codepatras vpappas

Pappas Vassilis, Assoc. Professor

[email protected]

Laboratory of Urban and Regional Planning Department of Architecture, School of Engineering, University of Patras

City of Patras: Evolution, Spatial relations, Spatial conflicts

Patras urban complex – a brief outline

• The third urban complex in Greece

• ~220.000 inhabitants

• more than 4.000 years history

• Capital of Western Greece Region

Activities/Infrastructures:

• Port to Italy (West Gate)

• University

• Greek Open University

• Technological Institute

• Science Park

• Industrial Park

• Regional Hospital

Major problems:

• Deindustrialization

• Unemployment

• Traffic problems

• Quality of Urban Environment

Trans European Networks

Source: Regional Plan of Epirus Periphery

National Spatial Planning

Special Directions for Transport System

Regional Planning

Periphery of Western Greece

City of Patras: The origins of modern urbanity

Mycenaean era

Roman era

19th century

Glorious eras of high growth / development

The birth and evolution of city contributes to understanding the relation: city - port - train.


1687, Ottomans’ and Venetians’ battle


Patras: The town of the brunette breath.

1812: Birth of C. Dickens (imposed the raisins as a main component of the pudding).

1821: Greek Revolution against the Ottoman empire.

7/10/1828 The French admiral Maisson liberated the city.

1828: 4.000 inhabitants. A completely destroyed city with devastated economy.

Decade 1830: the sea and the port as new elements of the urban landscape.

1860: The port’s infrastructure are fully enforced in the iconography of the city.

1866: Public Lighting with throttle.

1870: The first mansions of rich merchants in the lower city, and also commercial and

industrial installations.

1872: The Mayor C. Rufus demolished 1.000 arbitrarily huts at the lower area.

1872: Phylloxera in the vineyards of the French south.

1874: Public Lighting with gas.

1887: The first train from Athens to Patras.

1902: Operation of tramway.

1907: Public Lighting with electricity.


1700 1829 1860 1885 1900

The evolution of historic center


1864 ?, British Admiralty Map


Waterfront in port – Customs’ installations

Tram from center to south suburbs (1900 – 1912)


Since 1950 only small changes occurred in the network structure of the central core of the city.

Population analysis – Outlines

S. POPULATION WEIGHT

PATRA GREECE PATRA GREECE PATRAS/GREECE

1907 37.401 2.631.952 1,0 1,0 1,4210

1920 51.596 5.016.889 1,4 1,9 1,0284

1928 61.278 6.204.684 1,6 2,4 0,9876

1940 62.275 7.344.860 1,7 2,8 0,8479

1951 79.014 7.632.801 2,1 2,9 1,0352

1961 95.364 8.388.553 2,5 3,2 1,1368

1971 111.607 8.768.641 3,0 3,3 1,2728

1981 141.529 9.740.417 3,8 3,7 1,4530

1991 152.570 10.259.900 4,1 3,9 1,4871

2001 160.400 10.964.080 4,3 4,2 1,4630

POPULATIONYEAR

S. POPULATION

0,0000

0,2000

0,4000

0,6000

0,8000

1,0000

1,2000

1,4000

1,6000

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020

PATRAS POPULATION WEIGHT

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020

M. PATRAS

GREECE

GREECE - PATRAS STAND. POPULATION

EVOLUTION

The city's population is growing continuously and very often with higher rates than the country's

Population analysis – Outlines

YEARAREA

(acres)POPULATION P. DENSITY

Standardized

AREA

Standardized

POPULATION

1858 640,0 19.876 31,06 1,0 1,0

1882 1.149,3 29.804 25,93 1,8 1,5

1885 1.508,0 31.459 20,86 2,4 1,6

1903 2.228,5 37.894 17,00 3,5 1,9

1929 3.767,4 61.278 16,27 5,9 3,1

1971 4.307,3 111.607 25,91 6,7 5,6

1972 9.946,4 111.607 11,22 15,5 5,6

1975 13.070,5 114.018 8,72 20,4 5,7

1979 14.675,0 123.660 8,43 22,9 6,2

1989 18.249,8 134.821 7,39 28,5 6,8

1995 21.706,1 141.529 6,52 33,9 7,1

2002 22.604,0 160.000 7,08 35,3 8,0

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

30,0

35,0

40,0

1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020

S. Area

S. Population

The evolution of city’s population in relation with city’s area (according to the official city plan)

Ο χαρακτήρας του αστικού συγκροτήματος Expansion and intensive development of the urban fabric

The structure of urban complex

Ο χαρακτήρας του αστικού συγκροτήματος Expansion and intensive development of the urban fabric

Source: GMES Urban Atlas


City, Port, City center and the mountain

Expansion and intensive development of the urban fabric

• The percentage of total residential

housing stock was increased.

• Resulting increase in private car

ownership, which enhances the

urban expansion trends.

• The commercial land uses have

strong trends for expansion.

• Reinforced and intensive use of the

private car in relation with poor

quality public transport system.

Traffic and Parking:

the biggest consumers of urban land


Intensive urban sprawl / expansion

Expansion and intensive development of the urban fabric


Major projects, challenges and problems - selected examples

• Bridge.

• By pass road (and relevant highways).

• Railroad.

• New Port.

• “Small” by pass road.

• Park for small business.

• New road axes.

• Implementation of City Plan.

• Traffic problems.

• Peri-Urban areas.

• Land Use planning.

• Waterfront planning.

• . . .

Many of major projects are incomplete.

Major projects

Challenges and problems

Spatial approach of city's waterfront: Identifying the problem

PORT CITY

1830 - 1870 Local Port Slow urban development and formation

1870 - 1900 Port of Raisin Rapid urban development and formation

Slowing economic growth, a gradual decline of trade

1900 - 1940 Port of Migration - Commercial Port Industrial stagnation, development of handicrafts /manufactures

1940 - 1950 2nd World War - Civil War

1950 - 1970 Decline Attempts for re-industrialization

1970 - 1995 Gate to Europe Industrial decline (De-industrialization)

1995 + Port Node TETN The future to services?


The Port in figures, an example: Annual traffic volumes

Annual traffic volumes of the Greece - Italy ferry lines operating from the port of Patras

Year Passengers Lorries Buses Passenger cars Bicycles Total vehicles

1990 953.825 78.741 3.884 143.596 21.323 247.544

1991 874.639 77.986 3.126 145.238 19.168 245.518

1992 948.226 113.128 6.806 153.096 17.883 290.913

1993 908.218 170.171 3.475 147.177 17.300 319.770

1994 923.938 193.820 3.599 152.375 15.479 365.273

1995 956.795 218.813 3.696 158.609 15.987 396.653

1996 1.019.182 223.038 6.756 170.962 18.202 420.406

1997 1.144.495 246.074 4.879 182.678 17.027 457.211

1998 1.180.452 257.175 5.588 201.060 16.502 492.315

1999 929.336 243.236 3.742 165.992 10.233 514.238

2000 1.275.986 292.660 5.779 237.116 14.123 561.493

2001 1.339.004 279.026 5.777 239.025 14.310 538.138

2002 1.383.428 295.630 6.333 261.293 14.191 577.447

2003 1.263.124 304.979 6.324 249.345 12.777 573.425

2004 1.125.159 298.833 7.130 222.486 10.270 538.719

2005 1.247.991 283.778 8.467 226.269 12.236 530.750

2006 1.264.274 295.206 7.796 216.186 11.204 530.392

2007 1.130.880 296.900 6.061 194.805 10.998 508.764

2008 1.094.450 312.459 5.703 158.243 11.201 487.606

2009 1.000.184 212.549 5.398 170.528 9.723 398.198

2010 879.314 171.045 4.135 151.223 15.094 341.497

2011 748.029 145.843 3.445 135.925 8.287 293.500

(*) Traffic data of May 2009 have been derived by approximation as average % of annual traffic over the period

0

200.000

400.000

600.000

800.000

1.000.000

1.200.000

1.400.000

1.600.000

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

PASSENGERS

TOTAL VEHICLES

Port Area and the new Port

Old Port

New Port

By pass highway

Railway

Port Zone

Official City Plan

~ 7 klm. Port area ~12 klm. the core of the city


Marshlands

Railway

Small Yachts marina

Old Railway station

Old Port

Railway station

Historic center

Coastal Park

Old Railway station

New under construction access roads to by pass highway

New Port

Railway

Brown field area

New under construction access roads to by pass highway

Railway


• The process of increasing port activity continues unabated since 1960.

• The continuous transformation and the dynamics of the urban center.

• Existing land uses (character and allocation).

• The structure of the City Plan and the legislation framework.

• The coexistence of the coastal road in parallel to the railway line.

• Major glitches and problems of the road network.

• The offered poor quality of public transport.

• The poor quality and the continuous downgrading of the whole sea front.

Overall, the coexistence of the port’s area and the urban center creates a series

of conflicts in the urban level. These conflicts are characterized - more or less -

by the intensive pressure of the functions of the port area on the city, and vice

versa, and the apparent requirement for pedestrian’s exit to the sea front and the

development of urban land uses therein.

Main causes and parameters of city - port relation

Integrated Planning Pure Nature

Only 5,5 km has a “medium” and/or “good” grade

from an overall length of 39 km.


EVALUATION QUALITY ACCESSIBILITY

BAD 35,3% 49,3%

MEDIUM 43,2% 24,3%

GOOD 8,2% 13,1%

PORT AREA 13,3% 13,3%

TOTAL 100,0% 100,0%

Bad

Medium

Good

Port zone

Quality

Accessibility

Evaluation of quality and accessibility of seafront


Characteristic examples

of poor quality seafront

Accessibility of central waterfront

Evaluation of pedestrians' accessibility:

From a total of 10,252 meters of the central

waterfront:


• 6.148 m have free but poor quality access,

• 443 m have partially controlled poor quality, and

• 3.661 m have absolutely controlled access and

poor quality as well.

Spatial approach of city's waterfront: City & Port: Conflicts

Overall, across the waterfront - except the central area - the access, where it is

possible, is done in two ways:

Accessibility of central waterfront

A) through very narrow and poor quality dead-end

streets, with practically no organized parking

spaces. (only one exception near by the bridge).

B) via the coastal road where the main features are:

• inability to serve the traffic volumes

(especially in summer),

• lack of infrastructure for pedestrians

(pavement, staging areas, etc.),

• as well as a general poor quality which is

becoming worst due to coastal erosion.


These problems appear in Patras with increasing intensity since the early - mid 1960's, when the phenomena of

urban development were very intensive, while the current operational status of the port stared forming..

• Inadequate access-systems to serve the traffic

volumes caused by the port, particularly with

regard to the vehicles access.

• Excessive loading, to the proximal urban zone to

the port, for a diffusable demand for short or

permanent parking, which in peak periods gets

very intense proportions.

• Environmental degradation from the necessity of

coexistence of such diverse uses in narrow zone.

• Degradation of the marine environment.

• Strong competitive trends to “exploit” the usually

limited open spaces.


In parallel, the pedestrian access to the seafront is burdened particularly by:

• The existence of the railway line,

where its design dates back to the

19th century without any effort

upgrading its design and its

accession to the evolving urban grid,

and therefore there are no organized -

planned crossing points for

pedestrians.

• The lack of organized urban planning

(it is limited only to the central core

of the city) has resulted in significant

degradation not only of areas

adjacent to the seafront and in the

seafront itself, but also in the

significant deterioration in the

environmental quality (marine and

urban) and the land value for all the

adjacent regions.

The design issue of railway line in the city

has not been treated with the seriousness

and the perspective it deserves, and the so

far approaches serve to devaluate the

potentialities, the vision and the benefits for

cities and their residents, that the rail transit

systems offer.

There is still time for a systematic feasibility

study in order to estimate and propose

alternatives, for the type and the location of

railway line, taking into account the

previous considerations, the potentialities,

the structure and the evolution of the city,

and also the consequent social and

economic costs.

Underground train or other alternative?

The seafront, the city and the railway line

City – Planning Legislative framework

City – Seafront

City – Port Area

City – Traffic

City – Urban Sprawl

City – Railway

City – Public transport

City – Archeological sites

City – Tourist attraction and infrastructure

City – Symbols / Landmarks (Snt. Andreas, Lighthouse, Castle, ...)

City – ...

City of Patras: Spatial Planning Issues

codepatras vpappas

Documents

city port

evolution of city

lower city

patras population weight0

laboratory of urban

urban landscape

public lighting

spatial relations