Solidere

Controversy and challenges

Solidere was founded after the government chose the framework of the Real Estate Holding Company (REHCO) as the most viable option to reconstruct the central district, which was severely damaged and demolished, and emptied of its pre-war economic and demographic activity. Some research points out that the REHCO solution was the only viable option. The practical nonexistence of a functional government after the war, and the near-impossibility to align all stakeholders, including property owners, into one unified and feasible vision, called for private resources to plan and execute a project of such scale and importance. Hariri's credibility as a business person and the speed and efficiency of submitting plans and investments models all played in favor of the REHCO model. It can be argued that without this large-scale intervention, the centre would have at best re-developed in a chaotic and uncoordinated manner, the way that other areas of the capital are experiencing.

Solidere was given powers of compulsory purchase, compensating in Solidere shares rather than cash, and of a regulatory authority allowing it to manage the city centre area. Critics claim the company used harassment to drive the original residents out for compensation below true market value.

The first axis of controversy relates to the mechanisms and masterplans of the reconstruction. Several opposition groups emerged to challenge the REHCO model and propose alternatives to it. Among those was a group of academics and urban planners who fueled a public debate about the goals and methods of reconstruction, especially the large-scale demolition and redesign, as outlined by an initial plan submitted by Dar Al Handassah. Other critical views saw the plan as disconnecting the centre from the rest of the city's fabric and transforming it into an "island of modernity". The contested plan was consequently changed, with the participation of some of the architects from the opposition groups to take into account some of the key points raised.

A modified plan emerged and was evaluated by the Engineer's Union, but it never approved by the public before being sent to government.

The second axis of controversy relates to the mechanism of property expropriation, deemed forced and enabled by Capital's pressure on the government and Hariri's influence as prime minister and the valuation of property, deemed inappropriately low. By law, the company had six months to secure the necessary cash subscriptions to balance out the land value. Were it not for that conservative valuation of land, the whole project would have collapsed when the government had no alternatives.