A smaller replica of Phnom Penh’s
Independence Monument is under construction in Kep. Similar to the original, as
you might expect, it’s been sited at the center of an intersection. Kep has
appropriate places for a monument that’re not associated with traffic that
would’ve been preferable to placement in a traffic circle, but admittedly,
visually it looks nice to have your view down a street anchored by a statue or
monument.
At least Kep’s Independence
Monument is on a street that has little traffic so it’ll be easy as a breeze to
not only approach the building but also enter in. That’s in total contrast to
the capital where you’d take your life in your hands if you tried to reach the
monument on foot and if you did manage to make it there in one piece you’re not
permitted to enter the area, but only look from outside. Any kind of peaceful
energy you might feel being near it, or reflection or contemplation you might
achieve from its vibes would be drowned out by traffic noise. Monuments are
supposed to be felt and experienced up close and personal. So what does it mean
to have a monument to ‘Independence’ choked by traffic? Well it doesn’t bode well
for the concept being portrayed.
Ironically, that inaccessible
space is counted as part of the 2% of Phnom Penh devoted to ‘parks’. Technically
speaking, I guess you can call that park space, but really, where are the parks
in the capital? Riverside Park? Hun Sen Park? They come a lot closer to what a
park is than Independence Monument, and are heavily used by the people but
still, strips of land that are 80% pavement and the remainder that’s in grass
is off limits?
There are no places similar to
what we refer to as parks in America or Europe or even other Asian cities. You
know, places for sports with tennis and volleyball courts and football fields;
with picnic benches for outdoor meals and grassy lawns for lounging; with small
ponds and (eventually) small forests of big old trees. A place of respite from
the crowded, noisy and madding city. Most other cities I’ve been to in Asia
have at least some parks. Bangkok is extremely short on park space, probably
worse than Phnom Penh considering its vast population, but at least it has
Lumpini Park. Rangoon, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh all have
large green parks. All Chinese cities have parks though they too devote only a
small percentage of their space to greenery and charge people to enter them,
but at least they have one or two places where people can seek out peace, tranquility
and the sweet smell of greenery.
What about Olympic Stadium? Also
not a park, though it does have some attributes of them, notably playing fields
for football and other sports. Some years ago when teaching at Norton U. while
pointing out the dearth of public space in the capital I asked where people
could go to play football. Olympic Stadium, some replied. Where else? I asked.
Outside the city was the answer. However, as far as I know there are no parks
outside the city center so they were probably referring to vacant lots
temporarily commandeered for the purpose and as we know vacant lots tend not to
stay that way in a growing urban area.
Worse still, every year or so
space on the periphery of the stadium has been or currently is being converted
to commercial uses. In the latest crime against public space a large area of
wetlands on the eastern and northern borders of the stadium is now being filled
in and developed. The wetlands were placed there to absorb pretty much all the
rain that fell in the entire complex. Now much of that will head straight for
the city’s overloaded drainage system. That area could’ve been developed as a
cool, green, watery park space, it was even big enough to allow for boating.
Instead the city will get more department stores, shophouses, high-rises and
the percentage of the city devoted to park or green space has been further diminished.
Unfortunately, the whittling away
of that space has nowhere reached its end if the wishes of an important
developer are to come to fruition. He was quoted in the Daily saying the area
was ‘too crowded’ to have a stadium/recreation site there and it should be
moved to a location outside the center city. So having the area developed in
high-density commercial and residential uses will make it less crowded?
Obviously not, though we know what he meant to convey; that the area is too
valuable to be used for recreation and sports, activities which merely enhance
the lives of the city’s inhabitants, but don’t allow for making big bucks. And
instead of having a centrally located venue for sporting events, the majority
of people would have to go long distances to participate, which further
increases traffic congestion.
In every case, except the aforementioned park
strips, the city seems hell bent on converting every possible recreation space
to commercial uses. Only a decade or so ago there were several large lakes that
would’ve been ideal recreation sites. Today all are gone. In contrast, in the
American city of Minneapolis, which is a small part of its metropolitan area
and has less than 500,000 people, there are 26 lakes, half dozen of which are
the size of the former Boeng Kak lake and all have public access. Some of the
larger ones have swimming beaches and are enjoyed for windsurfing, kayaking and
rowboating. Back in the sixties before Cambodia’s troubles began Boeng Kak lake
was used for boating - one of the King father’s movies (he made a lot of them) showed
boaters happily enjoying the lake.
Boeng Kak, the last of the city’s
lakes has been filled in. To me, that was practically a crime against humanity
let alone a transgression against the people of Phnom Penh, so I was shocked to
hear a Khmer-American who spent decades in the US approve of filling in the
lake. His reasoning was that it was polluted and ugly and surrounded by
squatters. Why not just clean it up: You don’t abandon your house when it’s
dirty, you clean it up. Another friend checking out an expat blog was equally
surprised to see most people on the blog thinking of the loss of the lake as a
good thing. Unbelievable.
Urban lakes are more than just
great potential recreation sites, they also absorb excess rainwater, cool the
city down and are magnets for development. Think of Central Park in New York.
If you look at an aerial view of upper Manhattan where the park is, it’s clear
that many of the largest (and most valuable) buildings are those facing the
park. In an extremely dense city like New York, there is a great premium to
living near green space and so the land there is much more valuable than land
just a hundred meters away. Back in the 19th century when planners were laying
out Manhattan they looked at the map they had devised which showed the entire
island covered with streets and realized that that was really not good enough
and so placed the park there. That was one of the best decisions ever made for
New York City because it would’ve been intolerably crowded and oppressive
without the park at its center.
Here is an alternative scenario
for the development of BK lake, which in some ways is still possible though it
would no longer benefit the 4000 families who’ve already been displaced.
Instead of filling in the whole lake, they could’ve filled a 100 to 200 meter wide
strip all the way around the lake that would become a park. On the outer edge
of the green strip next to the squatters and others who did own their properties,
there’d be peripheral road. That would’ve left about 3/4 of the lake intact. The
property outside the road facing the park would become very valuable and within
a few years developers would come in and fill it up with higher value
buildings. To sum up: Had that plan been the one pursued, the people living on
the periphery of the lake would’ve been richly compensated for their land and
the change would’ve happened naturally and gradually; brand new better class
neighborhoods would be developed around the lake and the city would have a
great new park and a cleaned up lake for the pleasure of large numbers of
citizens.
What we got instead was protests,
unrest and widespread dissatisfaction and a lake that’s completely filled in
when the developer had agreed to leave a 10 hectare lake (out of an original
110 hectares) in the center. Where does progress at the lake stand now? Work
started there in the middle of last year but halted in August. The Chinese have
lots of money but the company financing the development evidently is having
second thoughts about pouring billions of dollars into the project. Several
very large projects in PP were halted a few years back when potential buyers
dried up. There just aren’t enough rich local bureaucrats/ politicians and
interested well-heeled foreigners to fill up all the giant middle to upper
class projects planned for the city.
It’s not good karma to wish bad
luck on others - schadenfreude - but
in this case I’ll take my chances… I hope the CPP senator and his Chinese
partner who cooked up this rotten scheme sink financially like a stone in
quicksand. Meanwhile, as far as filling in the lake is concerned; easy come,
easy go, though admittedly it’ll take a lot more work removing the sand than it
did to put it there. On the other hand, construction sand is in high demand so
they’ll make back a little of their investment by removing and selling it. They’ve
got to at least remove 10 hectares to create the lake that was promised.
There’s one other very large area
previously designated as park space that’s being developed, the 48 hectares at
the tip of the Chroy Changvar peninsula, which is directly across the river at
Street 178. A fantastic place for a public park is being turned into a hotel/convention
center with lots of other development thrown in. The people will get a nice
riverside promenade out of it, but still, compared to a large park, that’s
nowhere.
Boeng Kak is an empty canvas,
anything is still possible there. Not so with Chroy Changvar peninsula since
very large, multi-story buildings don’t often revert to park space. Still, that
large building takes up only a small part of the total area so all is not lost…
at least in theory. The only factor that can change the likely outcome is the
larger economic picture. I hate to wish for economic problems that would slow
Cambodia’s growth, since the country still desperately needs expansion to bring
large numbers of people out of poverty. However, it can be argued that no
growth at all is sometimes better than a short term boost from destructive
growth which then leaves a long term legacy of ugliness and awfulness. So once
again here’s hoping another giant project designed for the elite but created by
usurping space meant for the enjoyment of all is halted before all is lost.
Finally, regardless of the damage
done or being done, the city should be looking towards the future. A case in
point. Back in the late 1940’s the City of Portland, Oregon had the foresight
to create Forest Park, a ten square mile - 25 square kilometer - forested mountain
ridge that begins only about three miles - five kilometers - from downtown. It
wasn’t much to look at then because most of it had been logged in the previous
few decades. Today, 65 years later, and being Oregon where trees grow fast and
big, it is now beautiful both from a distance and close up when hiking it’s
many miles of forested trails. You can still hear sounds of the city from the
park and see it occasionally where the trees aren’t so thick, but you feel
you’re in another world that could be hundreds of miles from the madding
crowds. Similarly it was great foresight on the part of New York City’s
planners 150 years ago that created Central Park.
There’ve got to be many very
pretty spots on the outskirts of the city that’re crying out to be made into
park space. The process of identifying and designating potential park sites
needs to happen now before the land becomes too valuable. Getting to the city’s
periphery to enjoy a peaceful picnic in the park might take a lengthy moto or
tuk-tuk ride from the city center but those parks would still be resources that
would be heavily used and deeply appreciated by the citizenry. Is the entire
and recently expanded area of Phnom Penh going to be developed without a
thought to creating additional green space? That’s what it looks like now but
it would be a terrible mistake and an awful legacy for today’s leaders to leave
for posterity. They may have the best interests of the people at heart, but the
reality will be far different.
No comments:
Post a Comment