The jarring effect of the -- hard edit where the buildings meet the ground is likely what the artist wanted. Makes me think of the nature of urban/municipal "progress": Ad nauseam; ad infinitum. Along the walkway in the bottom right of the image, there is what looks like great care taken to apply the motion effect to the building without including the walkway. I haven't viewed it closely, yet, but I doubt a closer look will change that perception.
What about the area behind the road sign? If there is a building or building-like structure that extends to the curb, the motion effect makes sense but that area could benefit from some clarification of what's supposed to be blurred and what isn't.
I could SO dedicate a wall and some lighting to this one photo. Well done!
I don't know if it was edited, but even if so, it still belongs in the photography category.
dA defines photomanipulation as the composition of two or more photographic elements to create something entirely new. This piece doesn't fulfill the criteria!
Besides, editing is a part of the art of photography and should not disqualify anyone from receiving a DD. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if majority of photography DDs were edited in some way or another.