, but with addition-
al ly des igne d public outdo or spac e ava ilable for everyo ne
– benets are the improvement of public open space next
to inll development.
• Inll development with open adjacent outdoor space and
with public services available on the rst oor ‒ benets
are the improvement of public open space next to inll
development and support for communication between
neighbours.
•
Individual new buildings without improvement in adjacent
outdoor space and without any public services incorporat-
ed indoors ‒ no benets for wider community.
ref e r en c es
1. Skovbro, A. Urban densication – a sustaibnable urban policy? The Sus-
tainable City II (Brebbia, C.A., Martin-Duque, J.F., Wadhwa, L.C. ed.).
WIT Pre ss, 2002. 1072 p. ISBN 1-85312-917-8
2. Haaland, S., Konijnendijk van den Bosh, C. Ch all eng es an d stra teg ies for
urban green-space planning in cities undergoing densication: A review.
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2015, Vol. 14, Issue 4, pp. 760–771.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.009
3. De kke r, K., Van Kemp en, R. Larg e hou sin g est ate s in Eu rop e: a cont e m-
porar y overview. Restructuring Large Housing Estates in European Cit-
ies (R. Van Kempen, K. Dekker, S. Hall and I. Tosics ed.), Bristol: Policy
Pre ss, 2005. 392 p.
4. Andrá ško I. “East meets West ” – on studying “Ea ste rn” housing estates
throug h “Western” concepts and approaches. Urban De velopment Issue s,
2017, Vol. 55, pp. 3–18. htt ps://doi.org/10.2478/udi-2018- 00 01
5. Aa lbe rs, M. ‘Wor king tow a rd s a saf e est ate’. Regenerat ing Large Housing
Estates i n Europe: A guide to be tter practice ( Van Ke mpe n, R. , Mur ie, A.,
Knorr-Siedow, T. & Tosics, I. ed.). Utrecht: Urban and Regional research
centre, 2006, pp. 121–130.
6. Housing statistics [online]. Eurostats Statistics Explained [ci te d
30 .11. 2018] . https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/
Housing_statistics#Type_of_dwelling
7. Turkington, R.; van Kempen, R .; Wassenberg, F. High-rise Housing
in Europe. Current Trends and Future Prospects. Delft: Delft University
Press, 2004. 302 p.
8. S tan ilo v K. Ho usi ng tr end s in Ce ntra l and Ea ste r n Eur ope an ci tie s duri ng
and after the period of transition // The Post- Socialist City Urban Form
and Spa ce Transform ations in Cent ral and Eastern Eu rope after Social ism
(Stanilov K. ed.). The GeoJournal Library, Volume 92, Springer, 2007,
pp. 173‒190. ISBN 978-1-4020-6052-6 (HB) ISBN 978-1-4020-6053-3
(e-book)
9. P uu sti nen , S. Ur ba n den si cat ion as a cha lle nge for cit y pla nnin g. Im prov-
ing conditions and processes of inll developments. Conference: Plannord
Conference in Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan Stockholm, 20 –22.8. 2015.
10. Szafrańska E. Transformations of large housing estates in post-social-
ist city: The case of Łódź, Poland. Geographia Polonica, 2014, Vol. 87,
Issu e 1, pp. 77‒93. ht tp://dx.doi.org /10.7163/GPol.2014.5
11. H ir t, S. , Sta n ilo v, K. The perils of post-socialist transformation: Residen-
tial development in Soa. The Post-Socialist Cit y Urban Form and Spa ce
Transformat ions in Central a nd Eastern Euro pe after Socialis m (Stanilov
K. ed.). T he GeoJournal Library, Vol ume 92 , Sp r ing er, 200 7, pp. 215‒ 244 .
ISBN 978-1-4020-6052-6 (HB) ISBN 978-1- 4020- 6053-3 (e-book)
12. Fatone, S., Conticelli, E., Tondelli, S. Environmental sustainability and
urban densication. Conference: WIT Transactions on Ecology and the
Environment, The Sustainable City VII, 2012, Vol. 1, pp. 217‒228.
htt p://dx.doi.org/10.2495/SC120191
13. Mierzejewska, L. Appropriation of public urban space as an effect of
privatisation and globalisation. Quaestio nes Geographicae, 2011, Vol. 30,
Issue 4, pp. 39‒ 46, htt p://d x.doi.or g/10. 2478 / v10117 -011- 0 036 -7
14. Stoyanov, P., Frantz, K. Gated Communities in Bulgaria: Interpreting a
New Trend in Post-communist Urban Development. GeoJournal, 2 0 0 6 ,
Vol. 66, Issu e 1, pp. 57‒ 63, http://dx.doi.org /10.1007/s1070 8- 006-9 016-1
15. Treija, S., Bratuškins, U. Large-scale Housing Estates in Riga: From
Standardized Design to Market Driven Development. Surv ival of Modern:
From Cultu ral Centres to Planned Suburbs (C.Caldenby, P.O.Wedebru nn
ed.). Copenhagen: T he Royal Danish Academy of Fine A rts, School of
Architecture, Institute of Technology, 2013. 160 p. ISBN 978-87-92700-
06 -3.
16. Treija, S. , Bra t uš k i ns , U., Bond ars , E. Gr e en Op e n Sp a ce in Larg e Sca le
Housing Estates: a Place for Challenge. Journal of Architecture and Ur-
banism, 2012, Vol. 36, Issue 4, pp. 247‒254.
htt ps://doi.org/10.384 6/20297955.2012.753981
17. Treija, S., Bratuškins, U., Koroļova, A . Up-to-Date Interventions and
Changi ng Identity: The Imanta Housing Estate in Riga. Metamorphosis:
The Continuity of Change15th International DOCOMOMO Conference:
Conference Proceedings, Slovenia, Ljubljana, 28‒31 August 2018. Lju-
bljana: Docomomo International Docomomo Slovenia, 2018, pp.174‒180.
ISBN 978-989-99645-3-2.

San dra Trei ja, Uģis B ratuš kins , Alisa K oroļova , Urban D ensi cation of La rge Hous ing Est ates in t he Conte xt of Pri vatis ation of P ublic Op en Spac e: the Ca se of Iman ta, Ri ga
Architecture and Urban Planning
2018 / 14
110
18. Dammes Liepas [online]. City Real Esta te [ci ted 10.11. 2018]. https://www.
cityreal.lv/jaunie-projekt i/projek ts/dam mes-liepas/?no_cache=1
19. Metropolia [online]. City Real Estate [c it ed 10.11.2018]. https://www.city-
real.lv/jaunie-projekti/projekts/metropolia/?no_cache=1
20. Solaris [online]. City Real Estate [cited 10.11.2018]. https://www.cityreal.
lv/jaunie-projekti/projekts/solaris/?no_cache=1
21. Imantas Pērles [onli ne]. City Real Estate [cited 10.11.2018]. https://www.
cityreal.lv/jaunie-projekti/projekts/imantas-perles/?no_cache=1
22. Progresa Nams [online]. City Real Estate [cited 10.11.2018]. https://www.
cityreal.lv/jaunie-projekti/projekts/progresa-nams/?no_cache=1,
Sandra Treija earned a PhD degree in Ar-
chitect ure from R iga Technical University
(RTU). She is Professor and Deputy Dean
for Research of the Faculty of Architectu re,
RTU. Her eld of research includes sustaina-
ble housing, regeneration of neighbourhoods,
quality of residential environ ment, and sus-
tainable urban development. She is the author
of more than 30 scienti c publications She
is a member of editorial boards of the scien-
tic journals Architecture and Urban Plan-
ning (RTU), Landscape Architecture and
Art (LLU). She is a member of the Latvian
Union of A rchitects, the European Network
for Housing Research, and the coordinator of
the National Group of Documentation and Conser vation of Buildings, Sites and
Neighbourhoods of Modern Movement.
Uģis Bratuškins, Dr. arch., is currently an
architect (b. 1961), Professor with Riga Tech-
nical University, the Dean of the Faculty of
Architecture. He received the degree of Mas-
ter of Architecture in 1994 and the degree of
Doctor of Architecture in 2006. Since 1984,
he has been a practicing architect with the
design bureau Komunālprojekts Ltd. and Ses-
tais Stils Ltd. He is a member of the Latvian
Association of Architects. He is the author of
more than 60 publications. He is a member
of Editorial Boards of such journals as Ar-
chitect ure and Urban Planning (Riga, Lat-
via), Journal of Architecture and Urbanism
(Vilnius, Lithuania), Landscape Architect ure
and Art (Jelgava, Latvia) and Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Civil En-
gineering (Kaunas, Lithuania). He is an expert of Fondazione Romualdo Del
Bianco (Florence, Italy) and Slovenian Research Agency (Ljubljana, Slovenia).
Alisa Korolova, Mgr. arch., is a 4th year doc-
toral student and Research Assistant with the
Faculty of A rchitecture of Riga Technical
University (RTU), Assistant Lecturer of RTU,
and Technical Editor of the scientic jour-
nal of RTU “Architecture and Urban Plan-
ning”. She was a working group member of
the COST Action TU1201 (2012–2016), par-
ticipated in working group meetings in Riga,
Birmingham, Greece and Basel, and also in
short term scientic mission in Malmo and
the summer school in Salzburg. She has tak-
en part in local and international workshops
and su mmer schools and in local and inter-
national scient ic conferences (Lisbon AESOP conference 2017, 2018, CA2RE
conferences, RTU and LU scientic conferences). She is currently Management
Commit tee member of the COST Action CA17133.
con ta c t d ata
Sandra Treija
Faculty of Architecture, Riga Technical University
Adress: 6 Ķīpsalas St., Riga, LV-1048
E-mail: sandra.treija@rtu.lv
Uģis Bratuškins
Faculty of Architecture, Riga Technical Universit y
Adress: 6 Ķīpsalas St., Riga, LV-1048
E-mail: ugis.bratuskins@rtu.lv
Alisa Korolova
Faculty of Architecture, Riga Technical Universit y
Adress: 6 Ķīpsalas St., Riga, LV-1048
E-mail: alisa.korolova@rtu.lv