The topic of redevelopment in Sofia has once again caused a sharp public and political clash, after "Save Sofia" raised the alarm about a project for a 22-story building in the capital's "Mladost" district, which, according to them, puts municipal interest at risk at the expense of a private investor. This is a plot of land, over 90% of which is municipal property, and the proposed compensation for Sofia Municipality is only 26% of the future development. The case raised serious questions not only about the terms of the deal, but also about the way in which such projects reach the Sofia Municipal Council, including why the report was not considered in the architecture committee. The topic also opened a broader debate about spatial planning, investor pressure and management of municipal property in the capital. However, the Sofia Municipal Council (SOC) approved the controversial report, after the decision was adopted with 34 votes “for“. Arch. Rositsa Nikolova, municipal councilor from “Save Sofia“, spoke to FACTI on the topic.
- Arch. Nikolova, why do you think this case with the land in “Mladost“ is an example of “donation“ of municipal property, and not of a normal public-private partnership?
- Because in a normal public-private partnership there is a balance between input and result. Here this balance is broken. Sofia Municipality and Sofia Properties have over 92% of the land, and in the end the municipality will receive only 26% of the future building. This means that public resources create the value, and most of it goes into private hands. This is not a partnership, this is “donation” of a municipal asset under unfavorable conditions.
- How do you explain the fact that an almost identical report was withdrawn in 2022, and now it has been brought forward again? Do you see political continuity in this model?
- The fact that almost the same report returned after 4 years, without any real improvement in conditions, is very worrying. In 2022, it was submitted by the mayor of the “Mladost” district, Stefan Stefanov, together with representatives of various political forces (GERB, VMRO and DB), and then the argument was that the compensation should be used for a cultural center, but it did not receive support and was withdrawn. Now it is being submitted again, this time by Ivaylo Kukurin (mayor of the “Mladost” district) and Dragomir Ivanov - with a new argument, but with the same essence: low compensation and unfavorable conditions for the municipality.
This is not so much political continuity as continuity of a problematic model that is being tried to be implemented under different majorities, without sufficiently protecting the public interest. There is a feeling that such schemes are simply “waiting for a convenient moment“, instead of being corrected in the interest of the citizens.
- You say that the compensation for the municipality is 26%. What will it be used for?
- The official argument is that the compensation will be used for the needs of a new administration of the “Mladost” district. But the question is not only how it will be used, but at what price it is acquired. If the municipality “pays“ with almost its entire terrain to obtain a limited number of offices, this is an economically unprofitable deal. The municipality has other tools to provide administrative areas without depriving itself of strategic property.
- How is such a scheme to even reach consideration in the Sofia Municipal Council?
- The legislation allows for procedures for determining quotas in co-ownership, as well as establishing the right to build against compensation in sites, but this does not mean that every proposal is good or in the protection of the public interest. The responsibility of the municipal councilors is precisely to assess whether the specific deal is profitable. The fact that it is voted on in the Municipal Council means that the mechanism exists.
- In your opinion, why was the report not distributed to the architectural commission? Is this an administrative oversight or a conscious attempt to avoid professional debate?
- It is difficult to accept that this is an “administrative oversight“ when we are talking about a future project of such a scale, namely a 22-story building and a total area above ground of over 44,000 sq m.
The distribution of reports by commissions is within the powers of the chairman of the SOS (Tsvetomir Petrov from the PP) and in this sense the decision not to send the report to the architecture committee seems completely deliberate.
Even more worrying is why? In the finance and economy committee there is a clearly formed economic majority, while in the architecture committee there is none, there is primarily a professional debate and expert assessment. The exclusion of this committee practically eliminates the critical expert view on the spatial and urban planning parameters of the project.
- “Save Sofia“ has been talking about overdevelopment as a systemic problem for years. How would this specific project affect the infrastructure, traffic and quality of life in “Mladost“?
- This is another example of concentrating a large volume of development in an already busy urban environment. The “Mladost” area has serious problems with traffic, a shortage of parking spaces and a lack of social and educational infrastructure. Such a project will exacerbate these problems if it is not accompanied by adequate investments in transport, landscaping and public services, and such an intention is not envisaged in the report.
- Do you see a connection between such cases and the broader problem with spatial planning in Sofia, for which “Save Sofia“ insist on legislative changes?
- Yes, this is a direct result of the lack of strategic planning and clear rules. When development decisions are made piecemeal, through specific deals, imbalances result - they are both in development and in the management of municipal property. That is why we insist on stricter rules, transparency and better coordination between development plans and real investments.
- What does this case show about the relations between the district administrations, the Sofia Municipal Council and the investor pressure in Sofia?
- It shows that in many cases the district administrations are put under strong investor pressure and are looking for quick solutions, sometimes at the expense of long-term interests. The role of the Municipal Council is to be corrective. When this balance does not work well, such controversial proposals are reached. It is unusual for me that instead of the district protecting the public interest, we see support for a deal under obviously disadvantageous conditions for the municipality. The main motive is the relocation of the administration of the “Mladost” district is not supported by any objective arguments. There are no opinions presented that the existing building is dangerous, nor a proven urgent need for a new one. Ultimately, this creates a feeling that decisions are not driven by the real needs of citizens, but by external pressure and interests that are not sufficiently transparent.
- This report was adopted, but what signal did it send to Sofia residents regarding the way municipal property is managed in the capital?
- It sent a very bad signal, namely that municipal property can be exchanged or outright “given” under unfavorable conditions, without sufficient protection of the public interest and with huge doubts about a serious corruption scheme in favor of private interest. This undermines trust in institutions. Sofia needs the exact opposite, such as transparency, predictability and clear protection of public resources.