seaside desires is a project on the question of accessibility to the seashore. The question of what access means and what influences it in higher-level contexts as well as in individual perception was examined from various perspectives.
The different influences are made visible using the example of Paljassaare peninsula in Tallinn.
by Timmo Mahlke
Without knowing anything about the historical background, I quickly realized that although Tallinn is a coastal city, its relationship with the sea is complicated.
In the weeks and months that followed, I learned that the omnipresent discussion about the Linnahall is a good example of what is happening everywhere along the coast. The Linnahall is indeed a symbol of the first public access to the water after many years, but how should the built legacy of the occupying power be dealt with in principle? Many people have negative connotations for the structures and they stand in the way of modern Tallinn, which is beginning to turn towards the sea. The Linnahall is just one chapter of the various ‘stories of the seaside’ that the city must deal with in order to open up the sea to people and make it accessible. There are also newer influences such as adaptation to the effects of climate change or a change in values regarding biodiversity and species protection.
“Urbanisation expands to coastal areas and is simultaneously influenced by waterfronts because people like to spend time near open water. At the same time, coastal areas provide valuable ecologies. Therefore, waterfronts in cities become contested spaces.“
(Pikner 2022a)
The coast of Tallinn is therefore particularly at the centre of tension in the field of urbanisation, whose term and process were critically examined in the context of this studio. The dichotomy between the ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ and its ever shifting edges in the space are particularly evident in the context of the developing city over time, using the example of the developments around Tallinn's coastal strip, especially on the Paljassaare peninsula.
Since Tallinn's special approach to the ‘new resource of access’ has preoccupied me from the very beginning, I wanted to take a closer look at the various influences and the question of what access actually is within the framework of this project.
Since Tallinn's special approach to the ‘new resource of access’ has preoccupied me from the very beginning, I wanted to take a closer look at the various influences and the question of what access actually is within the framework of this project.
...their interpretations are contingent upon the prevailing values and the perspective from which they are viewed. Everyone has their own personal reasons for being near water. Basically, proximity to water – especially the sea – is associated with many positive measures of physical and mental well-being (Hunt 2019). Studies show that intentional, indirect, and incidental coastal beach exposures provide physical and mental benefits (Schanz n.d.). In short: For many people the sea is a favorite retreat. Some studies suggest that the well-being benefits of blue spaces are linked to how accessible they are (Schanz n.d.). However, not everyone has the opportunity to get to water everywhere. Many factors and reasons determine access.
The way of looking at access is also very diverse. Altermann & Pellach, for example, differentiate beach access into four different categories, ranging from the possibility of the public right to swim and the public right to reach the seashore to visual accessibility and accessibility for people with physical disabilities (Altermann & Pellach 2022: 4). Németh goes a step further and says that accessibility means appropriation of space:
“Access includes the ability to occupy a place and the activities contained within.”
(Németh 2012)
Burns also attributes freedom of choice to the individual with regard to access (Burns 1979 cited by Geurs & van Bee 2004: 128). In the course of the project work, I discovered that the definition is something very individual. Everyone has their own ideas and needs about being by the water. For me, access describes the possibility of being able to pursue these needs and desires without consequences. Not everyone has the same chances of access. Also various external factors influence individual accessibility more or less. Below, various of these external influences that can influence the individual more or less are brought together. These influences are laid down like layers on the seaside.
These layers can coexist in parallel, but they can also be mutually exclusive. Their boundaries can shift and manifest as physical or intangible entities.
The map is intended to give an idea of how these different influences on the access to the seaside layer on top of each other, creating various spaces along the coastline of Tallinn.
“The sea should be common to all humankind and there should be no property rights for it. However, this isn’t always the case.“
(Schanz n.d.)
During the Soviet occupation of 1945-1991, Estonia became a Soviet Republic. As the coastline was now the outer border of the Soviet Union and part of the Iron Curtain, free access to the sea was abruptly ceased for security reasons (Sepp 2011: 10). Seaside arterial roads and wire fences obstructing the sea views and the use of the coast (Kiivet 2017). The seashore were accessible only with special permits. Large-scale depopulation took place in military controlled areas and only three types of activities were allowed: fishing kolkhoz (rybkhoz), mineral extraction and military presence (Sepp 2011: 10). Nearly two generations of Estonians grew up and lived with the knowledge that going to the seaside was forbidden and punishable (Sepp 2011: 13). In addition to the enclosed zones, parts of Tallinn's waterfront were opened up to accommodate the sailing regatta of the Moscow Olympics in 1980 (Pikner 2022a). This was done by establishing the necessary infrastructure, including Linnahall, Pirita road and the yacht club. The rest of the coast remained strictly regulated.
As part of a wider, guarded border zone enforcing the Iron Curtain, full access to Paljassare was restricted. In order to reinforce the defensive position, several bunkers, watchtowers and barbed wire structures were constructed on the peninsula (Pikner 2022a). Many of these structures, ignored and forgotten for decades, remain visible as ruins to this day.
The Soviet political and economic system left a significant imprint on the waterfronts of Tallinn. On the coast, urban identities linked to the city's Soviet and pre-Soviet heritage seem to be particularly dominant to this day. This indicates the necessity for a redefinition of these spaces (Kurik 2022: 77). The coast is no longer a border or barrier.
“The occupation period
added a military layer
to the landscape.“
added a military layer
to the landscape.“
(Miller 2019)
After Estonia regained its independence the coast was left vulnerable and open, with military ruins scattered all over (Miller 2019: 3). The presence of the Soviet border zone resulted in a unique situation, characterised by significant areas of land contaminated by toxic waste and derelict buildings (Vollmer et al. 2010 cited by Miller 2019: 4). The period following the regained independence up to the late 1990s was characterised by very little political intervention in physical planning (Kurik 2022: 71). The city of Tallinn has undergone periods of relative stability, a lack of clear urban development, and a series of evolving processes over time (Kurik 2022: 80).
Paljassaare waterfront area experienced a suspension phase. The lack of public infrastructure and insecure conditions kept the public away from the peninsula for many years (Pikner 2022a, Pikner 2022b: 17). That offered space for various informal and potentially illegal uses (Pikner 2022a, Pikner 2022b: 17), but also for waves of speculation. According to Vacht the attitude towards wasteland is user-based and offers a myriad of alternatives for use (Vacht 2021). Over time, a variety of paths and tracks emerged in this no man‘s land. These desire lines as the actual design of the seaside as Paljassaare's informal promenade contrast with the development visions that relate to the peninsula. The lack of knowledge and experience regarding meaningful government involvement combined with grand visions for the design of the coast led to a stagnation of planning, which is why the coast continued to be associated with contradictory ideas, including its visible decay and status as a wasteland, as well as ideas of luxury and development potential (Kurik 2022: 77p.).
While neglect and decay keep many people away and, in the larger context, give room for all kinds of speculation, this means freedom for the individual to use the land for their own purposes.
“We should not ignore the freedom that a wasteland provides its visitors:
the lack of control,
no predetermined guidelines on how the space should be used. Everyone is free to take their own risks.“
(Vacht 2021)
The existence of the soviet border-zone and the following period of neglect caused vast natural areas rich in biodiversity to develop (Vollmer et al. 2010 cited by Miller 2019: 4).
Bird watchers, who were keen to gain a deeper understanding of the migratory patterns of birds and the wider ecological context increasingly explored Paljassaare. In 2001, the Tallinn Bird Club was established, uniting individuals who had already recognised the peninsula's significance as an important bird area in the 1990s (Pikner 2022b: 17). In 2005, under the leadership of the Tallinn Bird Club, the entire north-western part of Paljassaare and parts of the adjacent waters were placed under protection, as part of the European Natura 2000 framework today (Environmental Board 2019: 5, Pikner 2022b: 17). Furthermore, the government committed to integrating the country's coastline into the European Green Belt initiative in 2006 and the region-specific Baltic Green Belt sub-project in 2009 (Sepp 2011: 14).
Following the successful implementation of a vehicle ban in the new conservation area (Paljassaare Hoiuala), club members and enthusiasts commenced the removal of accumulated waste material from the Soviet navy and also more recent evidence of illegal waste disposal (Pikner 2022a, Pikner 2022b: 17). After compiling an initial management plan for the protected area from 2006 to 2008 (Pikner 2022a), an official walking trail was created, part of which runs over a wooden boardwalk, to mitigate the effects of increased visitor numbers and thus protect valuable plant growth sites in the camp area and save protected plants (Environmental Board 2019: 27, Pikner 2022b: 17). The cattle yard also serves as a visitor management infrastructure, deterring visitors from entering the beach meadow (Environmental Board 2019: 27).
The outer boundary of the protected area is only partially marked. In addition to the signage indicating the protected area, there are nine information boards in the area, that inform visitors about the prohibition of movement in the reeds and on the beach from May 1 to July 31 due to bird nesting (Environmental Board 2019: 28, Pikner 2022b: 17). However, this prohibition of movement is not legally justified, as the status of the conservation area provides regulatory suggestions for the public instead of rigid legal rules (Pikner 2022a). The boards should first inform people that moving during the breeding season disturbs the birds and ask them not to move during this time. In practice, the policing of these restrictions in the interests of nature conservation was not effective and so the contested rights to move in all seasons around the shore continue to exist (Pikner 2022a). Since Paljassaare increased popularity among tourists, (nudist) bathers, hikers, sports enthusiasts and birdwatchers, the peninsula has seen a significant rise in visitor numbers, particularly during favourable weather conditions (Environmental Board 2019: 6). This has led to a significant increase in the active use of the protected area – even during the bird-nesting period.
The Tallinn Bird Club is therefore committed to continually refining and enhancing the rules in order to further restrict access. Furthermore, a proposal has been made for the protected area to be extended in the future. Concurrently, it is imperative that nature remains accessible and enjoyable. The discussion about accessibilty in Paljassaare is therefore also a discussion about environmental justice.
“It is important to notice that in the Paljassaare context, environmental justice combines social interactions
(e.g. between people and interest groups) with non-human beings and entities (e.g. relations between humans
and birds,
and relations between animals).“
(Pikner 2022a)
The different needs of different groups are in conflict. Difficult to define boundaries, some of which are visible and others not, as well as individual interpretations of space and access make it difficult to coexist.
The way we deal with access to protected areas is always linked to the values that are attributed to the non-human environment. The discussion about how much we should intervene in nature and what options there are to let nature develop itself doesn’t only exist in Paljassaare. The paradox of the discussion is that the previous closure of the peninsula by a border gave rise to today's biodiversity, which in turn has renewed inaccessibility in a way.
“The term green often becomes associated with entities related to nature and open access, although in reality the picture can be more complex.“
(Pikner 2022a)
Tallinn is still in an ongoing debate about revealing its identity as a coastal city. According to Kurik, the first plans to connect the coastline to the city through a promenade were put together as early as the 1960s and reviewed in the 1980s, but these attempts failed due to resistance from the Soviet military (Feldmann 2000 cited by Kurik 2022: 77). To this day, the urban identity, especially on the seashore, is linked to the city's Soviet heritage. Seaside arterial roads and remnants of wire fences obstructing the sea views and the use of the coast. Kurik argues that a redefinition of these spaces is therefore required, because the coast no longer functions as a border or barrier, nor does it have to be used exclusively for industrial purposes (Kurik 2022: 77). A first master plan for the coastal area between Paljassaare and Russalka was approved in 2004 (Kurik 2022: 77). In 2007, the city council again approved the concept “Opening Tallinn to the Sea” with one of its aims including a populated urban space (Kiivet 2017). The City of Tallinn commissioned a proposal to develop a 27-kilometre-long seafront promenade with a variety of features, activities and access points, which would follow Tallinn's coastline, but the scope of these vision documents caused plans to stall (Kurik 2022: 78). In order to implement such a project, changes in perception as well as changes in infrastructure are necessary. The discussion returned to the forefront of public debate in 2011, when Tallinn was European Capital of Culture, which marked a significant change in planning, local community involvement and collaboration (Kurik 2022: 78). This brought the development of the waterfront, especially the post-industrial wastelands there, into focus. The 2035 Development Strategy for Tallinn has set the objective of creating an uninterrupted promenade that provides public and inclusive access:
“The coast of Tallinn Bay is an exciting experience consisting of interesting urban spaces and eye-catching architecture, the harbours, natural beaches and parks and natural areas of minimal human interference. The promenade connecting the beaches and subdistricts is accessible and uninterrupted; attracting attention with its varied design, it also offers citizens many activities.“
(Tallinn Development Strategy 2035)
In the overall urban context, today many parts are still inaccessible, partly due to port or military use or because the areas are not developed jet. Previously newly built sections and promenades have mostly been developed in combination with extensive urban developments. The restoration work follows a similar logic to the removal of Soviet structures and the restoration of everything older (Aava 2022). While first promenades like Beta, that was created in 2016, were still very simply built – Beta promenade is essentially an existing footpath from the Kalasadama fish market to the Noblessner port city along the seafront (Kurik 2022: 79) – now the aim seems to be create internationally recognized architecture. Notable examples of our recent achievements include the Noblessner Quarter and the Cruise Terminal, which have already received several awards. Nevertheless, many of the developments still exist on their own and are more of an extension of the surrounding developments to the water than a continuous promenade. Despite the ongoing debate surrounding projects such as the Reidi Tee development in 2019, which offers coastal recreational opportunities, but also increased traffic in the city centre of Tallinn (Kurik 2022: 79), the coast becomes accessible, which is always perceived as an added value due to its historical significance. Public access to the coast is always linked to the promise of creating public space. One of the key factors contributing to the success of developments such as the Noblessner Quarter is the attractive coastal location, coupled with an optimal ratio of public pedestrian areas (Aava 2022). But how public is this public space?
When the city of Tallinn became the owner of important coastal areas, the early post-socialist legal and political environment was supportive of privatisation. As a result, in some areas private interests now prevail over broader social concerns, transforming some of the "public spaces" into highly regulated places of consumption-based activities, where a particular part of the society will no longer feel welcome. According to Aava, the commercialisation of public space in Noblessner is symptomatic of a general tendency in Estonian spatial policy, where there seems to be a basic societal belief that land on waterfronts is a value that must be taxed both directly and indirectly, making it socially exclusive (Aava 2022).
While new coastal access is a benefit, the development of the coast also creates obstacles preventing individuals from using a space freely and independently.
“Opening Tallinn to the sea means more than building a sidewalk by the sea”
(Deputy Mayor Vladimir Svet)
The northern coast of Estonia is open and prone to flooding (Verheul et al. 2021). The increase in the number of storms in conjunction with the sea-level rise will create more occurrences of extreme weather events (Verheul et al. 2021). In order to prevent damage, climate change-related adaptation of the coastline is unavoidable. The development of the affected areas depends on risk forecasts. The discussion will depend on which standards and values are deemed to be sufficiently protective. This will also determine whether and to what extent existing structures require subsequent intervention. Therefore the way in which flooding scenarios are presented has a major influence on the discussion about spaces and boundaries.
As an illustration, the master plan for the development of northern Tallinn merely outlines the flood risk areas in order to preclude debate about small-scale greening.
The impact of man-made climate change is becoming a key consideration in discussions about access to and protection of the coast, which affects both future and existing infrastructure. The design of coastal protection and access (in)to the water can either complement or conflict with each other, depending on the specifics of the project.
“Equitable access can and should go hand in hand with protecting and conserving coastal areas.”
(Schanz n.d.)
© Yiğithan Akçay
© Yiğithan Akçay
© Yiğithan Akçay
© Paulina Gilsbach
© Paulina Gilsbach
© Radek Matoušek
© Radek Matoušek
© Paulina Gilsbach
Overall, the project was able to provide a good overview of the various influences on accessibility to the seaside since the Soviet occupation. Although everyone was guided by the same map, everyone was able to choose their own perspectives and ways of researching the layers.
PALJASSAARE SELF-GUIDED
SEASIDE WALKING TOUR
09.12.2024
Each of the influences identified could have been a separate project, so that the respective topics could have been explored in more depth. However, the method chosen provides a good overview and plenty of food for thought. Other facets of accessibility could just as well have been considered: for example, less focus was placed on infrastructural accessibility through mobility, accessibility for people with physical disabilities or gender perspectives in connection with potential fear areas. The selected layers were therefore perfectly suited to Paljassaare.
The approach was overall more practically oriented than backed up by many theoretical concepts, which in my opinion had little impact on the results in terms of quality, as the topic is very location-dependent overall. This made it possible to focus the project presentation very much on the location itself. I was able to use my professional background and my individual strengths to make the project accessible to both experts and a broader audience.
The approach was overall more practically oriented than backed up by many theoretical concepts, which in my opinion had little impact on the results in terms of quality, as the topic is very location-dependent overall. This made it possible to focus the project presentation very much on the location itself. I was able to use my professional background and my individual strengths to make the project accessible to both experts and a broader audience.
© Paulina Gilsbach
References
Aava, H. (2022). In the winds of Gentrification – the Noblessner Quarter, MAJA Opening Tallinn to the Sea. Retrieved from: https://ajakirimaja.ee/en/hannes-aava-in-the-winds-of-gentrificationthe-noblessner-quarter/. [Accessed on 06th November 2024]
Alterman, R. & Pellach, C. (2022). Beach Access, Property Rights, and Social-Distributive Questions: A Cross-National Legal Perspective of Fifteen Countries, Social Innovation in Sustainable Urban Development), 14(7), 2-23. Retrieved from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/7/4237
Gandy, M. (2016). Unintentional landscapes. Landscape Research, 41(4), 433-440.
Geurs, K. & van Wee, B. (2004). Accessibility Evaluation of Land-Use and Transport Strategies: Review and Research Directions. Journal of Transport Geography 12 (2): 127–40. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2003.10.005. [Accessed on 11th November 2024]
Hunt, E. (2019). Blue spaces: why time spent near water is the secret of happiness, The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/nov/03/blue-space-living-near-water-good-secret-of-happiness [Accessed on 11th November 2024]
Kiivet, E. (2017). The Sea Subjected to Infrastructure: Asphalt vs Vision. Maja 91. Retrieved from: https://ajakirimaja.ee/en/elo-kiivet-the-sea-subjected-to-infrastructure-asphalt-vs-vision/. [Accessed on 25th November 2024]
Kurik, K.H. (2022). The Value of Uncertainty. Temporality, Indeterminacy and the Post-Socialist Condition in Tallinn, Estonia. Three case studies.
Miller, A. (2019). Keep out! No entry! Exploring the Soviet military landscape of the coast of Estonia, SHS Web of Conferences 63, 1-9. Retrieved from: https://www.shs-conferences.org/articles/shsconf/pdf/2019/04/shsconf_modscapes2018_11001.pdf [Accessed on 08th November 2024]
Németh, J. (2012). Controlling the commons: how public is public space?. Urban Affairs Review, 48(6), 811-835.
Pikner, T. (2022a). Contingent urban nature and interactional justice: the evolving coastal spaces of the city of Tallinn. In: Plüschke-Altof, B., Sooväli-Sepping, H. (Eds). Whose Green City?, 163-182.
Pikner, T. (2022b). Poliitilised ökoloogiad ja antropotseen urbaansuse pingeväljade maastikes. (Political ecologies and the Anthropocene in landscapes of urban tension fields). Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366048548_Poliitilised_okoloogiad_ja_antropotseen_urbaansuse_pingevaljade_maastikes. [Accessed on 25th November 2024]
Schanz, E. (n.d). Reducing Barriers to Coastal Public Beach Access, Sustainable Development Code. Retrieved from: https://sustainablecitycode.org/brief/reducing-barriers-to-coastal-public-beach-access/ [Accessed on 11th November 2024]
Sepp, K. (2011). The Estonian green belt. Baltic Green Belt project-EU Regional Development Fund, Baltic Sea Region Programme Tallinn, The Estonian University of Life Sciences.
Vacht, P. (2021). Liberating Wasteland. Maja 105. Retrieved from: https://ajakirimaja.ee/en/liberating-wasteland/. [Accessed on 25th November 2024]
Verheul, W., van der Vegt, N., van Tillo, F., Kodde, I., Bakker, I. & Stoicescu, S. (2021). Coastal Flood Risk Areas in Estonia. Is the coastal region of Estonia facing extinction? Retrieved from: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/60a057ed45cf481b920dda869c222b67 [Accessed on 04th December 2024]
Environmental Board (2019): Paljassaare hoiulala kaitsekorralduskava 2020-2029. [Online] https://keskkonnaamet.ee/sites/default/files/documents/2021-06/A2 Paljassaare kaitsekorralduskava, projektiala 38.pdf [Accessed on 27th November 2024]
Tallinna arengustrateegia 2035/Tallinn development strategy 2035 [Online] https://strateegia.tallinn.ee/
[Accessed on 08th November 2024]