New Belgrade: Un-planning the Plan

Dubravka Sekuli and Branko Belaevi At first glance, when looked at from the air, New Belgrade resembles any other new, modernist city, planned in one breath and built in the next. But upon closer inspection, both from the ground and the air, the expected rigor starts to disappear. That is because New Belgrade was never built, nor was it, to put it boldly, conceived as a whole. Neither was it immune to the turbulent changes happening every day in Yugoslavia, which had an immense influence on its core concepts. Although the idea of extending Belgrade to the other bank of the Sava River (historically considered a no-mans-land) existed before socialist Yugoslavia came into being during World War II (the first manifestation being the construction of an international fairground in 1937), the need to build a new capital city for a newly formed country gave a definite push to this idea. The push was so great that de facto construction of New Belgrade started in 1948, before the first general plan for New Belgrade was approved in 1960. Initial construction, however, already marked a departure from the original concept of an administrative city. Besides the federal government buildings and the international hotel, both of which fitted in with the intention of making New Belgrade a strictly governmental city, the other buildings constructed were residential. The shift in policies that slowly occurred after 1948 turned Yugoslavia from a highly centralized socialist country into a decentralized, self-managed nation. Policy shifts first left their mark on the actual situation, and then in the plans. In reality, a number of plans attempted to regulate New Belgrade as a whole, or in part, and they were all partially implemented, sometimes overlapping and sometimes leaving unregulated gaps of space (to be regulated in future). The top-down, centralized plan stemming from the 1950s would soon be confronted withand adapt tothe new, decentralized, self-managed society of the 1960s and 1970s. Following the changes in 1974, every block of New Belgrade became an entity unto itself, whose future would be ultimately decided by the investors developing it. Following the economic crisis in the second half of 1970s and then a second crisis in the 1980s, it became increasingly difficult for society to continue building the much-needed social infrastructure that was lacking in areas dominated by housing blocks. Nevertheless, construction companies, most of which derived their economic power from the projects they were developing in non-aligned countries, were political because of the profit these projects were 146 bringing the country. They became increasingly influential, not only on the level of single block development, but on the level of overall development in New Belgrade. In 1986, when the decision was made to start creating regulations just for locations that already had existing investors, planning officials slowly started handing over power to the developers. And then, in 1991, with the breakup of Yugoslavia, everything came to a halt. At least, when seen from above. Almost no large construction sites, almost no activity at all. But the situation on the ground was again totally different, with a lot of construction taking place on the micro-scale of apartments or communal spaces inside buildings. Following the privatization of housing, individuals started adapting their space to accommodate their everyday needs, adding provisions they were desperately lacking (e.g., small shops). Besides having an impact on space, these small-scale interventions also affected policies and laws. Confronted with the fact that the majority of the population was now engaged in transformations that were, to put it mildly, loosely legal, laws and regulations were changed to deal with this, and some new procedures, such as legalization, were added. However, although the activity of large construction companies was minimal during this period, it cannot be said that they were at a standstill, as they were closely observing the processes happening on the ground and preparing to utilize new legislation, once the economy took off. Therefore, it cannot be said that, in the wake of the political changes dating to the year 2000, the strategies practiced in the 1990s were abandoned, but it can be suggested that they were further refined. The only thing that really changed was the scale of intervention, as the attitude toward planning stayed the same, but this time it was practiced by developers involved in larger projects. When the processes of legalization were introduced into law, initially to deal with untamed construction, developers were assured that their overbuilding would be legalized and the plans amended. The original plan was subsequently relegated to serving as the starting point for negotiations between the developer and the city. Typically, a developer would first present its own plan; then the city would revise the official zoning plan to please the developer. What came about as a legitimate survival strategy in the 1990s became the standard procedure by the year 2000, creating a new, legitimate, urban relationship between 147 facilitator and facilitated, and establishing the perception of space as a commodity. New developments (after 2000) in New Belgrade: although all have a seemingly different relationship to the existing structure, the common thread is the need to negate the original modernist plan, or what is left of it, or any plan whatsoever. In all case studies, the zoning plan was changed to accommodate the developers project, and the plan was revised again when the developers plans changed. Case studies show different approaches, but with the same result: the city is governed according to developers needs. In that process, institutions planned globally and unplanned locally, thus creating a new gap large enough to accommodate them all. Sequential planning and un-planning reaches its final stage, when all plans have been obliterated, and all that remains is un-planning, sugar-coated in the discourse of growth and prosperity.

New Belgrade: Un-planning the Plan #1 BLOCK

21: SUPERIMPOSING TRADITIONAL ON A #4 BLOCK 31: MERCATOR SHOPPING MALL - DEVELMODERNIST (SUPER) BLOCK OPER AS AN URBAN PLANNER Block 21 was the first block built in the central zone of New Following the political changes of the year 2000, the first Belgrade, defining how all other blocks would be developed, developer to invest in New Belgrade was Mercator, largand was one of the few to be completed according to the es- est Slovenian retail chain already present in Belgrade until tablished plan in 1960. Block 21 was continually built trough 1990. Shopping mall Mercator was the first major construc1960s (housing) and 1970s (school and other amenities) tion in New Belgrade after 10 years and was presented as a BLOCK 31: MERCATOR SHOPPING MALL symbol of the new economic prosperity. The project benMap of New Belgrade and approximately 80% was#4 finished according to the initial DEVELOPER AS URBAN PLANNER Photos: Marija Strajni, Petar Stelki plan until the 1990. From 1990. onwards, the density of a efited a lot from the emotional connection local population Followingplots the political in the year 2000, the with the Mercator brand, that was present in Belgrade block was increased when specific werechanges introduced, had first developer to invest in New Belgrade was #1 BLOCK 21: SUPERIMPOSING TRADITIONAL defined and handed over to Mercator, powerful construction compa till had 1990 and presented itself as a sign of the return of good the largest Slovenian retail chain, which ON A MODERNIST (SUPER) BLOCK already a presence in Belgrade before 1990. The nies (Energoprojekt, Napred, Imel had group) to develop with old times. In that name, where the highly anticipated project Block 21 was the first block built in the central zone of Mercator shopping mall was the first piece of major foreign investors. The plots, defined in what had been super would be situated and how large it would be was entirely New Belgrade, defining how all other blocks would be construction in New Belgrade in ten years and was block open are linear next to the main boulevards developed, and was one of the few toplan, be completed presented as two a symbol of the new economic open for developer to choose. The only thing urban planaccording to the established plan in 1960s. Block 21 prosperity. The project a lot from theners had to do is to note the change in the master plan. City and disregard the existing structure. The size benefited of the plot is was continually built throughout the 1960s (housing) emotional connection the local population had with smaller to ensure the investment needed to develop is not officials pleased with the size of an investment were open to and 1970s (school and other amenities), and by 1990, the Mercator brand, which was present in Belgrade high, although merging of few plots possible and prac - sign of negotiations of this kind, and this precedent actually became approximately eighty percent of it was finished until 1990,was and now presented itself as a the according to the initial plan. From 1990 onward, return of the good of olda days. With that name, the only ticed. Ultimately, thethe result was the outline traditional the rule. The government and the municipality became the density of the block was increased when specific lots issues surrounding the highly anticipated project were street from Belgrade superimposed facilitators of the developers needs. were introduced, defined, and grid handed overthe to old part of where it would be situated and howon large it would be, powerful constructionto companies (Energoprojekt, and it turned out that and the developer was entirely free the modernist block in much more radical brutal way Napred, Imel group) to develop in collaboration with to choose. The only thing urban planners had to do than postmodernists critiquing New Belgrade in 1980s could #5 BLOCK 26: ORTHODOX CHURCH AS A DEVELOPER foreign investors. The lots, defined in what had been a was to note the change in the master plan. City ever hope for. the two main officials, pleased with the size of the investment, Block super block open plan, are lined up along were 26 is considered the prime location in New Belgrade, boulevards and disregard the existing structure. The open to negotiations of this kind, and this precedent part of a central zone (together with Blocks 24 and 25) in size of each lot is smaller, to ensure the amount of actually became the rule. The government and the BLOCK 67: DELTA SHOPPING MALL AND BELwhich all of the public buildings were to be located by plans investment needed to #2 develop is not great, although CITY it municipality became the facilitators of the developers RESIDENTIAL from 1960s and which never came into existence. When was possible to mergeVILLE some lots, which was done. COMPLEX needs. Ultimately, the result was that the building outline of a Until the boom in New Belgrade which began in the crisis of the 1990s started, the central zone was split betraditional street grid from the old part of Belgrade with the construction of Mercator block 31 (see case tween the two largest construction companies, Napred and was superimposed on 2001 top of the modernist block in a #5 BLOCK 26: in THE ORTHODOX CHURCH much more radical and brutal #4) way than postmodernASof DEVELOPER study block 67 was one the blocks left completely Energoprojekt, to be developed with foreign investments, ists critiquing New Belgrade in the 1980s could have undeveloped. In 2004, as part of Belgrades bid to become without obligation to conform to any urban plan. In 1992, Block 26 is considered the prime location in New ever hoped for. Belgrade, part of a central (together with Napred Blocks host of the 25th University Games in 2009, blockzone 67 was donated one part of its block to the church, without 24 and 25) in which all of the public buildings were to chosen as building site for University Village. When in 2005 forseeing implications of that act. From that point on, the #2 BLOCK 67: DELTA CITY SHOPPING MALL AND be located, at least according to the plans from the BELVILLE RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX Belgrade officially became the host of competition, the block 1960sbut they never came into existence. When the had to be developed as a collection of plots and not as crisis of the 1990s part started, central zone was split site entered the planning Corner ofthe the block an entity unto itself. After the year 2000, efforts were made Until the building boom in New Belgradewhich began process. between the two largest construction companies, in 2001, with the construction of Mercator previously in block 31 was separated as an independent plot, where a to relocate the churchs plot, but to no avail: the church Napred and Energoprojekt, to be developed in (see case study #4)block 67 was one of the blocks private started to build a shopping mall. any obligation quickly started the construction and the change had to be collaboration foreign investors, without left completely undeveloped. In developer 2004, as part (Delta) of to conform to any urban plan.by In 1992 Belgrades bid to become host of theplan 25th University Regulation for the rest of the block was done the Napred donated accommodated in the master plan, becoming the only plot one part of its block to the church, without foreseeing Games in 2009, block 67 was chosen as the building Belgrade Land Development Public Agency. It act. was promoted the implications of that From that point on,that the is not leased to New Belgrade for 99 years. The church site for University Village. When, in 2005, Belgrade block had to be developed as a collection and as a concept Belgrade and did not fol- of lots, behaves like any other large-scale corporation/developer, officially became the host ofbaroque competition, the site for New not as an entity unto itself. After the year 2000 efforts entered the planning process. One corner of theof block low the parameters density and size set by master plan and acting as a state within a state. were made to relocate the churchs lot, but to no avail; had been previously marked off as an independent lot, for that area. The initial planthe to church develop thestarted site as a social and the quickly construction where a private developer (Delta) started to build a change haddeveloper, to be accommodated the master plan. housing block by subsidising private had to in be #6 BLOCK 16: UE SHOPPING MALL - AMENDING shopping mall. The regulation plan for the rest of the The lot became the only one that is not leased to New block was done by theabandoned Belgrade Land by Development the lack of funding by the city. Therefore, THE PLAN AFTER CONSTRUCTION Belgrade for 99 years. The church behaves like any Public Agency. It was promoted as a baroque concept although the construction land was acquired favourably, The other large-scale corporation/developer, acting as a former headquarter of the Central Committee of Yugofor New Belgrade and did not follow the parameters state a state. of density and size setthe by the masterinvestor plan for that private continued to within develop the project as any slav Communist Part, partially destroyed in 1999 by NATO area. The initial plan to develop the site apartments as a social other putting on the market even before conbombing which occupies the smaller of two parts on Block housing block, included subsidies for a private #6 BLOCK 16: UE SHOPPING struction had due begun and game took place. MALL 16 was acquired by a developer (MPC properties) after developer, but it had to be abandoned, to the lack University AMENDING THE PLAN AFTER CONSTRUCTION of city funding. Therefore, although the construction 2000. The larger part is a park, but the buildings undersite was acquired under favorable terms, the private The former headquarters of the Central Committee of #3 BLOCK 65: AIRPORT CITY A PLAN WITHIN A PLAN ground garage extends beneath it. This is used as a reason investor continued to develop the project as any other, the Yugoslavian Communist Party, which occupies the 2009 putting apartments on13 theJune market even before smaller of two parts on Block 16, was partially for making of a new regulation plan for this block, in which construction had begun and the University Games had destroyed in 1999 by NATO It was acquired Airport City organises an open house, opening itsbombing. gates to two parts are merged, with ownership given to the develtaken place. by a developer (MPC properties) after 2000. The larger the public, advertising the event as City within the City. oper, without any public tender, nor additional payment. On part is a park, but the buildings underground garage A large office complex is inserted into the it. block, and as New the pretext of erecting a building of special significance to extends beneath This is used a reason to make a #3 BLOCK 65: AIRPORT CITY new regulating plan for this block, in which the the two members of the public, part of the park was converted Belgrade, as gated community, a city unto itself follows A PLAN WITHIN A PLAN parts are merged, with ownership given to the its own logic of growth, density and development. While into construction land. Competition was held for this plot and developer, without any public tender or additional June 13, 2009 payment. On the of erecting a buildingconstruction of block itself stays frames of pretext traditional New of shopping mall soon followed, following comAirport City organizes the an open house, opening itswithin the special significance to the members of the public, gates to the public, advertising theregulation event as City within Belgrade the interior of the gated complex is pletely other design. As the construction was progressing, part of the park was rezoned for construction. A the City. under governance and use regime defined by the owner the shopping mall was growing larger than allowed in the competition was held for a design for of this lot, and A large office complex is inserted into the block, and construction of a shopping mall built soon followed, permit, on the expense of park. Since the park was already thecommunity, complex.a Open block of New Belgrade New Belgrade, as a gated city unto itself, structure following a completely different design. As the follows its own logic of growth, density, in the logic of and classless society is this way most obviously destroyed the pressure was put to amend the changes in the construction was progressing, the shopping mall grew development. While the block itself remains within the confronted with the establishment of allowed a capitalist class at power official larger than in the permit, the expense of the plan. In the public dispute over the legality of such framework of traditional New Belgrade regulation, was the Belgrade city council holds a special session to and its power overby space. park. Since the park was already destroyed, there action, the interior of the gated complex is governed pressure was to amend the changes in the official owner of the complex, which defines its own address the warranted accusation, only to grant approval to plan. In the public dispute over the legality of such an regulations. In this way, the open block structure of action, the Belgrade city council held a special the session shopping mall merited by its special significance. New Belgrade, built under the system of a classless
society, is most obviously confronted with the establishment of a capitalist class power and its power over space. to address the warranted accusation, only to grant approval to the shopping mallmerited by its special significance.

#3 BLOCK 65: AIRPORT CITY - A PLAN WITHIN A PLAN

new development inserted as a gated community before 2004

from 2009

after 2004

#2 BLOCK 67: DELTA CITY SHOPPING MALL AND BELVILLE RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX
2005 part of the block cut out as a plot for the new shopping mall, before rest of the block was developed 2006 plan for University village promoted as the baroque concept on New Belgrade, created by City Direction for Construction

2004 unbuilt block chosen as a site of future Universiade Village

NAME - CHURCH OF ST. DIMITRIJE POSITION - BLOCK 32 YEAR - plot given in 1993, construction 1996-2001 ARCHITECT/STUDIO - UNKNOWN PLOT (APPROXIMATELY) - 0.56 HECTARES INVESTOR - SERBIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH w/ PRIVATE DONORS PRIVATISATION OF PUBLIC SPACE THE FIRST FENCE ON NEW BELGRADE

NAME - AIRPORT CITY, OFFICE BUILDINGS POSITION BLOCK 65 YEAR STARTED IN 2005 (PARTIALLY DONE) ARCHITECT/STUDIO RAMI VIMER PLOT (APPROXIMATELY) 12 HECTARES INVESTOR AFRICA-ISRAEL AND TIDHAR CONSTRUCTION PRIVATISATION OF PUBLIC SPACE - GATED COMMUNITY

NAME - HOLIDAY INN + EXPO CENTAR POSITION - BLOCK 41 YEAR - 2003 - 2007 ARCHITECT/STUDIO - VLADIMIR LOJANICA SURFACE - 11.000 + 6.000 M2 INVESTOR - BELEXPO CENTAR

NAME - DELTA CITY, SHOPING MALL POSITION BLOCK 67 YEAR 2006-2007 ARCHITECT/STUDIO MYS ISRAEL PLOT (APPROXIMATELY) 5.1 HECTARES INVESTOR DELTA HOLDING

NAME - BELVIL, RESIDENTAL COMPLEX POSITION BLOCK 67 YEAR 2007-2009 ARCHITECT/STUDIO MILAN GEC PLOT (APPROXIMATELY) 13.8 HECTARES INVESTOR - BLOCK 67 ASSOCIATES

148

149

New Belgrade: Un-planning the Plan

#4 BLOCK 31: MERCATOR SHOPPING MALL - DEVELOPER AS AN URBAN PLANNER

densication of New Belgrade starts

#1 BLOCK 21: SUPERIMPOSING 'TRADITIONAL' ON A MODERNIST SUPERBLOCK

built until 90s

built until 2000

2001

built after 2004

rst planed

after 2000

after 90s

1992 - without any plan, construction company donates plot of land to the church secularisation of public space

status in 1990 block unbuilt

new plan accomodates the change, constraction further continues segmentation

two building companies split unbuilt block

NAME - ENERGOPROJECT OFFICE BUILDING POSITION - BLOCK 11A YEAR - STARTED 2008 ARCHITECT/STUDIO - MILAN RAONI/ENERGOPROJECT SURFACE - 35.000 M2 INVESTOR - ENERGOPROJECT AND BLUEHOUSE CAPITAL

NAME - OFFICE BUILDING POSITION - BLOCK 26 YEAR - from 2008 ARCHITECT/STUDIO - NAPRED AD PLOT (APPROXIMATELY) - ... INVESTOR - NAPRED AD

competition 2007

never built plan from 70s

NAME - MERCATOR POSITION - BLOCK 31 YEAR - OPEN 2002 ARCHITECT/STUDIO - UNKNOWN PLOT (APPROXIMATELY) - 3.4 HECTARES INVESTOR - MERCATOR-S

NAME - OFFICE BUILDING POSITION - BLOCK 26 YEAR - from 2006 ?? ARCHITECT/STUDIO - NAPRED AD PLOT (APPROXIMATELY) - ... INVESTOR - NAPRED AD

NORS

NAME - SV. SIMEONA MIROTOCIVOG CHURCH POSITION BLOCK 26 YEAR STARTED IN 2006 ARCHITECT/STUDIO UNKNOWN PLOT (APPROXIMATELY) 2.3 HECTARES INVESTOR SERBIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH/PRIVATE DONORS NAME - GTC HOUSE POSITION - BLOCK 30 YEAR - 2002 - 2005 ARCHITECT/STUDIO - ORE BOBI,BOIDAR PUTNIKOVI, MOTI KASSIF/SLAVIJA BIRO INVESTOR - GTC INTERNATIONAL NAME - SOCIETE GENERALE YUGOSLAV BANK OFFICE BUILDING POSITION BLOCK 21 YEAR 2006 ARCHITECT/STUDIO ALEKSANDAR STJEPANOVI, JELENA UBRA/SLAVIJA BIRO PLOT (APPROXIMATELY) INVESTOR SOCIETE GENERALE YUGOSLAV BANK + IMEL GROUP

NAME - OFFICE BUILDING MPC POSITION - BLOCK 21 YEAR - 1998 - 2002. ARCHITECT/STUDIO - VASILIJE MILUNOVI PLOT (APPROXIMATELY) - / INVESTOR - MPC + IMEL GROUP

NAME - OFFICE TOWER UE - (RE)CONSTRUCTED COMMUNIST PARTY BUILDING POSITION BLOCK 16 YEAR BOMBED IN 1999. (RE)CONSTRUCTION COMPLETED IN 2005 ARCHITECT OF RECONSTRUCTION - BRANISLAV REDI, DEJAN SOKOLOV (SLAVIJA BIRO) PLOT (APPROXIMATELY) 5 HECTARES INVESTOR EUROPEAN CONSTRUCTIONS DEVELOPER - MPC HOLDING

NAME - USCE SHOPING MALL POSITION BLOCK 16 YEAR 2006-2009 ARCHITECT/STUDIO CHAPMAN/TAYLOR PLOT (APPROXIMATELY) 5 HECTARES INVESTOR MPC PROPERTIES

NAME - COMPLEX OF RETAIL/OFFICE BUILDINGS POSITION - BLOCK 24 YEAR - 1998 - 2005 ARCHITECT/STUDIO - IMEL GROUP PLOT (APPROXIMATELY) - / INVESTOR - IMEL GROUP

NAME - BLOCK 22 RESIDENTAL COMPLEX POSITION BLOCK 22 YEAR 1998 - 2003 ARCHITECT/STUDIO NAPRED SURFACE / INVESTOR NAPRED

NAME - LINEAR DEVELOPMENT IN BLOCK 21 POSITION - BLOCK 21 ALONG ZORAN DJINDJIC BOULEVARD YEAR - from 1998 - 2008 ARCHITECT/STUDIO - D. SOKOLOV,DJ. BOBIC+SLB TEAM PLOT (APPROXIMATELY) - 4 HECTARES INVESTOR - IMEL GROUP DENSIFICATION OF THE BLOCK

NAME - SAVOGRAD, OFFICE POSITION BLOCK 20 YEAR STARTED 2006 ARCHITECT/STUDIO MARIO JOBST, MIODRAG TRIPKOVIC PLOT (APPROXIMATELY) 6 HECTARES INVESTOR NEIMAR-V, KEMOIMPEX, IRVA INVESTMENT

NAME - B23 OFFICE PARK POSITION BLOCK 23 YEAR 2008 ARCHITECT/STUDIO MILAN DIMITRIJEVI/PROJMETAL SURFACE 53.000 M2 INVESTOR VERANO GROUP

NAME - GTC 19 AVENUE - OFFICE + RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX POSITION BLOCK 19 YEAR 2006 - 2009 SIZE 20.000 M2 INVESTOR GTC

150

151

cometition and new plan in 2005

2 plots merged into one

rst planned

shopping mall construction completed - 2009

1999 - damaged in bombing

#5 BLOCK 26: ORTHODOX CHURCH AS A DEVELOPER

#6 BLOCK 16: UE SHOPPING MALL - AMENDING THE PLAN AFTER CONSTRUCTION

reconstruction completed 2005