I avidly read the new renewal plan for the center of Jerusalem: a broad study with some interesting urban ideas, good intentions and even a sense of humor. The disturbing part is what might happen in case such pretentious recommendations are actually applied. All the catastrophes of Jerusalem, and there are quite a few, stemmed from official‚ approved plans; all were based on temporary political views that changed every decade or so. Many of them damaged the city center in particular, driving it to todays miserable level. The new plan looks its predecessors directly in the eyes, but ultimately makes the same mistakes. However, this plan goes even further, as it aims to change the unique and fragile scale of the city, which is characterized like its population in aggregations of small elements that have developed over one hundred and twenty years to gradually create an organic architectural montage. The elements of the new plan are not Jerusalemite. They are brutalist by nature - made from large blocks of space overbearing the existing fabric, and disabling any gradual development.

 

            Moreover, the study is based on pre-Intifadah growth predictions, and irrelevant and even harmful global examples like London, Amsterdam and Berlin. Jerusalem is not London, nor Amsterdam nor Berlin, thank God. I therefore suggest that its recommendations be kept as a "wish list" with limited liability - food for thought that can be argued with, changed, and tested gradually in the coming decades. No personal aspiration, political or professional, should be allowed to change the old buildings of Jerusalem, turning them into museum exhibits lying in the shade of large "contemporary" structures.

 

            And as for the humor, the introduction made by the City Engineer speaks for itself: "The city center has been the main goal of the city nobles for years...."  Dont take it personally, my friend architect Uri Shetrit, but if this is so, how have we gotten to where we are? If the city center is so vital, why has so much effort been made to invest in the periphery? Does destroying declared-for-conservation buildings, such as Schocken Villa, or building a bridge that well relates to Calatrava but has nothing to do with Jerusalem, give us an idea of the real nature of the plan?

 

A bit of History

 

            A brief review of master plans from 1920 shows the citys development as a byproduct of political acts, as opposed to an organized and planned process. When Jerusalem expanded beyond the walled city, during the late nineteenth century, and new Jewish neighborhoods appeared west of the city, two main arteries were created: one connecting the old city with the southern coastal plain to the west, and the other connecting Nablus and Hebron from north to the south. The intersection of these axes, which occurs along Yaffo Road, provides the backbone of the city to this day.

 

            The first urban plan was conceived by McLean in 1918 following the British invasion of Palestine. The plan called for a concentric scheme where streets radiated south from the old city towards Yemin Moshe neighborhood in the south and further west to the southern coastal plain. The British city planner Patrick Geddes, visiting Jerusalem briefly in order to help place the Hebrew University on Mount Scopus, was requested in 1918 by the Governor of Jerusalem, to prepare a report outlining the development of the city beyond the walls. The report, which took two months to prepare, was incorporated into the master plan of 1922 prepared by architect Charles Ashby. Although this plan defined the city center west of Yaffo Gate for the first time, the first official master plan was prepared by British architect Clifford Holiday, who at the age of 25 was invited to serve as City Engineer. The plan, which took effect in 1930, created a commercial strip along Yaffo St., providing another commercial space along Meah Shearim St. and eventually along HaNeviim St. - the ultra-orthodox CBD today. This plan also included industrial areas along the arteries leading to Bethlehem and Hebron, the southern entrance to the city, which eventually developed into the Talpiot industrial area, functioning today as the "real" CBD.

 

            In 1944 another plan was prepared by the British head of the division of public works, architect Henry Kendall, who was working simultaneously on plans for Tel-Aviv, Yaffo, Tiberias, Nablus and Beer-Sheba. The plan mainly aimed to reconfirm Holidays plan, and enforce the requirement to use stone as a finishing material – a regulation still adhered to today.

 

            Following the declaration of the State of Israel, architect Heinz Row prepared the 1949 plan which aimed to maintain the only connection of Jerusalem with the rest of the State at its west. This plan actually stretched the city center as a strip between Yaffo- and Agrippas Street. The plan also allocated alternative domains for the Hebrew University on Givat Ram after the Mount Scopus site had been disconnected from the city, and for the adjacent Government compound.

 

            Completed in 1959, Master Plan no. 62 held few changes, apart from expanding the city center along the streets of Yaffo, Ben Yehuda and King George as well as zoning a large industrial area in Givat Shaul. However, the greatest change occurred in the master plan of 1968, following the Six-Day War. This plan aimed to reconnect the two sides of the city and the neighboring towns, and create a new reality. The political need to set territorial ownership, swiftly and on a large scale, caused the complete loss of the original urban scale. The plan defined a broad CBD, beginning adjacent to the old city, along the eastern section of Yaffo St., but also greatly expanding towards the north and east, to include "no mans land" that had been abandoned during the twenty years when the city was divided. The chaotic transportation plan that was implemented necessitated a demolition-construction approach that meanwhile damaged the delicate urban fiber of the city center. The plan called for the development of business and industrial areas in the periphery - adjacent to the Atarot airfield north of the city, and the Malcha area to its south, an area that has rapidly developed mainly since the construction of the Malcha mall in the 1990s.

 

            From this point, the abandonment of the city center was just a matter of time. The planning chaos created transportation problems that further escalated the flow to the suburbs. Industry moved to more accessible areas next to the new neighborhoods, and the center was abandoned, poor, desolate and miserable. 

 

AT Present

 

            Several attempts to improve public space resulted in the Ben Yehuda and Nachalat Shiva pedestrian streets, yet maintained free vehicular access on adjacent streets. On some unremarkable traffic junction on Agrippas St. stands a sign declaring the renewal that is planned with the addition of a light rail system to the city center. Indeed, trains have always been an impetus for urban development; it is quite possible that this will also occur in Jerusalem, provided that the added value of the historical urban fiber is conserved.

 

            However, the plan that aims to incorporate "all means necessary to create an attractive and vibrant city center", carries a great danger. There is always a chance that the multi-system approach could end in success. But, since the powers at play - city nobles and planners - are well known, there is a better chance that the plan will only increase the chaos, if not bring about the future demise, of the city center. Unlike other cities, Jerusalem can not afford to take this chance!

 

            The plan to reinvigorate the city center and revive its centrality is welcome, yet there are overly ambitious and pretentious declarations that are dangerous. Instead of a "transportation revolution", improvement would suffice. Instead of substantial increase in building rights, increased professionalization of current building ethics, with a special emphasis on conservation, would do. The rest would eventually evolve, without the need for a planning "Viagra".

 

The problem

 

            Relying on private initiative, most of the development will entail the addition of building rights and other "payments". The result can already be foreseen - high rise buildings, demolition of the fragile fabric and finally construction resembling that of Ashdod or Ramat Aviv Gimmel. The problem is that when the catastrophe becomes apparent, no one is left to pay the bills.

 

            Many of the urban assumptions upon which this plan is based can be easily negated. In chapter two it is stated that "the topographical structure of the city crumbles into distinct neighborhoods, because of the hilly dispersion and the demographic seclusion." This might be true, but that is not the reason for the rapid suburbanization and the migration of strong populations from the city core, as well as the creation of a multi-nucleus city lacking a clear focus. Apart from the topographical reason, the real reason (as stated previously) is the politically planned expansion of the city that created secondary centers at the cost of the historic core. Or: on the subject of culture and commerce the plan states that "today, there is no cinema or theater or any performance center in the urban core. All museums are dispersed and mutually exclusive". Moreover, the noticeable accessibility problems stem from the transport commissions refusal to realize that the more limitations it places on drivers in the inner city, the more the entrance and exit to the center are made impossible. And yes, Malcha mall was built according to an approved zoning plan. Anyway, shopping malls are not a unique problem to Jerusalem; they challenge many other cities as well.

 

            For unknown reasons the plan insists on incorporating the west entrance (which deserves a separate plan) to the city center plan, and thus places great effort on emphasizing the linear development along Yaffo St. It is obvious that this linear development which occurred before the unification of the city in 67 stemmed from the fact that there was only one main entrance - that at the west of the city from the southern coastal plain of Israel. One can assume that the same process will eventually occur even without any plan, when the west entrance will once again be the only entrance to the city, and the center will somehow attach itself to it, lacking any other direction of growth.

 

            Another mistake, with an added element of fear, is implied in the following phrase: "...the small, privately owned lots discourage new development". One should remember that the small private lots are the exact unique urban feature of the historical fabric, and also its saving grace. If the planners themselves realize that this unique urban fabric is what should be saved, and not the availability of new construction, then why not benefit from something that even Malcha mall cannot rival?

 

            And for dessert: in the old city of Jerusalem there are many "old" buildings, no cinemas or theatres. There is social segregation, lack of parking - yet still the city is more vital than the New Berlin.

 

The Plan outlines

 

            First addressed in the plan is the transportation problem, the largest challenge to the city that "refuses to reunite". According to the guidelines (in chapter 6), the city center will be closed off to vehicular traffic, and the area will be served primarily by light rail, traveling along Yaffo St. to Yaffo- and Nablus Gate. I am sure that the transportation committee is aware that many urban cities such as Philadelphia, Oxford and Cambridge and even Beer Sheba, were "put to death" in exactly the same manner. It is precisely for this reason that light rail was invented, so it can move parallel and through traffic. Anyway, it is hard to imagine that visitors to Malcha mall, who enjoy free and accessible parking, will suddenly prefer a "ride" on the light rail.

 

            Secondly addressed is the issue of conservation, which is placed in the capable hands of architect David Kroyanker, but surprisingly does not provide much hope. One of the mute statements there suggests that: "it is recommended to continue and conserve historical buildings, and not just for financial gain (!!!!), but for cultural and educational purposes that gentrify adjacent areas". Just one moment - shouldnt this be exactly the opposite? The conservation plan allows private entrepreneurs increased building rights, including a tripling of building height of historical buildings in the city center. And if this is not enough, the conservation chapter suggests destroying "ugly buildings". Who determines what is ugly??? Most of the "ugly" buildings were built according to "innovative" plans, while the "beautiful" buildings (at least in Jerusalem) were built in the distant past. This mistaken paradigm is evidenced in the demolition of the French Consulate, houses in "Shaarei Yerushalaim" that were trampled by the light rail, the Hadassah College area, a row of 1930s buildings along King David St. that were replaced by the Hilton hotel, "Goldschmidt boarding-house" that was exchanged for the Jerusalem Tower, the "Talitha-Kumi" orphanage that is buried under the Mashbir department store, and "Villa Schocken" that is now in danger of becoming a (beautiful or ugly) condominium - all planned by so called "experts". In recent years, conservation has received more interest, due in no small part to architect David Kroyanker who has invested many years in research. City leaders, however, refuse to realize that the territory is placed in their hands only for a limited time, and it does not constitute their private property. A live landmark to the frivolity with which these issues are regarded, is the Klal Center and its neighboring "Windows to Jerusalem" building that stand on Agrippas St. - a testimonial to stupidity.

 

            In summation of this critique reference, it is perhaps best to condemn the plans erroneous and frequent use of the phrase "building fabric". If my memory doesnt deceive me (sometimes it does), the intention is to an act of strengthening the existing fabric, rather like a dentist who puts in fillings and even crowns here and there, yet leaves the original teeth in place. Unfortunately, many parts of this plan are rather reminiscent of plastic dentures.

 

            And a last remark: the plan which is made of 9 domains. reminds me of an historical meeting held between the heads of the Israeli economy and the economic expert of the time, Friedman, in order to discuss the galloping inflation. After the problems had been presented to the expert, Israel Keisar, the secretary of the Histadrut (workers union) got up and seriously suggested: "Maybe we should try a working week of five days?" Friedman took a moment to think and answered with even more seriousness: "Try to start off with three days". This advice can also be advantageous to Jerusalem. Start off with one domain!

 

            And to the "soothing" aspect of the booklet, the plan intends to be (only) a guideline to planners and decision makers. If you wake up soon, the plan can still be stopped.

 

Planning team: Architect Arie Kutz (head), Amir Man,

Ami Shenar - Architects.

Building heritage: Architect David Kroyanker.