Download and Read online, DOWNLOAD EBOOK, [PDF EBOOK EPUB ], Ebooks

download, Read Ebook EPUB/KINDE, Download Book Format PDF

Urban Regeneration: A Manifesto for transforming

UK Cities in the Age of Climate Change Steffen
Lehmann

OR CLICK LINK
https://textbookfull.com/product/urban-
regeneration-a-manifesto-for-transforming-uk-
cities-in-the-age-of-climate-change-steffen-
lehmann/

Read with Our Free App Audiobook Free Format PFD EBook, Ebooks dowload PDF
with Andible trial, Real book, online, KINDLE , Download[PDF] and Read and Read
Read book Format PDF Ebook, Dowload online, Read book Format PDF Ebook,
[PDF] and Real ONLINE Dowload [PDF] and Real ONLINE
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Unlocking Sustainable Cities A Manifesto for Real

Change 1st Edition Paul Chatterton

https://textbookfull.com/product/unlocking-sustainable-cities-a-
manifesto-for-real-change-1st-edition-paul-chatterton/

Sustainable Urban Development in the Age of Climate

Change: People: The Cure or Curse Ali Cheshmehzangi

https://textbookfull.com/product/sustainable-urban-development-
in-the-age-of-climate-change-people-the-cure-or-curse-ali-
cheshmehzangi/

Five Rules for Tomorrow’s Cities: Design in an Age of

Urban Migration, Demographic Change, and a Disappearing
Patrick M. Condon

https://textbookfull.com/product/five-rules-for-tomorrows-cities-
design-in-an-age-of-urban-migration-demographic-change-and-a-
disappearing-patrick-m-condon/

Urban Regeneration in Australia Policies Processes and

Projects of Contemporary Urban Change 1st Edition
Kristian Ruming

https://textbookfull.com/product/urban-regeneration-in-australia-
policies-processes-and-projects-of-contemporary-urban-change-1st-
edition-kristian-ruming/
The Geography of Climate Change Adaptation in Urban
Africa Patrick Brandful Cobbinah

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-geography-of-climate-change-
adaptation-in-urban-africa-patrick-brandful-cobbinah/

Biodiversity and Climate Change: Transforming the

Biosphere Thomas E. Lovejoy

https://textbookfull.com/product/biodiversity-and-climate-change-
transforming-the-biosphere-thomas-e-lovejoy/

Climate and Energy Governance for the UK Low Carbon

Transition The Climate Change Act 2008 Thomas L Muinzer

https://textbookfull.com/product/climate-and-energy-governance-
for-the-uk-low-carbon-transition-the-climate-change-
act-2008-thomas-l-muinzer/

Manifesto For The Humanities Transforming Doctoral

Education In Good Enough Times Sidonie Smith

https://textbookfull.com/product/manifesto-for-the-humanities-
transforming-doctoral-education-in-good-enough-times-sidonie-
smith/

Energy Use in Cities: A Roadmap for Urban Transitions

Stephanie Pincetl

https://textbookfull.com/product/energy-use-in-cities-a-roadmap-
for-urban-transitions-stephanie-pincetl/
 URBAN
REGENERATION
A Manifesto for transforming UK Cities
in the Age of Climate Change

STE FFE N LE HM AN N
Urban Regeneration
 Steffen Lehmann

Urban Regeneration
A Manifesto for transforming UK
Cities in the Age of Climate Change
Steffen Lehmann
College of Fine Arts
University of Nevada
Las Vegas, NV, USA

ISBN 978-3-030-04710-8    ISBN 978-3-030-04711-5 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04711-5

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018966749

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland
AG 2019
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and trans-
mission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Photo by Cida de Aragon

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
“This 10-part manifesto is a good guide to those of us involved with urban
regeneration and is anchored by an interesting variety of real examples taken from
cities in the UK and other cities. The author rightly argues for a more integrated
approach to planning, with architects playing a vital role in good place making
rather than striving for the spectacular!”
—George Ferguson, former Mayor of the City of Bristol & former RIBA President

“How we shape the future of our cities reflects how we shape the future of our
respective communities—whether they are our economic, environmental or
social communities. This book takes the learning and experience to date and
moves it to a new level of understanding, to provide vitally challenging and
thought provoking guidance. It fills a much-needed gap and offers guidance on
the complex process of how to transform and regenerate post-industrial cities
in the UK.”
—Dr Louise Brooke-Smith, ARCADIS Birmingham & RICS Past Global President

“This book provides nothing short of a new blueprint for urban regeneration that
responds to the pressing issues of today. Visionary and practical, it identifies key
strategies for cities to realise their economic, social and environmental potential
and unlock new forms of living for the many not the few.”
—Professor James Evans, University of Manchester

“This book is a manifesto and a primer. It is a declaration of hope and a practical

guide, a manual that sets out techniques for accomplishing a brighter future for the
greatest number, in cities that are accessible, carefully constructed, attractive,
inclusive, stimulating and full of life. It is inspiring and profoundly useful.”
—Professor David Turnbull, The Cooper Union, New York

“This excellent new book is a practical and useful guide for urban regeneration of
the UK cities and cities in general. The book is comprehensive and offers a clear
vision and an integrated approach to planning. The suggested strategies can
enhance the environmental quality of the cities and promote their economic and
social life.”
—Professor Mat Santamouris, UNSW Faculty of the Built Environment, Sydney
“Steffen Lehmann does it again! Another tour de force book and a fine if not the
best follow-up and companion to Richard Rogers ‘Towards an Urban Renaissance’.
Ten sensible and well-thought out strategies of good urban planning are not short
of a long awaited nostrum for cities that have never been more challenged and
vulnerable by natural and man-made forces and disasters, but at the same time
ready and willing to make a real transition and change towards sustainable urban
regeneration and resilient futures. Brilliant!”
—Professor Tigran Haas, KTH Centre for Places, Stockholm

“This book was written to fill a much-needed gap: it offers guidance on the
complex process of how to transform and regenerate post-industrial cities in the
UK, where attention is turning to the regional cities.”
—Peter Murray, Architecture Writer, London
Other Books by Steffen Lehmann

Informality Now. Informal settlements through the lenses of sustainability

(forthcoming)
Growing Compact: Urban form, density and sustainability
Sustainable Lina. Lina Bo Bardi’s adaptive reuse projects
Low Carbon Cities: Transforming urban systems
Motivating Change: Sustainable design and behaviour in the built environment
Designing for Zero Waste: Consumption, technologies and the built environment
The Principles of Green Urbanism: Transforming the city for sustainability
Sustainable Architecture and Urban Development: Proceedings, Volume I to IV
Back to the City: Strategies for informal urban interventions
Temporary and Permanent: On public space
Flow: Projects review
Absolutely Public: Crossover between art and architecture
Brisbane Towers – Brisbane Bridges: Architecture for the city
Der Weg Brasiliens in die Moderne: Einordnung der modernen Architektur Brasiliens
Rethinking: Space, time, architecture: Ein Dialog zwischen Kunst und Architektur
Tower of Babel: Architecture for the 3rd millennium
Steffen Lehmann: breite x hoehe x tiefe
Huelle, Schwere, Licht: Lehmann-Riccius-Sterf
Arata Isozaki: The 3rd Generation Art Museum
vii
Foreword 1: Integration and City
Leadership
George Ferguson

Cities have played a huge role in the history of the world but never more than they
do today, given that the majority of us now live, learn and work in them. In
Europe we are extremely fortunate to have a wonderful heritage and variety of
great historic cities with a growth rate that is relatively manageable, but are we
managing them well? There is at long last recognition that directly accountable city
leadership and greater local powers are necessary ingredients for success, with the
Government’s enthusiasm for city and metro mayors.

When I first arrived in Bristol as a fresh faced architectural student in the

­mid-sixties the city was still in recovery mode from a war that had finished some
twenty years earlier. The then city leadership’s defiant answer to the damage of the
Blitz was, as was all too common, to plan a brave new city of urban highways and
high buildings; an ‘anywhere’ city for a new age of universal car ownership.
Fortunately more enlightened forces, in the form of citizen action, saved us from
some of the worst excesses and Bristol, like most UK cities, thankfully retains its
distinctive character.

However, the planning pressures on our cities have continued to grow and it only
seems right that Steffen Lehmann has kicked off his thoughtful Urban Manifesto
with ‘Cultural Heritage and a Sense of Place’. For the last twenty years, Steffen has
been teaching and researching how cities will be used in the future. His 10-part
manifesto is a good guide to those of us involved with ‘urban regeneration’ and is
anchored by an interesting variety of real examples taken from cities in the UK and
other cities. He rightly argues for a more integrated approach to planning, with

ix
x Foreword 1: Integration and City Leadership

architects playing a vital role in good place making rather than striving for the
spectacular!

So what is good place making? It is often talked about but too seldom achieved.
Some of the answers lie in these pages with their emphasis on healthy resilient
cities that are focused on the wellbeing of citizens. This means breaking down our
monocultures, tackling inequality, avoiding car dependency and fighting urban
sprawl. Yes we need ‘densification’ to create much needed affordable homes and
places of work and learning, and to make the most of what we have, but we need
to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past with simplistic calls for high-rise
buildings in a desperate race for numbers. It is the political chasing of numbers
and short-term thinking at the expense of quality of life that has done so much
damage to some of our most cherished places.

When I scan this Urban Manifesto I do so with the ‘child test’. Does this make for
a child-friendly city? If it does, it makes for a city that is good for us all. I look at
the cry for a strong public space network, for a safe, walkable and playable city.

We are asked if we can ban polluting cars by 2030. We need exactly that sort of
political courage, rather than kicking the ball down the line. What’s more, we
urgently need to reduce the domination of our streets by vehicles if we are to make
our cities safe and breathable and help combat the shocking life expectancy
differentials that currently exist between our affluent and poorer, more polluted,
areas. It is in cities where an emphasis on public health, both mental and physical,
can reduce the pressure on our desperately stretched illness services. The positive
economic spin-off in terms of health, and cost to the National Health Service
(NHS), would be spectacular.

It is our children who will benefit most from ‘Green Urbanism’, from active
transport to breathable air to a more stable climate. They will be the ones to reap
the benefits of maintaining our Green Belts and reclaiming a healthy relationship
between city and country and the re-building of a regional food culture.

Waterfront cities, which make up the majority of our cities, have a great challenge
ahead in terms of resilience to climate change. Can we turn that challenge into a
resilience dividend with, for instance, flood defences that create recreational
opportunities? Can we reduce the vast surface area of grim tarmac by building over
our supermarket car parks to house people under green and photovoltaic roofs?
Can we capture, for public benefit, some of that massive lift in the value of land
that a good planning permission or new public transport system can bring?
 Foreword 1: Integration and City Leadership xi

We’ll all have different priorities for making good cities but undoubtedly
we would all benefit from a greater emphasis on young and old citizens, and
inter-generational mixed communities. However, we should never regard a
manifesto as a rule book, but rather as a flexible guide to be applied in different
ways in different circumstances—to encourage each town and city to inspire its
citizens and visitors by reinforcing its special character.

Vive la Différence, et Vive le Manifeste Urbain!

Bristol, UK George Ferguson

George Ferguson CBE is a British politician, entrepreneur and former architect.

He is Past President of the RIBA (2003–2005) and was the first directly elected
Mayor of the City of Bristol, UK (2012–2016). He secured Bristol’s status as
European Green Capital 2015, as a founder member of Rockefeller 100 Resilient
Cities and as a UNESCO Learning City. He has recently been appointed Bristol’s
first International Ambassador. He was a founder of the Academy of Urbanism
during his presidency of the Royal Institute of British Architects. See also: www.
peopleandcities.com
Foreword 2: Embracing Urban Complexity
Malcolm Smith

Patrick Geddes transformed the way I thought about cities when I first heard his
quote—“A city is more than a place in space, it is a journey in time”. In this
beautifully simple statement he captures an obvious but often overlooked fact.
Cities are in a continual state of flux; if not, they are more than likely in decline. I
believe this flux is the negotiation between physical, social, economic and political
forces. Only by recognising the transactional nature of cities, together with their
evolutionary nature, can we begin to successfully set their future direction. The
fundamental challenge is to distil key priorities for cities, some particular to a
place, others more general to wider contexts, around which evolution can be
directed.

In an age of increasing contextualisation, looking back in through the history of a

place reveals the priorities of people in the past, and thus the underlying character
of a place. The challenge is to avoid ‘disneyfication’, ossifying environments,
freezing them in time as artefacts in danger of losing relevance to the changing city.
The increasingly enlightened position of our heritage custodians allows cites to
repurpose much of their historic collateral, in doing so beginning to recapture a
sense of authenticity of place that has been lost. The challenge is to be able to
distinguish what is of value and to be retained, and what is not and should be
changed.

The challenge is all the greater in the immersion of the immediacy. The cacophony
of issues facing cities cannot all be equal, and prioritisation and focus are critical. It
was interesting to see this in the work of the C40 (a network of megacities), where

xiii
xiv Foreword 2: Embracing Urban Complexity

different cities identified key needs as a way of focusing and delivering change.
This is seen in our city mayors, who drive a focused political agenda such as air
quality or housing. It reminds us that cities have ‘entry point’ issues, around which
change is catalysed. Sometimes these are planned in manifestos, but sometimes
they are not, such as climate or security impacts. The character of a healthy city is
its capacity to respond rapidly to change, particularly as cities become the core
competitive scale of global interaction.

The ‘journey in time’ through understanding past and present, sets trajectories into
the future, allowing propositions of how change may occur to be tested and
planned. Accompanying this must be the rigor of research and horizon scanning,
to be able to quickly pick up the changing environment. Increasingly change is
coming at cities through rapid disruption to historic norms, such as transport or
digital systems. Disruption is not new to cities, but the speed of implementation
and therefore impact is like nothing before. Tracking these new convergences will
reveal the shape and form of future cities.

Geddes also reminds us that the city is ‘more than the place in space’; he could
have been inferring that it is about human experience, to which the physical city is
just a foil. In an experientially based city, there is no doubt that meaningful,
dynamic, accessible, equitable are characteristics which people look for.

Juergen Bruns-Berentelg, CEO of HafenCity Hamburg GmbH, described urban

development—city making—as follows:

Urban development is so much more than mere building. ‘City’ cannot be built, but
must rather be induced in a deliberately heightened complexity. To reduce this
complexity and try to carry out urban development with nothing but constructional
aestheticism and form is one of the prime failures of the modern and postmodern age,
and always has been.

His challenge to be more than ‘mere building’ is at the heart of the city. The city is
not just the collection of separate pieces; it is an orchestrated whole requiring
direction and care. UK cities are re-finding this custodian in their mayors, long lost
in the piecemeal approach to development of the last 40 years. But complexity is
more than physical, it forms the deepest parts of our sociological makeup. Over
many years Richard Sennett has been revealing this to us. His thoughts can be
captured when he says (in Why Complexity improves the Quality of City Life, 2011):
 Foreword 2: Embracing Urban Complexity xv

The quality of life in a city is good when its inhabitants are capable of dealing with
complexity. Conversely, the quality of life in cities is bad when its inhabitants are
capable only of dealing with people like themselves … drawing no collective strength
from its mixture of different people.

So we move forward to ask, how do we guide the cities of the UK into the future?
My sense is that it requires us to think of cities in a slightly different way. Three
ways of approaching the city in evolution could be:

Integrated. Systems, challenges, opportunities must be increasingly inter-­connected

with each other, whether financially, social, or politically.
Agile. Cities are one of the key currencies of global competition. As such, they
must not only have a clear and articulate sense of self and identify, but more so,
must be increasingly agile in response to change.
Stewarded. Cities must increasingly recognise that one of the core values of the city
is the collective nature of operation. Cites are not just the aggregation of their
parts, but are also places of shared living and meaning.

Arup is very pleased to be associated with this publication, as we are fundamentally

committed to making better places for people to live, and cities are at the core of
this endeavour.

Arup Urban Design Malcolm Smith,

London, UK

Malcolm Smith MArch(Yale) ARAIA, is an architect and the founding design

director of Arup Urban Design, London. He joined Arup after completing his
Masters’ degree in Architecture at Yale University, and working in Australia.
Malcolm is leader of Integrated City Planning and Arup Fellow in Urban Design
and Master Planning, where he is in charge of a wide range of urban design
projects both in the United Kingdom and internationally that have sustainable
place making at their core. He was appointed as an Arup Fellow in 2011. See also:
www.arup.com
Preface: Shaping Future Cities and Places
Peter G. Murray

In his book Building and Dwelling – Ethics for the City, Richard Sennett
differentiates between two meanings of the word ‘city’—the first is a physical
place, the second a mentality, compiled from perceptions, behaviours and beliefs.
Sennett uses French to express the two definitions—cité is what happens in and
around the ville which is most easily, but inadequately in Sennett’s view, translated
into English as ‘built environment’.

In any discussion about regeneration the cité and the ville are inevitably
inextricably linked, and both are moving targets. The idea that the ville is a fixed
physical asset no longer holds good—our attitudes to place and community
change with astonishing rapidity. The post-war planning policies of Abercrombie
et al. in the UK led to a hollowing out of city centres; in the less regulated US the
same thing happened with the flight to the suburbs, the deterioration of the inner
city exacerbated by the insatiable and growing demands of the motor car. It did
not take long for people like Jane Jacobs in New York and Brian Anson in London
to realise something was amiss and to stir public resistance to planning regimes
that preferenced infrastructure over communities. But the damage had already
been done. City centres had been hollowed out. John Letts, former planning
manager at the Greater London Authority, suggested that Abercrombie’s Greater
London Plan, which dispersed large numbers of Londoners to the new towns of
the wider south east, led to 40 years of economic decline in the capital; a clear case
of the ville being more important than the cité.

xvii
xviii Preface: Shaping Future Cities and Places

By the 1970s the Labour Government were having to focus on the eviscerated
urban centres. Inner City Regeneration became the watchwords—large swathes of
Liverpool, central Manchester and Newcastle, as well as London’s Docklands, were
crumbling physically and economically. The failure of post war policies was starkly
brought into focus by riots in cities across the UK in 1981. Although these have
been described as race related, they were equally caused by urban deprivation.
Michael Heseltine, as Secretary of State for the Environment, set up Urban
Development Corporations to target these areas. The effect of regeneration plans
for the centre of Liverpool are evident to any visitor to the city nearly 40 years
later.

Lord Richard Rogers was asked to chair the Urban Task Force by Deputy Prime
Minister John Prescott following the Labour victory of 1997. He called for an
‘urban renaissance’ based on the redevelopment of brownfield sites in areas with
good public transport provision. The core ideas were based on Rogers’ book The
Compact City and demanded improved transport links, protection of the Green
Belt, a network of green and public spaces, retrofitting and intensification
of London’s 600 local neighbourhoods as well reclaiming high streets. It was
the period when public private partnerships bloomed with ideas of creating
“opportunities for lasting regeneration”.

The principles of Rogers’ urban renaissance have formed the backbone of planning
in London for almost all of the last two decades. The new London Plan proposed
by Mayor Sadiq Khan is founded on the concept of ‘good growth by design’ which
requires planning that intensifies and maximises mixed use development while
retaining the character of existing communities. Its transport planning is based on
the idea of connected communities and healthy streets where health and quality of
experience is at the heart of decision making. Regeneration plans are focused on
improving high streets, squares and public spaces; supporting markets, protecting
small businesses and increasing community participation. The Plan will focus on a
zero carbon London, cleaner air, a circular economy and a greener infrastructure.

But policies have to be delivered, which is why the strategies set out in this
manifesto are so important. While the Mayor of London’s healthy streets policy is
one of the most advanced on any large city plan, the motorists’ lobby have
succeeded in delaying the implementation of new cycling infrastructure; local
residents are stopping plans to pedestrianise Oxford Street, London’s major
shopping destination and one of the most polluted thoroughfares in Europe.
 Preface: Shaping Future Cities and Places xix

This book was written to fill a much-needed gap: it offers guidance on the complex
process of how to transform and regenerate post-industrial cities in the UK, where
attention is turning to the regional cities.

This highly relevant book is written in the form of an urban manifesto that
includes strategies of sustainable urbanism to regenerate inner-city brownfield sites
and presents a compelling case for practicing architects (and students), town
planners, urban designers, urban decision-makers, geographers and engineers to
take an active role in developing urban strategies and adaptation solutions to
ensure our cities are resilient, resource-efficient and sustainable in the face of
intensifying global warming.

We need a common understanding of how we can create cities that are both
sustainable as well as great places to live and work. Essential to that is getting
the right balance between cité and ville. Or as the great urbanist Jan Gehl put it:
“First life, then spaces, then buildings”.

London, UK Peter G. Murray

Peter G. Murray is a prominent British writer and commentator on architecture

and the built environment. He is currently Chairman of New London Architecture
and the London Society. He was editor of Building Design and then the RIBA
Journal, before he launched Blueprint magazine in 1983 with Deyan Sudjic. In
2004, he launched the first London Architecture Biennale (now the London
Festival of Architecture). Peter is a keen cyclist and campaigner for cycling issues
and supporter of this Urban Manifesto. See also: www.newlondonarchitecture.org
and www.petermurraylondon.com

Reference
Sennett, R. (2018). Building and Dwelling: Ethics for the City. New York: Allen Lane
Publisher.
Acknowledgements

This book is the outcome of several years of work and commitment of many.
Firstly, I would like to thank all the people who made this book possible. It is part
of a larger effort and broader research project to provoke debate about our urban
futures and to synthesise new knowledge for urban regeneration and sustainability.

The topic of ‘sustainable urban regeneration’ is of particular relevance to me, as it

has been a key theme in my research and teaching, which I have conducted as
professor of architecture since January 2003, as former UNESCO Chair for
Sustainable Urban Development in the Asia-Pacific Region, and in my work as an
architect and urban designer with my own practice since 1993. In my work as a
teacher of urban design, regeneration and city transformation I have worked with
over a thousand inspirational students of architecture in various schools around the
world. I have always had a strong interest in teaching architecture at the urban
scale, and in the deep research of sustainable principles of cities, since I first
established my practice in Berlin in 1993. I have been fortunate to be able to work
as a full professor at great schools of architecture on five continents, the USA,
Europe, Australia, Latin America, and Asia/China.

My warmest thanks go to George Ferguson (Bristol), Malcolm Smith (London)

and Peter Murray (London) for providing generous and personal forewords and a
preface to this book. A special thank you goes to my Ph.D. students and
­post-doctoral research fellows for their hard work, it is always a pleasure working
with you on the grand challenges our society is facing.

xxi
xxii Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the various cities and funding agencies supporting my
research in urban futures and low-carbon, high-performance architecture. I would
also like to express my gratitude to my colleagues at the Portsmouth School of
Architecture, especially to Alessandro Melis, Antonino Di Raimo, Martin Pearce
and Walter Menteth for their ongoing support and good conversations on the
complex topic of urban transformation. The deep discussions with George
Ferguson, Malcolm Smith, Peter Head and Daniela Melandri were important for
the direction of this publication.

I am indebted to Rachael Ballard (Head of Science and Society) and Joanna

O’Neill at Palgrave Macmillan publishers in London, for their support, trust and
for managing the production of this publication.

I am also grateful to Claire Coulter and Natalie Poole at my Cluster for Sustainable
Cities in the UK, for keeping track of the project and the wonderful job they have
done in managing and improving the design and content of this publication. You
made this a better book. Thanks for the chocolate!

With a little help from my friends and fellow scholars—my thanks go to the
following strategic thinkers, scholars and stakeholders for inspiration and critique
(in alphabetical order): Heiko Achilles, Pal Ahluwalia, Christopher Alexander,
Thomas Auer, Joo Hwa P. Bay, Eike Becker, Christian Bode, Peter Brandon,
Michael Braungart, Keith Brewis, Louise Brooke-Smith, Juergen Bruns-Berentelg,
Scott Cain, Javier Castanon, Robert Cervero, Edwin Chan, Karen Chapple,
Andrew Collinge, Annette Condello, Edoardo Croci, Mario Cucinella, Mahesh
Daas, Luca D’Acci, Klaus Daniels, Cida de Aragon, Cees de Bont, Axel Deuschle
(†), Bauke de Vries, Antonino Di Raimo, Ralph Dlugosz, Jinfeng Du, Chrisna Du
Plessis, Harry Edelman, Hisham Elkadi, Sura El-Maiyah, James Z. Evans, Alfredo
Fernandez-Gonzalez, Terrence Fernando, Jan Gehl, Georg Gewers, Tigran Haas,
Catherine Harper, Manfred Hegger (†), Peter Herrle, Richard Horden, Simi
Hoque, Donald Houston, Alvin Huang, Kurt Hunker, Claus-Peter Hutter,
Toshiaki Ichinose, Jasuhiro Imai, Aseem Inam, Christoph Ingenhoven, Arata
Isozaki, Mike Jenks, Mitchell Joachim, Ahmed Z. Kahn, K.K. Philip Kang, Irma
Karjalainen, George Katodrytis, Trevor Keeble, Greg Keefe, Stephen R. Kellert (†),
Jon Kellett, Jeff Kenworthy, Shahed Khan, Barbara Klinghammer, Joerg Knieling,
Branko Kolarevic, Ralph Krohmer, Norbert Lechner, Pekka Leviakangas, Bart
Lootsma, Piotr Lorens, Winy Maas, Simon Marvin, Adrian McGregor, Peter
Murray, Boonlay Ong, Daniel Ortega, Dominic Papa, Mita Patel, Emily Penn,
Igor Peraza Curiel, Rodrigo Perez d’ Arce, Philipp Prinz zu Hohenlohe-
Langenburg, Victor Regnier, Luis Rico-Gutierrez, Saffa Riffat, David J. Sailor,
 Acknowledgements xxiii

Matheos Santamouris, Saskia Sassen, Ehsan Sharifi, Charlotte Skene Caitling,

Malcolm Smith, Tim Smith, Werner Sobek, Thomas Spiegelhalter, Donovan
Storey, James Taplin, Shane Thompson, Jeremy Till, David Turnbull, Rafael Tuts,
Alec Tzannes, Nancy J. Uscher, Ben van Berkel, Andy van den Dobbelsteen,
Tom Verebes, Thomas Vonier, Geoffrey West, Stuart White, Mike Winestock,
Nyuk-Hien Wong, Wei-Ning Xiang, Wanglin Yan and Atiq U. Zaman.
—You are all incredible!

Thank you to the Academy of Urbanism (UK). As architectural practice keeps

evolving, some leading practitioners have been role models for the successful
integration of urban research into their projects, making it a key driver of their
innovative outputs. I am grateful to the following architectural practices for their
inspiration and for pushing the boundaries of practice-based research: Arup,
Aecom, UNStudio, Perkins + Will, Foster + Partners, Grimshaw & Partners,
Shigeru Ban and Renzo Piano Building Workshop (just to name a few of the
pioneers). We can learn so much from you!

This book would not have been possible without the generosity of the University
of Portsmouth and I would like to thank for the support. Many thanks go to
photographer Cida de Aragon for support and supplying the intriguing images for
‘Life in UK cities’. I would also like to thank all photographers, architects and city
councils for making images and information available. Every effort has been made
to trace the copyright holders, and I apologise for any unintentional omission, and
would be pleased to insert the appropriate acknowledgements in any subsequent
edition.

Finally, a special word of thanks to my dedicated colleagues on four different

continents: at the University of Portsmouth (UK), the University of Nevada at Las
Vegas (USA), the University of South Australia (Adelaide, Australia) and at Xi’an
Jiaotong University (China) for their encouragement and collegiality. My warmest
thanks go to all the colleagues who have taken the time to share their amazing
stories, projects and experiences.

London and Las Vegas, December 2018 Steffen Lehmann

Contents

1 Introduction: The Complex Process of City Regeneration  1

2 Reconnecting Cities with Nature, Building Resilience at the Urban

Scale 55

3 Understanding the Benefits of Urban Density 79

4 Activating the Food-Water-Energy Nexus109

5 The Ten Strategies for an Urban Regeneration133

6 Examples of the Ten Urban Regeneration Strategies in Practice157

Epilogue217

Further Reading on Urban Regeneration221

Index225

xxv
About the Author

Steffen Lehmann, Ph.D., AA Dipl, AIA, RIBA RAIA AoU, is a leading voice,
author and researcher in the field of sustainable architecture and green urbanism.
Born in Stuttgart, Germany (*1963), he has an international reputation as
educator and has made substantial contributions to the multi-disciplinary research
field, leading large research groups on sustainable cities. From 2016 to 2018, he
was tenured full Professor of Sustainable Architecture and Founding Director of
the interdisciplinary Cluster for Sustainable Cities at the University of Portsmouth
(UK). The Cluster is a research group of over 40 active researchers from a wide
range of disciplines. Since October 2018, he is a tenured full Professor of
Architecture in the USA, where he is Director of the School of Architecture,
University of Nevada at Las Vegas. He is a Visiting Professor at the University of
Portsmouth, and at leading universities in China and India.

Steffen has more than 25 years of experience in sustainable urban development and
in the ‘applied humanities’. Prior to his appointments in the UK and the USA, he
was a tenured Chair and full Professor for over 13 years in Australia (2002 to
2015), where he held a number of senior leadership positions, ranging from Head
of the School of Built Environment, to Director of two flagship Research Centres
on Sustainable Design at the University of South Australia; he held the Endowed
Chair of Architectural Design at the University of Newcastle (NSW). During all
this time he has had significant responsibility for creating and leading new urban
research formations, for which he has generated a large publication and granting
output and a continuous stream of successful research students.

xxvii
xxviii About the Author

Steffen has advised over a dozen of cities on sustainable urban development,

including Berlin, Shanghai, Singapore, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Abu Dhabi,
Ho-Chi-Minh City, Oslo, Helsinki, Brighton and Southend.

He is currently Principal Investigator (lead researcher) of the interdisciplinary

research project CRUNCH – the Food-Water-Energy Nexus (2017–2020), with 20
partners in 6 countries. He supervises post-doctoral fellows and Ph.D. researchers
and has led the strategic renewal of the research and teaching areas of a large
school, led teams of 120 academics, established university-wide research centres,
and successfully managed large international multi-stakeholder projects.

In the 1990s, with his own design practice, Steffen was actively involved in the
architectural creation of the ‘New Berlin’, designing and building a large portfolio
of public and private works, including buildings at Potsdamer Platz, the extension
of the Ministry of German Foreign Affairs, and the Quartier an der Museumsinsel.
He has been invited as Visiting Professor to the University of California at
Berkeley, TU-Berlin, and National University of Singapore; a DAAD-Professor at
the TU-Munich, and UNESCO Chair in Sustainable Urban Development in the
Asia-Pacific. In 2018, he was a Distinguished Visiting Professor at the Xi’an
Jiaotong University in China. He is a member of the Royal Institute of British
Architects, the Institute of Australian Architects, and the Academy of Urbanism in
the UK. He was invited as keynote speaker at over 100 important international
conferences, and presented at more than 500 conferences and symposia in 40
countries.

Steffen is a prolific publisher and has published 19 authored and edited books,
numerous book chapters, articles and papers (300+), 5 journal special issues,
entries to encyclopaedias, and has co-authored parts of important UN reports. He
is currently a member of the editorial boards of six academic journals.

Recent book publications: The fruits of Steffen’s research are prodigious, including
scholarly books, journal articles and conference papers, invited book chapters,
online podcasts and contributions to significant industry and policy reports. His
most recent books are:

‘Motivating Change’ (Routledge, 2014, with R. Corker); ‘Low Carbon Cities.

Transforming Urban Systems’ (Routledge, 2015); ‘Sustainable Lina. Adaptive
Reuse Projects by Lina Bo Bardi’ (Springer, 2016, with A. Condello); ‘Growing
Compact. Urban Form and Density’ (Routledge, 2017, with J.H. Bay).
 About the Author xxix

‘Informality Now’ (forthcoming: Routledge, 2019, with A. Di Raimo & A. Melis).

He is Editor of a book series on Sustainable Design for Routledge (London/New
York).

Since 2003 Steffen has supervised numerous Ph.D. students and postdoctoral
research fellows as primary supervisor in the field of sustainable architecture,
urbanism and design theory. He is mentoring early career researchers, providing
them with opportunities within his research group and ongoing projects to
stimulate their independent scientific inquiry.

His research interests are in the following intertwined areas:

• Resilient urbanisation for low carbon compact cities

• Green urbanism theory—scenarios for the City of the Future
• Resource-efficient construction and modular off-site manufacturing
• Urban culture and new programmes for age-friendly public space
• Sustainable architecture, high-performance buildings and technology
integration
• History and theory of cities, urban renewal and cultural heritage

His writings focus on creative strategies that architects and cities can use to reduce
the ecological impact and become more liveable and equitable places in the
process. For more information, please visit: www.city-futures.org.uk and www.
city-leadership.com.
List of Figures

Figs. 1.1 and 1.2 English cities frequently have areas with undulating
streets and cul-de-sacs which recall rural settlement
patterns. The concept of the rural scenery and the
Picturesque gave the illusion of living in the countryside
while enjoying the benefits of the city. Source: Photo
supplied by the author. Great housing estates
commonly developed around their garden squares, as
described by Hermann Muthesius in ‘Das Englische
Haus’ (1908) and by Steen Eiler Rasmussen in
‘Experiencing Architecture’ (1962). Source: Photo
supplied by the author 7
Fig. 1.3 The main goal of all city transformation must be to
achieve and strengthen social inclusiveness to enable
residents’ health, happiness and wellbeing.
Source: Photo supplied by the author 7
Fig. 1.4 There are different conceptions of future cities,
including Resilient City, Resource-efficient City and
Circular City. Source: OECD online 8
Fig. 1.5 Graph, size of UK cities, 2017. Manchester,
Birmingham, Leeds and Glasgow are all significant
urban centres. Source: Graph supplied by the author 11
Figs. 1.6 and 1.7 Community engagement events on the urban futures
of our city, organised by the author in 2016–2017 to
build long-term and meaningful collaboration for

xxxi
xxxii List of Figures

innovation. Source: Photos supplied by the author.

Open dialogue and community engagement events.
Architecture and urbanism is not just an individual
pursuit, but a community undertaking. Source:
Photos supplied by the author 11
Fig. 1.8 The United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development
Goals; Goal 11 is on Sustainable Cities and
Communities (UN 2015). Source: UN online 12
Figs. 1.9 and 1.10 Ebenezer Howard published the book ‘To-morrow: a
Peaceful Path to Real Reform’ in 1898, which was
reissued in 1902 as ‘Garden Cities of To-Morrow’. His
idealised garden city would house 32,000 people on a
site of 2400 ha planned in a concentric pattern.
Source: Open source image. The 1960s New Towns
programme included the planned new town of Milton
Keynes, a megastructure located halfway between
Birmingham and London. Source: Open source image.
Drawn by Helmut Jacoby. © Milton Keynes
Development Corporation 13
Fig. 1.11 The Green Urbanism Wheel developed by the author
(Lehmann 2010). Source: Graph supplied by the
author20
Figs. 1.12–1.15 Some of the best known examples of sustainable
urban regeneration that have become global models of
‘best practice’: the green district Vauban in Freiburg
(Germany). Source: Photos supplied by the author.
Hammarby-­Sjoestad in Stockholm (Sweden).
Source: Photos supplied by the author. HafenCity in
Hamburg (Germany). Source: Photos supplied by the
author. Western Harbour in Malmo (Sweden).
Source: Photos supplied by the author 24
Fig. 1.16 Cities are hotspots of consumption and generating a
large amount of waste. Source: Graph supplied by the
author25
Fig. 1.17 Parked cars occupy and waste too much public space.
This photo series shows how much public space is
freed-up when 60 people arrive by bikes or bus instead
of arriving in 60 cars (assuming the worst case: one
person per car). Source: Photo supplied by the author 31
Fig. 1.18 Population density per hectare in relationship to mode
of travel and daily trips. At some point, walking and
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
more advanced in civilisation than the former. By this enactment, a
Koblegian or a Varangian was compelled to take an oath where such
a test was required, but a Slavonian was exempted. It would
therefore appear, if the conclusion may be safely ventured upon, that
judicial combats, which formed the final appeal when a defendant in
a cause acquitted himself in the first instance by a solemn oath, were
not adopted amongst the Slavs, who were satisfied with a public
examination of facts, and an adjudication, without the sacred or the
physical test. It is sufficient, however, for the great uses of historical
inquiry, to know that a difference so remarkable between two
branches of the people was recognised and confirmed by law.
One of the most important declarations of the code was that which
divided the population into three classes—the nobles, the freemen,
and the slaves. Of these three, the slaves alone were left
unprotected. The freemen, who were fenced in from the
encroachments of the nobles, were composed of the citizens, the
farmers, the landholders, and hired servants. They were sub-
classified into centuries, each of which elected a head, who filled an
office equivalent to that of a tribune. The civil magistracy, thus
created, had a separate guard of their own, and were placed, in
virtue of their office, on an equality with the boyars. The city of
Novgorod, which maintained, under a nominal princedom, the spirit
of a republic, exhibited these municipal franchises in a more
complete form than any of the Russian cities; all of which, however,
possessed similar privileges, more or less modified according to their
relative importance, or the circumstances under which their charters
were granted. The chief of the Novgorodian republic was a prince of
the blood; the title of his office was that of Namestnick. He took no
share in the deliberations of the people, nor does it appear that he
even possessed a veto upon their decisions. His oath of instalment
bound him as the slave rather than the governor of the city; for it
pledged him to govern agreeably to the constitution as he found it; to
appoint none but Novgorodian magistrates in the provinces, and
even these to be previously approved of by the Posadnick or mayor;
to respect strictly the exclusive rights possessed by the citizens
sitting in judgment on their own order, of imposing their own taxes,
and of carrying on commerce at their own discretion; to interdict his
boyars from acquiring landed property within the villages dependent
on Novgorod, and to oblige them to travel at their private cost; to
discourage immigration; and never to cause a Novgorodian to be
arrested for debt. A princedom, accepted on such restrictive
conditions, was but the shadow of a sceptre, as the municipal union
of the legislative and judicial abundantly proved. The first officer was
the Posadnick, or mayor, chosen by election for a limited time; the
next was the Tisiatski, or tribune, who was a popular check upon the
prince and mayor; and the rest of the functionaries consisted of the
senate, the city assembly, and the boyars, all of whom were elective.
By the electoral system, the people preserved a constant guard over
the fidelity of their representatives in the senate, and their officers of
justice; so that, while the three grades propounded by law were kept
widely apart, and socially distinguished, the prerogatives of each
were rigidly protected against innovation from the other two. All that
this little republic required to render its security perfect, was liberty. It
was based upon a system of slavery, and sustained its dominion
more by fear than righteousness. Nor was it independent of control,
although all its domestic concerns were uninterruptedly transacted
within its own confines. It was an appanage of the grand princedom;
but on account of its fortunate geographical position on the northern
and northwestern frontiers, which were distant from the capital—a
circumstance that delegated to Novgorod the defence of those
remote boundaries—it acquired a degree of political importance that
preserved it for four centuries against the cupidity of the succession
of despots that occupied the throne. The removal of the seat of
empire from Kiev to Vladimir, and finally to Moscow, by drawing the
centre nearer to Novgorod, diminished its power by degrees, and
finally absorbed it altogether.
One of the enactments of the code of Iaroslav will show what
advances had been made towards the segregation of the people into
different orders, and how much the government partook, or was
likely to partake, of a mixed form, in which a monarchical, an
hereditary, and a representative estate were combined. It made the
prince the heir-at-law of every freeman who died without male issue,
with the exception of the boyars and officers of the royal guard. By
this regulation the prerogative of the crown was rendered
paramount, while the hereditary rights of property were preserved
unconditionally to the families of the nobles alone. A class of rich
patricians was thus formed and protected, to represent, by virtue of
birth, the interests of property; while commerce and popular
privileges were fully represented in the assembly of the elected
senators. The checks and balances of this system were pretty equal;
so that, if the constitution of which these outlines were the elements,
had been allowed to accumulate strength and to become
consolidated by time, it would at last have resolved itself into a liberal
and powerful form; the semi-savage usages with which it was
encrusted would have dropped away, and wiser institutions have
grown up in their stead.
So clearly were the popular benefits of the laws defined, that the
code regulated the maximum demand which the proprietor of the soil
might exact from his tenant; and it neither enforced taxation, nor
recognised corporal punishment, nor in the composition of a
pecuniary mulct admitted any distinction between the Varangians
and the Slavs, who formed the aristocracy and the democracy. The
prince neither possessed revenue nor levied taxes. He subsisted on
the fines he imposed for infractions of law, on the tributes he
received from his estates, on the voluntary offerings of the people,
and the produce of such property as had fallen to the private title of
the sovereignty. Even the tribute was not compulsory; it was rather a
right derived from prescription. The only dependence of the lords of
fiefs was in that they were compelled to render military service when
required to the grand prince; and it was expected that they should
come numerously attended, well armed, and provisioned. The tribute
was the mark of conquest, and was not considered to imply taxation.
But while the monarchical principle was thus kept within
proscribed limits, the power of the democracy was not sufficiently
curbed: over both there was a check, but the hands of the prince
were bound too tightly. His dominion was despotic, because he was
surrounded by men devoted to his will; but the dominion of the
people was boundless, because opinion was only in its rickety
infancy, and the resistance to the offending prince lay in the
demonstration of physical superiority instead of moral combination.
They never hesitated to avail themselves of their numerical
advantage. They even carried it to extravagance and licentiousness;
and so much did they exult in their strength, that they regulated the
hours at which the sovereign was permitted to enjoy relaxation,
punished the obnoxious heads of the church by summary ejectment,
and in several instances, taking the charter of law into their own
keeping, deposed their princes. The checks, therefore, established in
Iaroslav’s wise convention between the government and the
constituency were overborne by the rudeness of the times.
That the period had arrived when laws were necessary to the
settlement of the empire, was sufficiently testified by the
circumstances, external and domestic, in which the people were
placed. The adoption of Christianity had partially appeased the old
passion for aggression against Constantinople, which, having now
become the metropolis of their religion, was regarded with some
degree of veneration by the Russians. A war of plundering
Byzantium, therefore, could not be entertained with any prospect of
success. The extension of the empire under Vladimir left little to be
coveted beyond the frontiers, which spread to the east, north and
south as far as even the wild grasp of the lawless tribes of the
forests could embrace. To the west, the Russians had ceased to look
for prey, since Boleslav, by his easy conquest of Kiev, had
demonstrated the strength of Poland. Having acquired as much as
they could, and having next, in the absence of warlike expeditions
abroad, occupied themselves with ruthless feuds at home, they
came at length to consider the necessity of consulting the security of
possessions acquired at so much cost, and so often risked by civil
broils. This was the time for a code of laws. But unfortunately there
still existed too many remains of the barbarian era, to render the
introduction of legal restraints a matter easy of accomplishment. The
jealousy of Greek superiority survived the admission of the Greek
religion. The longing after power still inspired the petty chiefs; and
hopeless dreams of larger dominion wherewith to bribe the
discontented, and provide for the hirelings of the state, still troubled
the repose of the sovereign. The throne stood in a plain surrounded
by forests, from whence issued, as the rage propelled them, hordes
of newly reclaimed savages, pressing extraordinary demands, or
threatening with ferocious violence the dawning institutions of
civilisation. In such a position, it was not only impossible to advance
steadily, but to maintain the ground already gained.

Iaroslav Dies (1054 A.D.)

Could the character of Iaroslav, the legislator,

[1054 a.d.] have been transmitted through his successors,
the good of which he laid the seeds, might have
been finally cultivated to maturity. But his wisdom and his virtues
died with him. Nor, elevated as he was in moral dignity above the
spirit of his countrymen, can it be said that he was free from
weaknesses that marred much of the utility of his best measures.
One of his earliest errors was the resignation of Novgorod to his son
Vladimir, who had no sooner ascended the throne of the republican
city, than, under the pretext of seeking satisfaction for the death of a
Russian who had been killed in Greece, he carried arms into the
Byzantine empire. The folly of this wild attempt was abundantly
punished in the sequel; fifteen thousand men were sacrificed on the
Grecian plains, and their chief hunted back disgracefully to his own
territories. Yet this issue of one family grant did not awaken Iaroslav
to the danger of partitioning the empire. Before his death he divided
the whole of Russia amongst his sons, making, however, the
younger sons subordinate to the eldest, as grand prince of Kiev, and
empowering the latter to reduce the others to obedience by force of
arms whenever they exhibited a disposition to dispute his authority.
This settlement, enforced with parting admonitions on his death-
bed, was considered by Iaroslav to present a sufficient security
against civil commotion and disputes about the succession. But he
did not calculate upon the ungovernable lust for power, the jealousy
of younger brothers, and the passion for aggrandisement. His
injunctions were uttered in the amiable confidence of Christianity;
they were violated with the indecent impetuosity of the barbarian
nature.
With the death of Iaroslav, and the division of the empire, a new
period of darkness and misrule began. The character of the
legislator, which influenced his own time, was speedily absorbed in
the general confusion. Iaroslav’s name was held in reverence, but
the memory of his excellence did not awe the multitudes that, upon
his decease, sprang from their retirement to revive the disastrous
glories of domestic warfare. Much as he had done for the extension
of Christianity, he had failed in establishing it in the hearts of the
people. He was an able theologian, and well acquainted with the
church ordinances, agenda, and other books of the Greek religion,
many of which he caused to be translated into the Russian
language, and distributed in copies over the country. So strong an
interest did he take in the cultivation of the doctrines of the church,
that he established a metropolitan at Kiev, in order to relieve the
Russian people and their priests from the inconveniences of
attending the residence of the ecclesiastical head at Constantinople,
and also with a desire to provide for the more prompt and certain
dissemination of the principles of faith. But the value of all these
exertions expired with their author. He did much to raise the fame
and consolidate the resources of the empire; but the last act of his
political career, by which he cut away the cord that bound the rods,
had the effect of neutralising all the benefits he meditated to
accomplish, as well as those that he actually effected, for his country.
His reign was followed by a period of savage anarchy that might be
said to have resolved the half-civilised world into its original
elements.k

FOOTNOTES

[2] According to recent computations the Russian Empire

covers an area of 8,660,000 square miles—about one sixth of the
land surface of the globe.
[3] [This treaty was not so favourable to the Russians as the
one concluded with Oleg—a result, evidently, of the former defeat.
Another point of importance is that it makes mention of Russian
Christians, to whom there is no allusion in the treaty of 911. From
this we may conclude that Christianity had spread largely during
this interval.g]
[4] [According to another Ms., Constantine, son of Lev.]
 [5] Ex. XXI, 17.
[6] [In the original Nestor always calls thus the sister of the
emperors.]
[7] [An antiquarian inquiry instituted by Catherine in 1794
resulted in proving that Tmoutarakan was situated on the isle of
Taman, forming a key to the confluence of the sea of Azov with
the Black Sea.k]
 [8] A copper coin, of the value, as near as we can ascertain, of
about 4½d. of English money.
 CHAPTER II. THE PERIOD OF THE
PRINCIPALITIES
THE CHARACTER OF THE PRINCIPALITIES

The period extending from the year of

[1054-1224 a.d.] Iaroslav’s death (1054) to the year of the
appearance of the Tatars (1224) is one of the
most troublous and confused epochs in the history of Russia. As the
Scandinavian custom of partition continued to prevail over the
Byzantine idea of political unity, the national territory was constantly
divided.
The princely anarchy of oriental Europe finds a parallel in the
feudal anarchy of the Occident. Pogodine enumerates for this period
sixty-four principalities which enjoyed a more or less protracted
existence; two hundred and ninety-three princes who during these
two centuries contended over Kiev and other Russian domains;
eighty-three civil wars in which the entire country was concerned.
Foreign wars helped to augment the enormous mass of historical
facts. The chronicles mention against the Polovtsi alone eighteen
campaigns, while these barbarians invaded Christian territory forty-
six times.
The ancient names of the Slav tribes have entirely disappeared, or
are preserved only in the names of towns—as, for instance, that of
the Polotchanes in Polotsk; that of the Severians in Novgorod-
Seversk. The elements in the composition of Russia were thus rather
principalities than peoples. No more is said of the Krivitchi or of the
Drevlians; we hear only of Smolensk or of Volhinia. These little
states were dismembered at each new division among the children
of a prince; they were then reconstituted, to be again divided into
appanages. In spite of all these vicissitudes, however, some among
them had an uninterrupted existence due to certain topographical
and ethnographical conditions. Setting aside the distant principality
of Tmoutorakan, established almost at the foot of the Caucasus in
the midst of Turkish and Circassian tribes and counting eight
different princes, the following are, from the eleventh to the thirteenth
centuries, the principal divisions of Russia:
(1) The principality of Smolensk, which occupied the important
territory which is in a manner the central point of the orographic
system of Russia; it comprises the old forest of Okov, where the
three greatest rivers of Russia, the Volga, the Dnieper, and the
Dvina, have their rise. Hence the political importance of Smolensk,
which is attested by the many wars undertaken against her; hence
also her commercial prosperity. It is noticeable that all her towns
were built on some one of the three rivers; all the commerce of
ancient Russia thus passed through her bounds. Besides Smolensk
it is necessary to cite Mozhaisk, Viasma, and Toropets, the capital of
a secondary principality, the domain of two famous princes—Mstislav
the Brave and Mstislav the Bold.
(2) The principality of Kiev, which was Rus—Russia in the strict
sense of the term. Its situation on the Dnieper, the proximity of
Greece, the fertility of its Black Lands, long assured to this state the
supremacy over all other Russian principalities. To the south it was
bordered by the Nomad tribes of the steppe. Against the inroads of
these tribes the princes of Kiev were obliged to construct frontier
fortresses; though frequently they ceded them lands and took them
into their pay, constituting them into veritable military colonies. The
principality of Pereiaslavl was a dependency of Kiev; Vishgorod,
Bielgorod, Tripoli, and Torlshok were at different times constituted
into appanages for princes of the same family.
(3) The two principalities of
Tcheringov with Starodub and
Lubetz and of Novgorod-
Seversk with Putivl, Kursk and
Briansk, which extended along
the tributaries flowing into the
Dnieper from the left—the Soj
and the Desna swelled by the
Seim. Tcheringov, extending
towards the upper Oka, had thus
one foot in the basin of the
Volga; its princes, the Olgovitchi,
were the most redoubtable rivals
of those of Kiev. As for the
princes of Seversk, they were
ceaselessly occupied with wars
against their dangerous rivals on
the south, the Polovtsi. It is the
exploits of a prince of Seversk
against these barbarians which
form the subject of a chanson de
geste—The Song of Igor.
Laplander
(4) The duplex principality of
Riazan and Murom, another
state whose existence was
maintained at the expense of ceaseless war against the nomads.
The principal towns were Riazan, Murom, Pereiaslavl-Riazanski, on
the Oka; Kolomna, at the junction of the Moskva with the Oka; and
Pronsk, on the Pronia. The upper Don bounded it on the west. This
principality was established in the midst of Finnish tribes—the
Muromians and the Meshtseraks. The warlike character and the rude
and coarse habits attributed to the people of the principality
doubtless resulted not less from the assimilation of the aborigines by
the Russian race than from the continuous brutal strife of the
inhabitants with the nomads.
(5) The principalities of Suzdal—with their metropolitan towns of
Tver, Suzdal, Rostov, Iuriev-Polski, and Vladimir on the Kliasma; of
Iaroslavl and Pereiaslavl-Zaliesski—which were established on the
Volga and the Oka, in the densest of the northern forests,
surrounded by Finnish tribes—Mouromians, Merians, Vesses, and
Tcherimisses. Though situated at the extreme limit of the Russian
world, these principalities nevertheless exercised great influence
over it. We shall see their princes now reducing Novgorod and the
Russia of the lakes to a certain political dependence, the
consequence of a double economical dependence; then victoriously
intervening in the quarrels of the Russia of the Dnieper. The
Suzdalians were of the same character as the Riazanians—rude and
warlike. The characteristics of a new nationality were already
noticeable among these two peoples. That which differentiated them
from the Kievans and the Novgorod-Severskans, who, like
themselves, were occupied in the great struggle against the
barbarians, was that the Russians of the Dnieper, sometimes
mingling their blood with that of their enemies, became fused with
Turkish tribes, nomadic and essentially mobile, while the Russians of
the Oka and the Volga united with Finnish tribes, agricultural and
essentially sedentary. This difference between the two foreign
elements which entered into the blood of the Slavs, without doubt
contributed to that marked difference in character between the two
branches of the Russian race. During the period from the eleventh to
the thirteenth centuries, as colonization advanced, from the basin of
the Dnieper to the basin of the Volga, the divisions of Little Russia
and Great Russia were formed.
(6) The principalities of Kiev, Tchernigov, Novgorod-Seversk,
Riazan, Murom, and Suzdal, which formed the marches of Russia on
the borders of the steppe with its devastating hordes—constituting its
frontier states. On the confines of the northwest, opposite the
Lithuanians, the Letts and the Tchuds, the same rôle devolved on the
principality of Polotsk, occupying the basin of the Dvina, and on the
republican principalities of Novgorod and Pskov on the lakes of
Ilmen and Petpus. The principality of Minsk was attached to that of
Polotsk. It was situated in the basin of the Dnieper and, owing to that
circumstance, its possession was frequently disputed by the grand
princes of Kiev. The towns of Torzhok, Volok-Lamski, Izborsk, and
Veliki Luki belonged to Novgorod; at times they were the capitals of
individual states.
Southwestern Russia comprehended (1) in the fan-shaped
territory formed by the Pripet and its tributaries—Volhinia, with
Vladimir in Volhinia, Lutsk, Turov, Brest, and even Lublin, which is
unquestionably Polish; (2) in the basins of the San, the Dniester, and
the Pripet—Galicia proper, or Red Russia, whose ancient
inhabitants, the white Croats, seem to have originated in the
Danubian Slavs. Its principal towns were Galitch, founded by
Vladimirko about 1444; Peremishl; Terebovlia, and Svenigorodka.
The near neighbourhood of Hungary and Poland contributed to these
two principalities distinctive characteristics, as well as a more
advanced civilisation. In the epic songs Galicia, the land of the hero
Dvorik Stepanovitch, is a country of fabulous wealth. The Narrative
of the Expedition of Igor gives an exalted idea of the power of its
princes: “Iaroslav Osmomysl of Galicia,” cries the poet addressing
one of them, “high art thou seated upon thy golden throne! With thy
iron regiments thou guardest the Carpathian mountains, thou
shuttest the gates of the Danube, thou barrest the way to the king of
Hungary; at will thou openest the gates of Kiev, and thine arrows
reach far into the distance.”

THE UNITY OF THE PRINCIPALITIES

The disposition of these fifteen or sixteen principalities confirms

what has been previously stated concerning the essential unity of the
configuration of the Russian soil. None of the river-basins forms a
closed or isolated region; no line of heights establishes between
them barriers or political frontiers. The greater number of the
Russian principalities belonged to the basin of the Dnieper, but
pushed their limits everywhere beyond. Kiev, with Pereiaslavl, is the
only one strictly confined within it; but Volhinia puts the basin of the
Dnieper in communication with those of the Bug in the south and of
the Vistula; Polotsk connects it with the basins of the Niemen and
the Dvina, Novgorod-Seversk with that of the Don, Tchernigov and
Smolensk with that of the Volga. Between these principalities, water-
courses everywhere establish communications. Russia, though
divided into appanages, was already making toward a great united
empire. The lack of cohesion among nearly all the states and their
frequent dismemberments prevented their becoming actual
nationalities. The principalities of Smolensk, of Tchernigov, of Riazan
never possessed that definite historical existence so characteristic of
the duchy of Brittany or the county of Toulouse in France, the
duchies of Saxony, Swabia, or Bavaria in Germany.
The interests of the princes and their ambition to provide an
appanage for each of their children, necessitated at the death of
every sovereign a fresh distribution of Russian territory. Yet a certain
cohesion was evident in the midst of these vicissitudes. There was
visible a unity of race and language, the more marked,
notwithstanding differences of dialect, in that the Russian Slavs,
excepting in the southwest, were surrounded everywhere by entirely
dissimilar peoples—Lithuanians, Tchuds, Finns, Turks, and Magyars.
There was also unity of religion; the Russians were differentiated
from nearly all their neighbours in that, in contradistinction to the
Slavs of the west, the Poles, Czechs, and Moravians, they
represented a distinct form of Christianity, acknowledging no tie with
Rome and rejecting Latin as the church language.
There was also a unity of historical development, since hitherto the
Russian Slavs had all followed the same destiny, had equally
accepted Greek civilisation, submitted to Varangian conquest, and
pursued in common certain great enterprises, such as the
expeditions against Byzantium and the wars with the nomads. There
was finally political unity, as among all—in Galicia as in Novgorod, by
the Dnieper as in the forests of Suzdal—the same family sat upon all
the thrones. All the Russian princes were descended from Rurik,
from St. Vladimir, and from Iaroslav the Great. The civil wars which
desolated the country affirmed anew this unity. No state in Russia
could regard the rest as outsiders, when the princes of Tchernigov
and Suzdal were seen to take up arms solely to decide which among
them was the eldest—which held the right to the title of grand prince
and to the throne of Kiev. There were descendants of Rurik who
governed successively the most distant states in Russia, and who,
having reigned at Tmoutarakan on the straits of Ienikale, at
Novgorod the Great, at Toropetz in the country of Smolensk, finished
by obtaining recognition of their right to reign over Kiev.b

THE THEORY OF SUCCESSION

If the question be asked why

the Russian state continued
undivided throughout the two
hundred years of the Varangian
period, our answer is that it was
due solely to the fact that during
the greater part of this period the
grand princes left one son and
heir. Whenever the case was
otherwise, as after the death of
Sviatoslav and Vladimir, the
brothers straightway entered
upon a struggle for mastery that
did not terminate until all but one
were destroyed. That one then
became undisputed master, for
no one dared dispute the
possession of power with the
descendants of Rurik.
The theory of succession in
the Rurik family was as follows:
the grand prince of Kiev was
lord paramount of Russia. He
disposed of all vacant
A Koriak principalities, and was supreme
 judge and general; but each of
his brothers had, according to his seniority, the right of succession to
the throne. The death of every elder brother brought the younger
ones a step nearer to that goal. The order of advance was from
Smolensk to Pereiaslavl, from Pereiaslavl to Tchernigov, from
Tchernigov to Kiev. But none could attain to the highest dignity, save
him whose father had held it before him. Sons of a father who had
died before reaching the goal were excluded from Kiev and were
confined to the possessions in their hands at the time of their father’s
death. The technical Russian term for those members of the Rurik
family who were excluded from the highest dignity was Isgoi, and the
attempts of the Isgoi to break through the law of exclusion have had
no small share in the bloody and desolate history of Russia during
the period upon which we now enter. But another factor contributed
to the same end. The power of the grand prince was not so
predominant as to enable him to enforce his will and put down
disobedience. His position was based on the idea of patriarchal
power, and was respected by the princes only when it was to their
advantage. To maintain himself he had to resort to the expedient of
making coalitions with some of the princes against the others, and
the sword was the final arbiter between the grand prince and his
nominal vassals.c Accordingly the whole of Russia was always
divided in its support of the claims of this or that candidate. The civil
wars which ensued were after all but family quarrels.a

CIVIL WARS

Iaroslav left five sons. To Iziaslav, the oldest,

[1055-1069 a.d.] he gave Kiev; to Sviatoslav, Tchernigov; to
Vsevolod, Pereiaslavl; to Viatcheslav,
Smolensk; and to Igor, Vladimir in Volhinia. The order in which they
are given here represents the order of their respective dignities and
their position in the line of succession. Two of the brothers did not
long survive their father. In 1056 Viatcheslav died, and Igor, in
accordance with the law of succession, moved to Smolensk, where
he too died in 1060.
 About this time a new wave of migration set in from Asia towards
the south-Russian steppe—the Turkish tribe of the Polovtsi. In 1055
Vsevolod of Pereiaslavl concluded peace with them by bribing them
to retire into the steppe. In 1061 he suffered a defeat at their hands,
but they did not follow up their success and again retired into the
steppe. The civil wars, however, which soon broke out, were to bring
them back as an ever-menacing plague to the Russian population.
Among the minor princes, who
were excluded from the
succession, was Vseslav of
Polotsk, a descendant of St.
Vladimir. He had helped his
uncles in a war against the
Torks, a tribe kindred to the
Polovtsi, and expected a reward
in an accession of territory.
Being disappointed, he
determined to help himself. First
he ravaged the territory of
Pskov, but being unable to take
that city, he invaded the territory
of Novgorod, and it seems that Sviatoslav
for a while he was master of the
city. His bold procedure
compelled his uncles Iziaslav, Sviatoslav, and Vsevolod to unite
against him; but, though beaten by their superior forces, he could not
be expelled from the north. The uncles thereupon resorted to
treachery. They proposed to him a friendly meeting under a
guarantee of his personal security and liberty, which they confirmed
by an oath upon the cross. But when he had reached the vicinity of
Smolensk, beyond the Dnieper, he was surprised, captured, and
brought to Kiev, where he was imprisoned. At this juncture the
Polovtsi made another of their raids and defeated the united forces
of the brothers, so that Sviatoslav was obliged to take refuge at
Tchernigov, while Iziaslav and Vsevolod fled to Kiev. There they
intended to await the nomad hordes behind the walls of the cities,
sacrificing the open country to the invaders. But the citizens of Kiev
thought differently. At a stormy meeting of the vetché it was decided
to take up arms, and when Iziaslav refused to lead them against the
enemy they liberated Vseslav from his confinement and made him
their prince (1068). Iziaslav was obliged to flee to Poland, where he
found a champion in Boleslav the Bold. Menaced in front by the
Poles, and suspicious of his uncles in his rear, Vseslav thought
himself obliged to flee to Polotsk, leaving the Kievans to the
vengeance of Iziaslav (1069). The events of two generations
previous, when Boleslav the Brave captured Kiev for Sviatopolk,
were now to be repeated. The Poles demeaned themselves as
masters and committed many excesses. The Kievans bore it for a
year; then exasperated, fell upon the Poles, who were scattered in
their various quarters, and compelled Boleslav to evacuate the city.
After protracted fighting and negotiations, Polotsk was finally
restored to Vseslav, and the old order seemed re-established, when
the two brothers of Iziaslav became suspicious of his designs and
suddenly appeared before Kiev. Iziaslav now fled for the second
time, Sviatoslav became grand prince, while Vsevolod advanced to
the principality of Tchernigov.
Iziaslav left nothing unattempted to regain his
[1075-1078 a.d.] position. He had escaped with his treasure into
Poland, but Boleslav was unwilling to renew his
former adventure. The German king Henry IV, whom Iziaslav met at
Mainz in January, 1075, was more favourably disposed and sent an
embassy to Sviatoslav; but it accomplished nothing. Iziaslav also
entered into negotiations with pope Gregory VII, to whom he sent his
son Iaropolk. The pope hoped to be able to annex Russia to the
western church, and even went so far as to grant it to Iaropolk as a
fief from the holy see.
But meanwhile Sviatoslav died (1076) and Vsevolod, a man
whose mild character did not exclude the possibility of a peaceful
settlement, became grand prince. Boleslav now lent troops to
Iziaslav (1077), and though Vsevolod marched against him with an
army of his own, yet they soon came to terms. Iziaslav was to be
reinstated grand prince for the third time, while Vsevolod was to
retire to Tchernigov, in return for which he was secured in the
succession. Thus Iaropolk’s plans came to naught, and with them
the hope of a reunited church.
However, Vseslav of Polotsk did not yet give up his ambitious
designs. Foiled in his attempt on the throne of Kiev, he tried to create
an empire for himself in the Russian north, and it required three
campaigns of the south-Russian princes to annul his plans. It was
during these wars that Vladimir Monomakh, son of Vsevolod and
son-in-law of King Harold of England, first distinguished himself,
though not in a glorious manner. He was the first Russian prince to
engage in a domestic quarrel the Polovtsi, with whose aid he
ravaged the city and principality of Polotsk. Vseslav died in 1101 as
prince of Polotsk, and his memory lived long after him in the
traditions of the people, by whom he was regarded as a sorcerer.
The Song of Igor tells how he accomplished in one night a march
from Kiev to Tmoutorakan, and how he could hear at Kiev the ringing
of the church bells at Polotsk.
Russian dynastic conditions had now been restored to the legal
order, and there seemed nothing left to disturb the tranquillity. But
the cupidity of the grand prince soon brought on new dissensions
among the members of the house of Rurik. Viatcheslav and Igor died
at an early age, leaving minor sons whom their uncle refused to
provide with appanages. They therefore tried to gain their right by
force. Boris, a son of Viatcheslav, temporarily got hold of Tchernigov,
but being unable to maintain himself in that city he fled to
Tmoutorakan, the last refuge of all the discontented. There he was
soon joined by his brother Gleb, who was expelled by Iziaslav from
Novgorod, and by another brother from Volhinian Vladimir, both of
whose appanages were divided among the sons of Iziaslav and
Vsevolod. In the civil war which followed, the nephews at first had
the advantage and captured Tchernigov; but they were defeated in a
decisive battle fought near that city on the third of October, 1078.
Both the grand prince Iziaslav and Boris fell, and Oleg was obliged to
flee once more to Tmoutorakan.

Vsevolod
 Iziaslav was succeeded by Vsevolod, whose
[1078-1093 a.d.] reign (1078-1093) was even more unfortunate
than his brother’s had been. He too favoured his
own sons and those of Iziaslav at the expense of his other nephews
and in consequence the sons of Sviatoslav and Igor and of his
nephew Rostislav waged against him unremitting warfare with the
aid of the Polovtsi and Chazars, who wasted the country. Vsevolod’s
attempt in 1084 to conquer Tmoutorakan, the breeding-place of
revolts, failed miserably. Finally even Iaropolk, the son of Iziaslav,
who had received so many favours from his uncle, revolted against
him and was assassinated during the war. In those days of turmoil
and confusion, even old Vseslav ventured forth once more from
Polotsk and plundered Smolensk. The grand prince was ill most of
the time at Kiev and the conduct of his affairs lay in the hands of his
son Vladimir Monomakh.

Sviatopolk

Vsevolod died April 13th, 1093, leaving two sons, Vladimir

Monomakh, who held Tchernigov, and Rostislav, who held
Pereiaslavl. He was succeeded by Sviatopolk, the second son of
Iziaslav, who was the rightful successor after the death of his brother
Iaropolk, who, it will be remembered, was assassinated. Monomakh
could easily have made himself grand prince, for he was the most
popular of the princes and gained great fame in his campaigns
against the Polovtsi, whom he defeated twelve times during the reign
of his father; but he was anxious to avoid violating the law of
succession and thus inviting civil war.
Sviatopolk’s reign began with a violation of the law of nations by
imprisoning ambassadors of the Polovtsi, who had come to negotiate
a treaty with him. In retaliation the nomads invaded the country, and
with so great a force that Vladimir and Rostislav, who had come to
the aid of the grand prince, advised him to purchase peace from the
enemy. He paid no heed to them, but the event soon justified the
prudence of their counsel. In the battle of Tripole, fought on May
23rd, 1093, the Russians sustained a disastrous defeat. Rostislav