Existing store owners aren’t the only ones who stand to gain from this campaign. Behind the debate, there are others who are benefiting from the buzz surrounding the “revitalization” of Makarios Street.
The debate over the opening of Makarios Street is more complex than it appears at first glance. It is useful to examine who the key players behind this initiative are, what interests they represent, and what, ultimately, they are seeking to achieve.
The arguments that have been publicly put forward have little to do with the substance of the issue. The main argument in favor of opening Makarios Avenue to cars, at least as expressed in the media, is that Makarios Avenue has become deserted and that opening it to traffic will restore it to its former glory.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
This argument, however, does not hold water. Even if Makarios Avenue is opened to traffic, the number of available parking spaces will not change; it will remain the same. Proponents of reopening the street claim that access to these areas will become easier. This, however, presupposes that there is currently a substantial access problem—a claim that is unfounded.
Since, therefore, the parking areas remain the same, what is required of a driver who wants to visit the area also remains unchanged: to park in one of the adjacent, existing parking spots. So what exactly are some of the local shop owners really after? And what exactly is the popular TikToker-baker after, the one who has flooded the internet with related videos, often flanked by DISY municipal councilors?
The reasonable suspicion is that opening up the street will allow for the continuation of the Cypriot “tradition” of parking on Makarios Street’s wide sidewalks—which, incidentally, are at the same level as the road—to continue. The result is predictable: a deterioration in the experience of those walking in the area, with shop owners benefiting from customers who visit them after parking illegally.
Existing shop owners, however, are not the only ones who stand to gain from this campaign. Behind the debate, there are others who are benefiting from the buzz surrounding the “revitalization” of Makariou Street. I am referring to the owners of vacant storefronts, who bear a significant share of the responsibility for the fact that large sections of Makariou Street remain commercially dead, despite the redevelopment. That is, property owners who continue to demand extremely high rents even though their properties remain vacant for long periods of time, choosing, in the absence of a tax on idle property and driven by financial necessity, to contribute to the desolation of Makarios Street.
But how can they benefit from the buzz surrounding the “revitalization” of Makarios Street? In the context of this discussion, calls have already been made for financial incentives aimed at restoring foot traffic to Makariou Street—either directly to property owners or through subsidies for the costs of setting up businesses. A rent subsidy, however, could result in the artificial maintenance of high rents, effectively shifting part of the business risk from the landlord and tenant to the state. In other words, instead of landlords bearing the cost of their choice to keep their properties vacant, they are calling on the government to guarantee the high rents they themselves demand. And these are the very same landlords who bear a significant share of the responsibility for the current dismal state of the largely deserted Makarios Avenue—a situation that predates the ban on vehicle traffic by a long shot.
The debate over reopening Makarios Street must, in my opinion, be viewed within this context: powerful business and property interests are pushing in a specific direction and finding political support primarily within DISY, but, unfortunately, also from the new mayor. The public campaign is being waged largely through figures with a significant presence in the media, who are promoting a simplified narrative of “desolation” and “revitalization.” For some, the practical benefit is easier access by car, at the expense of pedestrians. For the others, it is the prospect of government support without having to adapt to market realities.
In both cases, the only ones who lose out are us: ordinary citizens who demand accessible public spaces where we can move about with our families in comfort and safety.
