ČOVJEK I PROSTOR 680

MAN AND SPACE Mjesečnik Udruženja hrvatskih arhitekata

Monthly magazine of the Croatian Architects’ Association
BROJ ISSUE 01– 02 (680–681)
GODINA YEAR LVIII / 2011 ISSN 0011-0728 UDK 71-72
681
CIJENA PRICE 40 kn

2 UVODNIK INTRO

3 INFO

NATJEČAJI COMPETITIONS

6 kampus borongaj
borongaj campus in zagreb

10 rujevica u rijeci rujevica in rijeka

1 Energetska mreža
12 Misli prostor / THINK SPACE think space

GEO –
Mediterana ©Medine Altiok
(legenda se nalazi na str. 16)
TEMA BROJA: GEOSTRATEGIJE 1 Energy Network ©Medine
MAIN TOPIC: GEOSTRATEGIES Altiok (key on page 16)

14 Geostrategije i prostorno planiranje

GEOSTRATEGIES AND SPACIAL PLANNING
— DINKA PAVELIĆ

STRATEGIJE
16 Poetske znanosti – Teritorij s tekućom
granicom Poetic Sciences – Territory
with a liquid border — medine altiok

20 Globalizacijski procesi i planerske

strategije gradova do 2050. — primjeri
Pariza i Tokija Globalisation Processes
and Planning Strategies for Cities until
2050 – Examples of Paris and Tokyo

GEOSTRATEGIES
— Tihomir Jukić and Mojca Smode Cvitanović

25 RAZARANJE PROSTORNOG PLANIRANJA

Destruction of spatial planning
— zlatko uzelac
28 SK 014: Instrumentalizacija
ideologizirane postmemorije SK_014:
The Instrumentalisation of Ideologised
Post-memory — nebojša vilić
PROCES PROCESS
31 OBAVIJEST: NE SUDJELUJTE
Notice: DO NOT PARTICIPATE
— DAMIR MIOČ
SNIMAK POSTOJEĆEG STANJA
SCAN OF THE EXISTING CONDITION
33 GU(L)P U MUTNOJ VODI
GU(L)P-ing in Troubled Waters
— SANDI VIDULIĆ
VIZUALNA KULTURA VISUAL CULTURE
34 Kako je “amaterizam” postavljao
umjetničke standarde
How „Amateurism“ Used to Set Artistic
Standards — BRANKA BENČIĆ
35 Iluzioniranje arhitekture i ideologija
promatranja
The Illusional Architecture and the
Ideology of Observation — BRANKA BENČIĆ
Svjedoci smo sve manje uloge države i sve veće važnosti korporativne infra-
strukture u crtanju novih geopolitičkih granica. Što to znači za prostorno
planiranje vidimo i sami. Njega gotovo da i nema u pravom smislu te riječi
Dvomjesečni konzultantski angažman u Ukrajini 2009. i 2010. bio
je otrežnjavajući u pogledu karaktera odnosa prostornih plano-
va i kontrole resursa nekog teritorija: naime iako je EU bila nosi-
telj projekta koji se trebao baviti rekonstrukcijom uglavnom deva-
stiranih rudarskih gradova i “modernizacijom” rudnika, detaljne
mape i prostorni planovi bili su tretirani kao sigurnosno pitanje
te potpuno nedostupni internacionalnim konzultantima na uvid.
Nakon početnog čuđenja, naviknuti na fraze o “transparentnosti
javnih dokumenata” postalo je jasno zašto se ta dokumentacija ne
daje tako lako: naime riječ je o mapi jednog od najvrednijih resursa
Ukrajine – ugljena. Na tom je energentu bazirana kompletna ener-
getika Ukrajine, a i nekih drugih zemalja, te cijeli vojno-metalurški
kompleks. Jedna od najvećih i najvažnijih čeličana u svijetu nala-
zi se u Donjecku, u vlasništvu oligarha Rinata Leonidoviča Akhme-
tova, koji je ujedno poznat i kao vlasnik nogometnog kluba Šahtar.
Potpunim otkrivanjem karata, država ili oligarhije koje ga sada
kontroliraju izgubile bi svakako velik dio svoje moći i prednosti u
pregovaračkim pozicijama s potencijalnim investitorima ili kupci-
ma. Izgubile bi i dio svoje političke moći, ne samo unutarnjopoli-
tičke, nego i vanjskopolitičke, jer energije gladna Kina i dalje nave-
liko gradi elektrane na ugljen. S tim spoznajama u vidu, jasnije je i
zašto je fosilnim gorivima bogati istok Ukrajine ujedno uglavnom
napučen ruskom manjinom, te zašto uvijek prijeti separatističkim
težnjama.
Upravo svjedočimo ratovima za energetske resurse u svijetu, i to
svim sredstvima, od pravog rata, preko političkog, pa do “samo”
ekonomskog. Taj rat ne poznaje i ne priznaje granice. Hoće li krak
nekog međunarodnog naftovoda ili plinovoda prolaziti Hrvat-
skom? Hoće li biti realiziran projekt Družbe Adrie ili neće? Koja će
se ekološka udruga, i u ime čijih i kojih interesa, pobuniti protiv
takve investicije, pozivajući se isključivo na turističku orijentaci-
ju zemlje? Hoće li Hrvatska na međunarodnom tržištu koridorima
dobiti koji “pravi” koridor ili samo možda “lažni”? Hoće li Hrvat-
skom prolaziti superbrzi vlak? Kako će Hrvatska proći u nomen-
klaturi europskih statističkih regija? Kojim koridorom će proći
autocesta i kakve će efekte polučiti? Odgovori na ta pitanja i takve
odluke usmjeravaju tokove nekim teritorijem, i ne bi trebale biti žr-
tvom improviziranja i trenutnih interesa nekog lobija, npr. građe-
vinskog.
Odgovor na većinu tih pitanja naći ćemo u okviru geopolitičkih i geo-
strateških interesa koji se odnose na određeni teritorij. Budući da na
te faktore u prostornom razvoju najmanje utječu (lokalni) prostorni
planeri, nešto više političari, a najviše vjerojatno trenutni geopolitič-
ki status zemlje, veće ili manje kvalitativne pomake izvan tih okvira
eventualno može izboriti izuzetno sposobna ili agilna politička elita
zemlje. Nažalost, u posljednjih dvadeset godina nismo bili svjedoci
toga da se ijedna od političkih garnitura zaista zauzela da ozbiljno ka-
pitalizira svaki aspekt geostrateške pozicije Hrvatske. Rezultat toga je
da ostajemo1 ili postajemo periferija Europe (kako tko već interpre-
tira), kojoj je namijenjena uloga deindustrijaliziranog, koloniziranog
odmarališta s upravnim središtem u Zagrebu2. Između tih dvaju polo-
va nema ničega. nastavak na stranici 14 >

INTERVJU interview
Geostrategies and Spatial Planning
36 Tko se boji iskustvene ekonomije? We are witnessing how the role of
the State in drawing new geopolitical
Who’s Afraid of the Experience borders is diminishing, while the role
Economy? — Renata Margaretić Urlić of the corporative infrastructure is
growing. We can also see how that
38 RECENZIJE KNJIGA book reviews affects spatial planning. It has almost
ceased to exist by Dinka Pavelić
39 SRĐ JE SVOJ! srđ je svoj!
A two month long consulting engagement in Ukraine
— borislav doklestić in 2009 and 2010 had a sobering effect with regards
to the character of the relations between spatial plans
40 Energetska efikasnost and resource control for an area: Although the EU was
i zaštita baštine the bearer of the project which was supposed to deal
with the reconstruction of largely devastated min-
Energy Efficiency and Heritage ing cities and the “modernisation” of mines, detailed
Conservation — SANJA HORVAT maps and spatial plans were treated as security issues,
making them completely inaccessible to international
41 VIJESTI IZ REGIONALNIH DRUŠTAVA consultants. After the initial puzzlement, being used
to the phrases about “public document transparency”,
it became clear why the documentation was not so
easy to obtain: it was the map of one of Ukraine’s most
valuable resources – coal. That fuel is the basis of the
entire energy industry of Ukraine, and some other
countries, as well as its entire military-metallurgy
ISSN
complex. One of the largest and most important steel-
works in the world is located in Donetsk and owned by
the oligarch Rinat Leonidovič Akhmetov, well known
as the owner of the Shakhtar Football Club. If all the
cards were on the table, the State or the oligarchies
controlling it at the moment would definitely lose a
lot if their power and leverage in negotiations with
potential investors or buyers. The would also lose a
part of their political power, not only within the coun-
try, but also in foreign politics as energy-hungry China
keeps on building coal-powered power plants at a fast
pace. Having considered all that, one can understand
why the fossil-fuel-rich East Ukraine is mostly popu-
lated by the Russian minority and why it is a constant
source of separatist tendencies.
We are witnessing wars over energy resources in
the world, in every conceivable way, from real wars
to the political and “merely” economic ones. The war
knows and respects no borders. Will a leg of an in-
ternational oil or gas pipeline pass through Croatia?
Is the Druzhba Adria project going to be realised or
not? Which environmental-protection NGO, and in the
name of whose interests, will stand up against such
an investment, calling upon the country’s tourist ori-
entation? Will Croatia get a “real” corridor or just a
“fake” one on the international corridor market? Will a
super-fast train pass through Croatia? How will Croa-
tia do in the nomenclature of European statistical re-
gions? Which corridor is a highway going to get, and
with which effects? The answers to those questions
and to such decisions direct the events within a terri-
tory and as such should not fall victim to improvising
and temporary interests of a lobby, such as the con-
struction industry.
The answers to the majority of those questions will
be found within the realm of geopolitical and geostra-
tegic interests pertaining to a certain territory. Since
those factors of spatial development are least af-
fected by (local) spatial planners, somewhat more by
politicians, and probably the most by the present geo-
political status of the country, any bigger or smaller
qualitative shifts out of that realm could perhaps be
won by an immensely capable or agile political elite
in the country. Unfortunately, during the past twenty
years, we have not seen any of the political establish-
ments making earnest efforts to capitalise on every
aspect of Croatia’s geostrategic position. As a result,
we are remaining1 or becoming Europe’s periphery
(depending on the interpretation), with the assigned
role of a de-industrialised, colonised resort with Za-
greb as the administrative centre2. And nothing be-
tween those two poles.
As can be seen in the Report on the Status of
Space, made in 2003 and never officially passed and
continued on page 14 >
28 ČOVJEK I PROSTOR / 01 – 02 (680 – 681) / 2011 tema: geostrategije tema: geostrategije ČOVJEK I PROSTOR / 01 – 02 (680 – 681) / 2011 29

SK_014: The Instrumentalisation O javnom prostoru koji objašnjava zašto on može polagati više prava na dotični resurs, nego Makedonska vlada naručila
of Ideologised Post-memory
U suštini, složenost ovog projekta nije samo u broju i kakvoći novih onaj koji ga je doveo u pitanje.5
objekata (ovo je najveći graditeljski pothvat u centru Skopja nakon po- Treći je diskurzivni model (javni prostor kao “participativni dija- je arhitektonske projekte
tresa), nije samo u broju i kakvoći spomenika povijesnih ličnosti (iako log”, u duhu demokratsko-socijalnog rekonstruiranja kasnokapitali- za objekte nekoliko novih
je suštinski važno zašto su svi spomenici izvedeni u maniri akadem- stičkih društava Jürgena Habermasa) je demokratizirajući model koji
skog realizma), već u tome što on zadire u ozbiljna pitanja društvenog stvara procedure sa kojima oni koji su obuhvaćeni općim društvenim državnih institucija i

SK 014: Instrumentalizacija
uređenja i načina kako se rukovodi odnos države, višenacionalne i vi-
šekonfesijske zajednice i samog pojedinca. I izvan pitanja samog ur-
banizma i arhitekture/skulpture, ovaj je “slučaj” razotkrio krivo shva-
ćanje demokratske strukture i poimanja demokracije u načinu njenog
organiziranja i prakticiranja od strane legitimno izabranih ideoloških
normama i kolektivnim političkim odlukama mogu imati pravo go- preoblikovanja fasada
vora u njihovim formulacijama, zahtjevima i prihvaćanjima. Upravo
ovaj participativni model ranog Habermasa podrazumijeva individu-
historijski relevantnih zgrada
alne aktivnosti i aktivnosti grupâ, ne samo kao djelovanje u usko defi- oko trga “u stilu baroka,
niranom polju političkog, već i kao odjelotvorenje u poljima društve-
neoklasicizma i romantizma” s

ideologizirane postmemorije
Slučaj Skopja 2014 ili kako vizionarski Tangeov projekt obnove usmjerene novom
i budućem u 21. stoljeću nagrizaju nacionalističke revizije povijesti
Nebojša Vilić —
Slučaj vladinog projekta Skopje 2014 primjer je stvaranja instrumenta
Centar Skopja, takozvani kojim tekuća upravljačka garnitura manipulirajući postmemorijskom
Mali ring, uistinu, bio je nikad argumentacijom ostvaruje svoju ideološku platformu i prebacuje je sa
dovršeni projekt nijedne djelatne na njenu djelotvornu razinu. Pozivanjem na reviziju prošlosti,
dopunjenu posredovanim sjećanjem, on se suprotstavlja povijesti kao
vladajuće garniture grada interesu zajednice za prošlost. Kao takav ovaj slučaj predstavlja pre-
i države. On nije onog tipa sedan u povijesti oblikovanja grada Skopja. Eruptivan interes i otpor
(studenata, stručne javnosti, medija, političkih stranaka, nevladinih
centara za zaokruženom organizacija i najšireg građana) u, do sada nepoznatom opsegu za ma-
arhitektonskom formom i kedonsko društvo, kao da je probudio usnulu javnost i kritičke debate
oko važnih društvenih pitanja u cijelosti. Dva su razloga ove pobune.
jezikom, te su tijekom vremena Prvi je proceduralne prirode - predstavljanje početkom 2010., i to
pojedinačne građevine kao svršeni čin, digitalne vizualizacije projekta u formatu video-klipa
pod nazivom Vizuelizacija centra Grada Skopja (2014.) 1 preko medija,
oblikovale svojevrsnu bez ičijeg znanja, inkognito projektiranog i izrađenog, bez ikakve pret-
stratigrafiju hodne najave i javnih debata, bez ikakvog natječaja i, što je ne samo iri-
tantno, nego i protuzakonito: nepoštivanjem odluke Ustavnog suda o
zaustavljanju radova (uzurpacije pozicije vlasti, tj. moći).
Drugi je estetske i stilske prirode. Vlada je naručila arhitektonske
projekte za objekte nekoliko novih državnih institucija i preoblikova-
nje fasada historijski relevantnih zgrada oko trga “u stilu baroka, ne-
oklasicizma i romantizma” s objašnjenjem da bi se vratio stari izgled
i sjaj gradskog centra i ustanovio novi stil - stil makedonizma. Najsaže-
tije je to izrečeno u govoru Vasila Iljoskog: Uzbudljivi grandiozni pro-
jekt Skopje 2014 historijska je šansa Makedonizma, možda jedini zahvat
i preokret u suvremenoj makedonskoj arhitekturi, koji poštuje najkrea-
tivnije tradicionalne domašaje najeminentnijih ostvarenja makedonske
i makedonističke arhitektonske misli i koji je produkt najsuvremenijih
metoda projektiranja i tradicionalnog oblikovanja prostora i objekata u
prostoru, stvarajući dostojni skopski i makedonski arhitektonsko-urba-
nistički kompleks sa najvišim estetskim vrijednostima2.
opcija. Ali prije svih njih, slučaj je uputio i ukazao na mogućnosti uzur-
pacije, nedemokratskim postupcima, jednog ideološkog utjecaja (kao
osnove pretpostavljene i poželjne istinitosti) i njegovog utiskivanja u
trajno oblikovanje javnog prostora (kao osnove projektiranog, iako re-
trogradnog, modeliranja stvarnosti). Zbog ozbiljnosti i veličine odgo-
vornosti ovog pothvata s ovako prakticiranim postupcima, po prvi se
put u povijesti makedonske države pokrenula i tako žestoko vodila oz-
biljna, temeljita i polarizirana rasprava o suštini pojma javnog prosto-
ra (kao prostora u kojem se artikuliraju interesi zajednice i njenih su-
bjekata) i predloženog načina i izgleda njegovog oblikovanja. S druge
strane, način vođenja procedure i izvođenja ovog projekta, klasični je
primjer uzurpacije javnog prostora s pozicije moći. Uzurpacija se do-
godila u odnosu na sca tri modela “javnog prostora” kako ih tumači
Seyla Benhabib3.
Agonistički model (javni prostor kao nadgradnja “republikanske ili
građanske vrline” Hanne Arendt) polazi od “podizanja socijalnog”: po-
dručje javnog predstavlja prostor pojava u kojem su moralne i političke
veličine, heroizam i prestiž objavljene, pokazane, podijeljene (s) ostali-
ma i to je područje prostor natjecanja za priznanjem i potvrdom protiv
jalovosti, nekorisnosti i prolaznosti. Tako se preobražajem javnog pro-
stora političkog u pseudo-prostor interakcije u kojem pojedinci više ne
poduzimaju akciju, već se odnose kao ekonomski proizvođači, potro-
šači i stanovnici - ometa političko: kada djeluje, pojedinac može poma-
knuti stvari, postavši izvorom drugovrsne snage.4
Drugi je legalistički model (javni prostor kao “javni dijalog” Bruce
Ackermana) prema kojem je pitanje legitimacije vrh političke kulture
u liberalizmu. Koncepcija Ackermanovog poimanja javnog dijaloga je-
ste ona koja: Kad god netko dovodi u pitanje legitimitet moći nekog dru-
goga, onaj tko ima moć ga ne smije potlačiti, već mora predočiti razlog
nog i kulturnog. Ovaj koncept participacije [...] naglašava određenje
normi djelovanja kroz praktičnu raspravu svih na koje se one odnose,
Benhabib states, jer refleksivna nastojanja i doprinos pojedinaca posta-
ju ključni.6
Nizu uzurpacija i nepoštivanja ova tri moguća modela može se do-
dati još jedan model javnog prostora definiran kao “agonistički plu-
ralizam” u teoriji Chantal Mouffe7. U osnovi ovakvog agonizma nalazi
se ideja “radikalnog demokratskog građanstva”, koje, prema Mouffe-
ovoj je ključno jer može predstavljati oblik identifikacije koji omoguća-
va uspostavljanje zajedničkog političkog identiteta usred raznovrsnih
demokratskih previranja […] koja su neizbježno pluralistička, diskur-
zivno ustrojena i nerazdvojna od odnosa moći. 8
Sve je vidljivo na primjeru prvog istinski demokratskog prosvjeda u
novijoj povijesti Makedonije. Povodom najave izgradnje pravoslavne
crkve na skopskom trgu (što je i bilo početak projekta Skopje 2014),
veća grupa studenata arhitekture ujedinjenih pod imenom Prva ar-
hibrigada i drugih mladih intelektualaca i aktivista, 27. ožujka 2009.
organizirala je prosvjed protiv izgradnje ove crkve. Uredno prijavlje-
nom mirnom prosvjedu suprotstavila se “spontano” okupljena gru-
pa (preko socijalne mreže Facebook, noć uoči zakazanog prosvjeda
zagovornika izgradnje crkve, predvođenih pravoslavnim kršćanima.
Time se legitimirao sasvim novi pristup javnom govoru - kontra-pro-
svjed, koji će vremenom postati konstanta vladinog načina obrane i
od slobodnih i opozicijskih očitovanja negodovanja. (Ovaj je sistem
dosegao vrhunac apsurdnosti kada su razne grupe, bliske vladajućoj
stranci, počele organizirati kontra-prosvjede prosvjedima opozicije:
vlada je počela prosvjedovati protiv opozicije!) Takav čin je onemo-
gućio stvaranje agonističkog pluralizma u demokratskoj sferi pojedi-
načnog i grupnog interesa, pluralizma u “borbi” [agon] različitih mi-
objašnjenjem – da bi se vratio
stari izgled i sjaj gradskog
centra i ustanovio novi stil - stil
makedonizma
šljenja, interesa i potreba, pretvarajući ga u antagonizam: 'iskustvo'
ograničenja svekolike objektivnosti ima oblik preciznog diskurzivnog
postojanja, a to je antagonizam.9
O prošlosti i memoriji
Centar Skopja, takozvani “Mali ring”, uistinu, bio je nikad dovrše-
ni projekt svake vladajuće garniture grada i države. Posrijedi nije tip
centra za zaokruženom arhitektonskom formom i jezikom, već su ti-
jekom vremena pojedinačne građevine oblikovale svojevrsnu strati-
grafiju arhitektonskih jezika i tekstova: od posredovanih arhitekton-
skih historicizama (uglavnom nacional-romantičarskih), preko prvih
modernističkih utjecaja, sve do ultra-modernih, strukturalističkih i ri-
zomatskih ostvarenja novijeg datuma. Međutim, ostalo je i nekoliko
otvorenih i nepopunjenih površina nakon zemljotresa iz 1963. Prema
makedonskom arhitektu i urbanistu Vlatku Korobaru: svojom idejom
za oblikovanje centra Skopja, Kenzo Tange više od trideset godina bio je
neprikosnoveni autoritet kada je u pitanju urbanistički razvoj centra.
Nijedan drugi plan centralnog dijela Skopja nije bio toliko dugo vreme-
na plan prema kojem je centar jedino mogao da se grad, te, zbog toga, mi
danas živimo prostor koji se gradio prema planu Tangea. Mi danas, isto
tako, živimo prostor koji se nije gradio radi plana Tangea10.

SK_014: The Instrumentalisation of
Ideologised Post-memory
The Skopje 2014 case, or how Tange’s
visionary renewal design oriented
towards the new and the future is
corroded by nationalist revisions of
history by Nebojša Vilić
The Government’s project Skopje 2014 is an example
of creation of an instrument which is used by the cur-
rent ruling structure to manipulate the argumenta-
tion of post-memory in order to devise its ideological
platform and transpose it from the active level to the
effective one. It calls on a revision of history, comple-
mented by mediated recollection, to confront history
as a community’s interest for the past. As such, this
case is a precedent in the history of shaping the City
of Skopje. The eruptive interest and resistance (by
students, expert public, media, political parties, non-
government organisations and the general public), of
a scope previously unknown to the Macedonian soci-
ety, seems to have awakened the dozing public and
the critical debates about important social issues.
There are two reasons for this rebellion.
The first one is procedural in nature – the presenta-
tion, in early 2010, as a fait accompli, of the project’s
digital visualisation in the format of a video-clip enti-
tled The Visualisation of the Centre of the City of Sko-
pje (2014) 1 in the media, without any notice, designed
and produced incognito, without being announced or
publicly discussed, without a competition and without
respecting the Constitutional Court’s ruling to stop the
construction (abuse of the positions of power), which
is not only irritating, but illegal as well.
The second one concerns aesthetics and style. The
Government commissioned architectural designs for
the buildings of several new State institutions and
the reshaping of facades for the historically relevant
buildings around the square in the “Baroque, Neo-
classic and Romantic styles” in order to restore the
old appearance and splendour of the city centre and
establish a new style – the Macedonianism. That was
most succinctly stated in a speech by Vasil Iljoski: The
exciting, grandiose project Skopje 2014 is a historic
opportunity for Macedonianism, perhaps the only
undertaking and turnover in the contemporary Mac-
edonian architecture, which respects the most crea-
tive traditional accomplishments of the pre-eminent
achievements of Macedonian and Macedonianist ar-
chitectural thought, and which is a product the most
modern methods of design and traditional shaping of
space and objects in space, which is to create an ur-
ban-architectural complex worthy of Skopje and Mac-
edonia, possessing the utmost aesthetical values 2.
On public space
In essence, the complexity of the project lies not only
in the number and quality of new buildings (this is the
largest construction undertaking in Skopje’s centre
since the earthquake), and not only in the number
and quality of monuments (although the reason for
choosing the academic-realism manner is of essential
importance), but also in the fact that it engages the
serious issues of social organisation and of managing
the relationships between the State, the multinational
and multi-confessional community, and the individual.
Apart from the issues of urban planning and architec-
ture/sculpture, this “case” revealed a distorted notion
of democratic structures and of democracy, in terms
of its organisation and implementation by legitimate-
ly elected ideological option. But first and foremost,
the case has pointed to the opportunities for the usur-
pation, by means of undemocratic procedures, of an
ideological influence (as the basis for a presumed
and desirable truthfulness) and its intarsia into the
permanent shaping of public space (as the basis for a
designed, albeit retrograde, modelling of reality). Due
to the gravity and scope of responsibility inherent in a
project with such procedures, for the first time in the
history of Macedonian State, there was such a fierce,
serious, meticulous and polarised discussion about
the essence of the notion of public space (as the space
of articulation of interests of a community and its
members) and the proposed manner and appearance
of its shaping. On the other hand, the manner in which
the procedure was implemented and the project ex-
ecuted constitutes a classic example of usurpation of
public space from the positions of power. The usurpa-
tion was present in relation to all of the three models
of “public space”, as interpreted by Seyla Benhabib3.
The Agonistic Model (public space as a superstruc-
ture for the “republican or civic virtue” by Hanna
Arendt) is based on the “rise of the social”: the pub-
lic realm represents the arena in which moral and
political virtues, heroism and prestige are declared,
presented, shared with/to others, and an arena where
one competes for recognition and confirmation which
fight impotence, futility and transience: once in ac-
tion, one can make things happen, thus becoming a
source of a different kind of force 4.
The second model is the Legalistic Model (public
space as Bruce Ackerman’s “public dialogue”), which
claims that the issue of legitimacy is the pinnacle of
liberalist political culture. The concept of Ackerman’s
notion of public dialogue is the following: [W]henever
anybody questions the legitimacy of another's power,
the power holder must respond not by suppressing the
questioner but by giving a reason that explains why he
is more entitled to the resource than the questioner is 5.
The third model is the Discursive Model (pub-
lic space as “participatory dialogue”, in the spirit of
Jürgen Habermas’ democratic-social reconstruction
of late-capitalist societies), a democratising model
which creates procedures which give those who are
encompassed by general social norms and collective
political decisions the freedom of speech in their for-
mulations, requests and acknowledgements. This par-
ticipatory model by early Habermas implies individual
activities and activities of groups, not only in the nar-
rowly defined political field, but also as realisation in
the social and cultural fields. This conception of par-
ticipation [...] emphasizes the determination of norms
of action through the practical debate of all affected
by them, Benhabib states, because the reflective ef-
fort and contribution of individuals becomes crucial 6.
To the instance of usurpation and disrespect of the
three plausible models, one can add another model
of public space, defined as “Agonistic Pluralism” in
Chantal Mouffe’s theory7. The basis for such an ago-
nism contains the notion of “radical democratic citi-
zenship” which, according to Mouffe, is crucial here
because it could provide a form of identification
that enables the establishment of a common politi-
cal identity among diverse democratic struggles [...]
which are necessarily plural, discoursively construct-
ed and entangled with power relations 8.
All that can be seen in the example of the first
truly democratic protest in recent Macedonian his-
tory. Following the announcement of the construction
of an Orthodox church on a square in Skopje (which
was the beginning of the Skopje 2014 project), a
sizeable group of architecture students united in the
First Archi-Brigade, along with other young intellec-
tuals and activists, organised a protest against the
construction of the church on March 27th 2009. The
peaceful protest had a legitimate permit, but it was
confronted by a “spontaneously” gathered group (via
the Facebook social network, the night before the an-
nounced protest) of supporters of the construction of
the church, led by Orthodox Christians. That was the
legitimation of an entirely new approach to public
speech – the counterprotest, which would eventually
become a constant defensive method of the Govern-
ment when it comes to displays of dissatisfaction,
both of the general public and the opposition. (This
system reached the pinnacle of absurdness when
various groups related to the ruling party began to
organise counterprotests to opposition protests: the
Government began protesting the opposition!) This
act prevented the creation of agonistic pluralism in
the democratic sphere of individual and group inter-
ests, and of pluralism of “struggle” [agon] of various
opinions, interests and needs, by turning it into antag-
onism: [The] 'experience' of the limit of all objectivity
does have a form of precise discoursive presence, and
this is antagonism 9.
On past and memory
The centre of Skopje, the so-called “Small Ring”,
has truly been the never-completed project of each
City and State Administration. It is not the sort of a
centre with a rounded architectural form and lan-
guage; over a length of time, individual buildings have
shaped a stratigraphy, as it were, of architectural lan-
guages and texts: from the borrowed architectural his-
toricisms (mostly of the national-romantic kind) and
the first Modernist influences, to the ultra-modern,
structuralist and rhizomatic structure in more recent
times. However, several open and vacant areas were
left after the 1963 earthquake. Macedonian architect
and urban planner Vlatko Korobar states: thanks to
his idea for the shaping of the centre of Skopje, Kenzo
Tange has been the unsurpassed authority for more
than thirty years, when it comes to the centre’s ur-
ban development. No other plan for the central part
of Skopje survived as long as the only plan regulat-
ing the construction of the centre so, due to that, we
are inhabiting the space which was built according to
Tange’s plan. We are also inhabiting the space which
was not built due to Tange’s plan10.
The first public debate and critique of the city cen-
tre began ten years earlier, when the new Detailed Ur-
ban Plan for the “Small Ring” was passed. Soon after
the initial polemics, the erection of new ultra-modern
buildings in the western part of the Square Macedo-
nia, where a temporary park had been for decades,
went along with no significant reactions. Truth be told,
there were none because the designs were extensions
of the existing streets and the plan of the centre, and
the buildings’ architectural forms successfully reflect-
ed the current perception of architecture and architec-
tural design in the spirit of poststructuralist facades
and non-rectangular forms. The architectonics of the
structures thoroughly embodied the current domina-
tion of new relationships of capital and services, and
their main trait (regarding material use) was the jux-
taposition of stone/marble and glazed surfaces. The
long anticipation of the completion of Tange’s futur-
istic project for Skopje was interrupted by the sud-
den outbreak of retro-historicism of the Skopje 2014
project. The Government promised to complete in four
years, what had not been completed for 45 years!
A State project for the city centre, as a tool for im-
plementing ideological paradigms, happened twice
in the 65-year long history of the Macedonian State,
and the City of Skopje in particular. It happened for
the first time in 1965, with the organisation of the in-
ternational competition for the restoration of the city
centre, which was won by Kenzo Tange’s team from
Japan (democratic and decentred procedure). The
second time, with the Skopje 2014 project, it was de-
veloped incognito and announced to the public at the
beginning of 2010 as a completed and fixed project
(autocratic and, therefore, epicentral procedure). We
are basically dealing with two diametrically opposite
ideological positions regarding the way in which the
State perceives itself in relation to its own reality:
as a modernistic-designable (in Tange’s case) or as
an anachronistic-retrograde (in the second case). In
both cases, it is a matter of the relationship of iden-
tity and memory, with only one difference. The first
case is about the creation of a new and future iden-
tity by creating new, next and future memory, where
the individual is perceived as a structural part of the
universal. The second case is about the restoration of
memory in order to sustain and affirm an old, already
affirmed identity. The individual is thereby perceived
as a structural part of the local and, above all, the na-
tional. In between these two ideological poles, there
appears a third, additional memory mode – the recol-
lection by someone who did not witness the events, as
the notion of postmemory 11.
The main conceptual problem and interference
are due to the arising of this memory mode. To be
precise, they happened when the postmemory mode
interfered and became the pivotal axis of ideological
tendencies through the redefinition of Macedonian
history. The relationship of memory and history, al-
beit disproportionate, became the vertical line for
establishing national identity, but in a reverse direc-
tion. History, written using academic tools (academic
discourse and methods), is cast away with the past
system’s ideological repression as the excuse, so that
the objective of the new situation becomes to correct
those mistakes. This is precisely where the correc-
tions of academic perceptions of history collide with
the perceptions of those who were repressed. The
establishment of such a new perception by the new
generations is the essence of the anti-historical and
anti-memory experience – the legitimisation of the
historically unjustified and unattainable calling upon
history. The primary goal of this attempt has appeared
as postmemory itself, whereby the commissioner of
the project (the State, embodied as the Government
and the leading ideological matrix) has forgotten, as
Jenkins states, that: the past, which is gone, can only
be partially reconstructed within the ideological and
discursive frameworks of the present – that history is
not the same thing as the past, which are 'ages and
miles apart' 12. One has forgotten that: in academic
historical research, the ideas and events of the past
30 ČOVJEK I PROSTOR / 01 – 02 (680 – 681) / 2011 tema: geostrategije proces ČOVJEK I PROSTOR / 01 – 02 (680 – 681) / 2011 31

Notice: DO NOT PARTICIPATE

Obavijest:
NE SUDJELUJTE
Primjeri recentnih natječaja daju nam naslutiti
kako se uvijek iznova moramo zapitati o pojmu i
važnosti same “institucije natječaja” te čemu one,
zapravo, služe

Damir Mioč —

Na službenim stranicama Hrvatske komore arhite- Natječaj za

Prve javne rasprave i kritike o centru grada počele su desetak go-
dina ranije, prilikom donošenja novog Detaljnog urbanističkog plana
“Malog ringa”. Ubrzo nakon tih početnih polemika, podizanje novih
ultra-modernih zgrada na zapadnom dijelu Trga Makedonija na kojem
je desetljećima bio privremeni park, protjecalo je bez značajnijih re-
akcija. Nije ih bilo, istini za volju, i zato što su se ovi projekti nadove-
zivali na postojeće ulice i plan tog dijela centra, a arhitektonski obli-
ci objekata uspješno su odražavali tekuće razumijevanje arhitekture i
njenog projektiranja u duhu poststrukturalističkih fasada i nerektan-
gularnih formi. Arhitektonika ovih zdanja je u potpunosti utjelovila te-
kuću dominaciju novih odnosa kapitala i usluga, a njihova glavna ka-
rakteristika (u upotrebi materijala) bila je jukstaponiranje kamenih/
mramornih i staklenih površina. Dugo iščekivanje završetka Tangeo-
vog futurističkog projekta u Skopju prekinuto je naglim prodorom re-
tro-historicizma projekta Skopje 2014 . To što se nije moglo završiti 45
godina, Vlada je obećala da će završiti za četiri!
Državni projekt centra grada, kao oruđe ostvarivanja ideoloških pa-
radigmi, u 65-godišnjoj povijesti makedonske države, a posebno Grada
Skopja, dogodio se dva puta. Prvi put bilo je to 1965. godine, raspisiva-
njem međunarodnog natječaja za obnovu središnjeg gradskog područ-
ja, na kojem je pobijedio tim Kenza Tangea iz Japana (demokratična
i decentrirana procedura). Drugi put, s projektom Skopje 2014, rađen
je potpuno inkognito i javnosti obznanjen početkom 2010. kao gotov
i nepromjenjiv (autokratična i, samim tim, epicentrična procedura).
Riječ je, u osnovi, o dijametralno suprotnim ideološkim pozicijama u
tome kako sama država vidi sebe u odnosu na vlastitu stvarnost: kao
modernistički projektibilna (u Tangeovom slučaju) ili kao anakroni-
stički retrogradna (u drugom slučaju). U oba slučaja radi se o odnosu
identiteta i memorije, a razlika je samo u jednom. Prvi slučaj radi na
stvaranju novog i budućeg identiteta preko stvaranja nove, iduće i budu-
će memorije, pri čemu je pojedinačno viđeno kao strukturni dio uni-
verzalnog. Drugi slučaj radi na obnavljanju memorije za održavanje i
potvrđivanje starog, već potvrđenog identiteta. Pojedinačno je pritom
viđeno kao strukturalni dio lokalnog i, prije svega, nacionalnog. U me-
đuprostoru ove dvije ideološke polarnosti, javio se i treći, dodatni, mo-
dus memorije - kao sjećanje nekog koji nije bio svjedok događaja, u
pojmu postmemorije11.
Glavni konceptualni problem i šum je miješanje upravo ovog mo-
dusa memorije. Točnije, kada se modus postmemorije upleo i postao
težišnom osi nastojanja ideološkog redefiniranjem makedonske povi-
jesti. Odnos memorije i povijesti, iako neproporcionalan, postao je ver-
tikalna linija utvrđivanja nacionalnog identiteta, ali obrnutim smje-
rom. Povijest, pisana akademskim alatima (upotrebom akademskog
diskursa i metoda), odbacuje se pod izgovorom ideološke represije
prošlog sistema, te ova nova situacija ima za zadatak da te greške ispra-
vi. I upravo na ovom mjestu dolazi do kolizije korigiranja akademskih
historijskih čitanja i čitanja onih koji su bili potisnuti. Postavljanje ova-
kvog novog čitanja ovih novih generacija je suština anti-historijskog i
anti-memorijskog iskustva – legitimacija povijesno neopravdanih i ne-
ostvarivih pozivanja na prošlost. Osnovni se cilj ovog nastojanja poka-
zao upravo kao postmemorija, pri čemu naručitelj projekta (država u
liku Vlade i vladajuće ideološke matrice) zaboravlja, kako kaže Jenkins,
da: se prošlost, koje više nema, može tek djelomično rekonstruirati u sklo-
pu ideoloških i diskurzivnih okvira sadašnjosti – da povijest nije isto što i
prošlost, te da su one ‘razdvojene stoljećima i miljama’. One has forgotten
that: su, u akademskim povijesnim istraživanjima, prošle ideje i događa-
ji obično od kolektivnog interesa, da se doimaju provjerljivima i smješte-
nima unutar logičkog prostorno-vremenskog okvira. To se ne može tako
lako primijeniti na sjećanje, koje nije nužno povezano s kolektivnim in-
teresima, logikom ili preciznom kronologijom ili smještajem ideja i doga-
đaja, iako je često povezano sa žanrom ili konvencijama, što je ustaljeni
slučaj kod oblikovanja memorijalnih spomenika13. Fuzija povijesti i me-
morije postaje konfuzija, dok anti-historijski diskurs time postaje kva-
zi-historijsko formaliziranje postmemorije u novi ideološki diskurs
nacionalnog identiteta.
Tako, okosnica vladinog retro-projekta Skopje 2014 postaje alatom
ideologiziranja postmemoričara, onih koji će u ime sjećanja drugih po-
tvrditi i ispisati drukčiju povijest makedonskog identiteta putem poni-
štenja svih demokratskih modela javnog diskursa i praksi.
P.S. Tekst je pisan u sjeni najnovijih događanja sa novim vladinim in-
kognito projektom “crkvom-muzejom” na skopskom Kaletu. Upra-
va za zaštitu kulturnog nasljeđa počela je graditi novu crkvu metalne
konstrukcije na temeljima starije iz 12-13. stoljeća, koja bi trebala biti
muzej (sic!) arheoloških nalaza s višegodišnjih iskapanja ovog lokalite-
ta. Situacijom organiziranja (još jednog) kontra-prosvjeda dogodio se
otvoreni sukob između Albanaca i Makedonaca...
Nebojša Vilić je povjesničar umjetnosti i profesor na Sveučilištu Sv. Kiril
i Metodij u Skopju
1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iybmt-iLysU
2 Иљоски, Васил (2010) “Форум: Скопје 2014”, Порта 3 126:
12-3.
3 Benhabib, Seyla (1996) “Models of Public Space: Hannah
Arendt, the Liberal Tradition, and Jürgen Habermas”, pp
73-98 in Carig Calhoun (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sp-
here. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England:
The MIT Press
4 Arendt, Hannah (1998) The Human Condition. [1958] Chi-
cago & London: The University of Chicago Press: 56
5 Ackerman, Bruce A. (1980) Social Justice in the Liberal Sta-
te. New Haven: Yale University Press: 4
6 Benhabib, 1996: 86
7 Mouffe, Chantal (2000) Deliberative Democracy or Agoni-
stic Pluralism. Wien/Vienna: Institut für Höhere Studien/
Institute for Advance Studies
8 Mouffe, Chantal (1993) The Return of the Political. Lon-
don and New York: Verso: 6-7
9 Laclau, Ernesto and Chantal Mouffe (2001) Hegemony
and Socialist Strategy. [Second Edition] London and New
York: Verso: 122
10 Коробар, Влатко (2005) „Скопје на Танге“, Културен
живот 49 (3): 14-5
11 Hirsch, Marianne (1997) Family Frames: Photography,
Narrative and Postmemory. Cambridge, Massachusetts,
and London: Harvard University Press: 11
12 Jenkins, Keith (1991) Re-thinking History. London and
New York: Routledge: 6-24
13 Gibbons, Joan (2007) Contemporary Art and Memory.
London and New York: I. B. Tauris & Co Ltd: 54
kata primijetili ste obavijest “Ne sudjelujte”. Riječ
je o natječajima čiji raspis i uvjeti nisu prihvatljivi
i/ili nisu u skladu s Pravilnikom o natječajima s po-
dručja arhitekture i urbanizma. Protekle dvije godi-
ne (2009–2011) dodijeljeno je 55 registarskih broje-
va za natječaje, a u istom periodu je za 7 natječaja
upućen poziv na nesudjelovanje. Slijedeći odredbe
Kodeksa strukovne etike ovlašteni arhitekti ne smi-
ju sudjelovati na takvim natječajima dok se uvje-
ti natječaja ne usklade i dok mu HKA ne dodijeli
sudbonosni registarski broj. Kada investitori imaju
obavezu, ponekad i potrebu, provesti natječaj za in-
vestiranje na nekoj lokaciji, moraju slijediti određe-
nu proceduru koja im osigurava pravovaljani postu-
pak. Krenemo li od kraja, pri zahtjevu za izdavanje
lokacijske dozvole potrebno je priložiti dokaz o za-
vršenom natječaju. Taj dokaz je, od svih aktera pot-
pisan, protokol natječaja te održano javno izlaganje
nagrađenih radova. Vrsta natječaja, program i ras-
pis natječaja dostavljaju se Hrvatskoj komori arhite-
kata, koja ili dodjeljuje registracijski broj natječaja
ili upućuje poziv “Ne sudjelujte”, ukoliko neki od tih
dijelova ne zadovoljava.
Primjeri recentnih natječaja daju nam nasluti-
ti kako se uvijek iznova moramo zapitati o pojmu i
važnosti same “institucije natječaja” te čemu oni,
zapravo, služe. Jesu li natječaji platforma za unapre-
đivanje stanja u prostoru ili su proceduralni korak
prema profitu sudionika postupka? I koliko je stru-
ka napravila da urbanističko–arhitektonski natje-
čaj postane relevantnim faktorom razvoja prostora.
Iščitavajući navedene natječaje u takvom kontekstu,
a imajući na umu da su najveći hrvatski planerski i
projektantski odmaci nastali kao plod natječaja, uo-
čavamo nerazmjere u pojmu o kojem govorimo.
Natječaj za izradu idejnog urbanističko-arhitek-
tonskog rješenja Crikvenica – centar, posljednji je u
nizu takvih natječaja koji ilustrativno pokazuje koli-
ko je “institucija natječaja”, u koju se struka toliko
zaklinje, promašila smisao izvan strukovnih krugo-
va. Ovaj natječaj raspisan je suprotno svim strukov-
nim normama (HKA ima primjedbe u 10 točaka) i
dokazuje brkanje pojmova “javni urbanističko-arhi-
tektonski natječaj” i “javna nabava”.
Natječaj je za javnog naručitelja samo obavezna
procedura iz “detaljnijih” planova, koja se rješava u
hodu. Njegov cilj nije kvalitetno prostorno rješenje,
nego jeftina projektna dokumentacija.
izradu idejnog
urbanističko–
arhitektonskog
rješenja Crikvenica
– centar, posljednji
je u nizu takvih
natječaja koji
ilustrativno
pokazuje koliko
je “institucija
natječaja”, u koju
se struka toliko
zaklinje, promašila
smisao izvan
strukovnih krugova
Drugi u nizu je natječaj za urbanističko-arhitekton-
sko uređenje plaže i ugostiteljskog objekta kod Prve
vode na Marjanu u Splitu, pa ima i drugu povijest.
Raspisivač je uredno zatražio registarski broj, ured-
no ga je dobio i natječaj je proveden. Međutim tek
tada nastupaju pravi problemi jer je ustanovljeno
da je bilo niz nepravilnosti u svim segmentima pri-
preme natječaja (pozicija i uloga Grada, gradona-
čelnika, privatnog interesa i javnog dobra) te je na
koncu Ministarstvo kulture dalo pismeni prijedlog
u kojem stoji da treba propisati moratorij na izda-
vanje svih vrsta dokumenata vezanih uz gradnju no-
vih građevina do donošenja novog Prostornog plana
područja posebnih obilježja (PPPO). Ovaj natječaj je
raspisan kao pozivni.
Treći u nizu natječaja je javni natječaj za idej-
no urbanističko-arhitektonsko rješenje poslovnog
centra Sopot u Zagrebu. Lokacija natječaja nosila je
etiketu “gradskog projekta” i ima privatnog supo-
sjednika koji i raspisuje natječaj. I ovaj natječaj ima
registarski broj koji dodjeljuje HKA, ali i kod njega
se propusti u pripremi otkrivaju nakon njegova služ-
benog proglašenja valjanim. Na to je reagirao DAZ
Natječaj za izradu idejnog The Competition for the Preliminary
urbanističko-arhitektonskog Urban Planning – Architectural Design
rješenja Crikvenica - Centar: for Crikvenica - Centre:
1 Crikvenica - Centar iz zraka
2 Zona obuhvata natječaja
1 Crikvenica – Centre, aerial photo
2 Competition zone
(Društvo arhitekata Zagreba) te je od Grada Zagreba
i Gradske skupštine zatražio poništenje zaključka
kojim je Grad 2008. “utvrdio obuhvat koji se izuzi-
ma iz gradskog projekta”. Natječaj je raspisan kao
javni s pozvanim autorima.
U krugovima struke i javnosti, u posljednje vrijeme
često je spominjana tema aktualnih natječaja. Neja-
snoće se mogu adresirati i na Grad i na Investitora i
na Program natječaja i na Hrvatsku komoru arhite-
kata. Da ne bismo naprečac donosili zaključke, raz-
govarali smo s predsjednikom Odbora za natječaje
pri HKA-i, Tomislavom Petrinjakom.
ČIP: Koji su kriteriji za dodjelu registarskog broja na-
tječaju?
TP: Dodjela registarskog broja natječaja znači da je
natječaj usklađen s Pravilnikom o natječajima s po-
dručja arhitekture i urbanizma NN 112/06. Odbor za
natječaje procjenjuje usklađenost i savjetuje provo-
ditelju natječaja eventualne promjene i dopune po
pitanju vrste natječaja, postavljenih zahtjeva, uvjeta
za sudjelovanje, nagradnog fonda, sastava ocjenji-
vačkog suda i natječajnih rokova. Kod natječaja za
realizaciju, dodatna se pozornost posvećuje određe-
nosti programa (sadržaji, kapaciteti, izgrađenost),
te obvezi raspisivača o ugovaranju daljnje izrade do-
kumentacije s prvonagrađenim natjecateljem. Za-
2
htjeva se suglasnost članova ocjenjivačkog suda za
program i opće uvjete, te povratna informacija o re-
zultatima natječaja.
ČIP: Objasnite nam te kriterije na primjerima natje-
čaja Crikvenica - centar i Split - Prva voda - Marjan.
TP: Prema svojstvu raspisivača, to su dva osnovna
tipa natječaja. Ured grada Crikvenice objavio je pre-
ma Zakonu o javnoj nabavi poziv za nadmetanje u
otvorenom natječaju za izradu idejnog urbanistič-
ko-arhitektonskog rješenja centra Crikvenice. Od-
bor za natječaje zaključio je da raspis nije usklađen
s Pravilnikom o natječajima, te je sugerirao raspisi-
vaču da, makar naknadno, pristupi postupku uskla-
đivanja. Istovremeno su članovi HKA-e i UHA-e po-
zvani na nesudjelovanje. Raspisivač je prihvatio
naše sugestije, te sa zadovoljstvom konstatiram da
će registarski broj uskoro biti dodijeljen te da će ur-
banističko-arhitektonski natječaj biti sproveden.
Za natječaj za Split - Marjan raspisivač je privatni
investitor kojega na provođenje natječaja obavezu-
je odredba prostornog plana. Provoditelj natječaja i
sastavljač programa su ovlašteni arhitekti. Odboru
za natječaje je dostavljena sva Pravilnikom zahtije-
vana dokumentacija, s ovjerenim programom, su-
glasnosti članova ocjenjivačkog suda te je, nakon
nekih primjedbi, ovaj Odbor dodijelio registarski
broj.

are usually of collective interest, seen as verifiable
and situated within a logical framework of time and
space. This does not apply so readily to memory,
which is not necessarily bound to collective interests,
logic or the precise chronology or location of ideas
and events, although it is often bound to genre or
convention, as is traditionally the case with the pro-
duction of commemorative monuments 13. The fusion
of history and memory becomes a confusion, while
the anti-historical discourse thus becomes a quasi-
historical formalisation of postmemory into a new
ideological discourse of national identity.
And so, the axis of the Government’s retro-project
Skopje 2014 becomes the tool of postmemorists’ ide-
ologisation, allowing them to verify and write a differ-
ent history of Macedonian identity in the name of the
recollection of others, by annihilating all democratic
models of public discourse and practice.
P.S. The text was written as the most recent events
unfolded, including the new incognito project of the
Government – the “church-museum” at Kale in Skopje.
The Cultural Heritage Conservation Direction began
the construction of a new metal-structure church
upon the foundations of the old one (12th-13th cen-
tury), which should serve as the museum (sic!) for the
archaeological artefacts found during the years of
excavations on this site. The organisation of (another)
counterprotest resulted in an open confrontation of
Albanians and Macedonians…
Endnotes
1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iybmt-iLysU
2 Иљоски, Васил (2010) “Форум: Скопје 2014”,
Порта 3 126: 12-3.
3 Benhabib, Seyla (1996) “Models of Public Space:
Hannah Arendt, the Liberal Tradition, and Jürgen Ha-
bermas”, pp 73-98 in Carig Calhoun (ed.) Habermas
and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, Massachusetts and
London, England: The MIT Press
4 Arendt, Hannah (1998) The Human Condition.
[1958] Chicago & London: The University of Chicago
Press: 56
5 Ackerman, Bruce A. (1980) Social Justice in the
Liberal State. New Haven: Yale University Press: 4
6 Benhabib, 1996: 86
7 Mouffe, Chantal (2000) Deliberative Democ-
racy or Agonistic Pluralism. Wien/Vienna: Institut für
Höhere Studien/Institute for Advance Studies
8 Mouffe, Chantal (1993) The Return of the Political.
London and New York: Verso: 6-7
9 Laclau, Ernesto and Chantal Mouffe (2001) He-
gemony and Socialist Strategy. [Second Edition] Lon-
don and New York: Verso: 122
10 Коробар, Влатко (2005) „Скопје на Танге“, Notice: DO NOT PARTICIPATE
Културен живот 49 (3): 14-5 The recent competitions suggest that
11 Hirsch, Marianne (1997) Family Frames: Photog- we have to keep questioning the notion
raphy, Narrative and Postmemory. Cambridge, Mas- and relevance of the very institution of
sachusetts, and London: Harvard University Press: 11 competition and what the purpose of
12 Jenkins, Keith (1991) Re-thinking History. Lon- competitions is by Damir Mioč
don and New York: Routledge: 6-24
13 Gibbons, Joan (2007) Contemporary Art and You have noticed the “Do not participate” notice on
Memory. London and New York: I. B. Tauris & Co Ltd: 54 the official website of the Croatian Chamber of Ar-
chitects. It concerned the competitions whose an-
nouncements and terms were unacceptable and/or
not in compliance with the Rulebook on Architectural
and Urban Planning Competitions. During the past
two years (2009 – 2011) 55 competition registration
numbers were issued and 7 non-participation notices
were published. According to the stipulations of the
Code of Professional Ethics, licensed architects are
not allowed to participate in such competitions until
the competition terms are brought into compliance
so that the CCA can issue the ominous registration
number.
When the investors are obliged to, or sometimes
feel the need to, organise a competition in order to
invest in a certain location, they have to follow the
specified procedure which ensures the regularity of
proceedings. Beginning at the end, a location permit
request must contain the evidence that a competition
was completed. That evidence is the competition pro-
tocol signed by everyone involved, and a public exhi-
bition of the award-winning designs. The competition
type, programme and announcement are delivered
to the Croatian Chamber of Architects, which may or
may not issue a competition registration number or
publish the non-participation notice if there are non-
complying elements.
The recent competitions suggest that we have
to keep questioning the notion and relevance of the
very institution of competition and what the purpose
of competitions is. Are competitions a platform for
improving spatial conditions or a procedural step to-
wards the profit of the procedure’s participants? And
how much did the profession do to make the urban
planning – architectural competition a relevant fac-
tor of spatial development? By interpreting the above
mentioned competitions within such a context, hav-
ing in mind that the largest Croatian steps forward in
terms of planning and design originated in competi-
tions, we can notice disparities within the notion we
are discussing.
The competition for the preliminary urban planning
– architectural design for Crikvenica – Centre is the
latest in the line of such competitions, showing vividly
how much the “institution of the competition” which
the profession swears by misses the point outside
professional circles. This competition was announced
contrary to all professional norms (the CCA had objec-
tions to 10 points) and revealed the confusion of the
“public urban planning – architectural competition”
with the “public procurement”.
For the public investor, a competition is just an
obligatory procedure from the “more detailed” plans
which is taken care of along the way. Their aim is not
a high-quality spatial design, but cheap documenta-
tion instead.
The second in the line is the competition for the
urban planning – architectural design for the beach
and catering establishment at Prva voda on Marjan
in Split, and it has a long history, too. The announcer
requested a registration number, which was regularly
issued, and the competition was completed. That is
where the problems began, as it was found that there
were numerous irregularities in all segments of the
competition’s preparation (the position and role of the
City, the Mayor, of private interest and public good) so
the Ministry of Culture eventually issued a written rec-
ommendation stating that a moratorium should be ap-
plied to the issuing of any and all documents regard-
ing the construction of new structures until the new
Spatial Plan for the Area of Special Properties (PPP-
PO) gets passed. This competition was invitational.
The third in the line of competitions is the public
competition for the preliminary urban planning – ar-
chitectural design for the Sopot Business Centre in
Zagreb. The competition’s location was labelled as
a “city project” and had a private co-owner, who an-
nounced the competition. It was also issued a regis-
tration number by the CCA, but its preparation-faults
were discovered after it was officially proclaimed
valid. The Zagreb Architects’ Society (DAZ) reacted
and requested that the City of Zagreb and the City As-
sembly cancel the conclusion issued in 2008, stating
that the City “demarked the area exempted from the
city-project status”. The competition was public, with
invited authors.
Within the professional circles as well as the general
public, the current competitions are often discussed.
Any unclear issues can be raised with the City, the In-
vestor, the Competition Brief, and the Croatian Cham-
ber of Architects. To avoid jumping to conclusions, we
talked to the President of the Competition Committee
of the CCA, Tomislav Petrinjak.
ČIP: What are the criteria for issuing competition reg-
istration numbers?
TP: The issuing of a competition registration num-
ber means that the competition complies with the
Rulebook on Architecture and Urban Planning Com-
petitions NN 112/06. The Competition Committee
evaluates the compliance and contacts the enactor
of the competition with suggestions regarding pos-
sible changes and amendments in terms of the com-
petition’s type, requirements, terms of participation,
prizes, jury composition and deadline. In the case of
competitions leading to the realisation phase, extra
attention is devoted to how specific the programme
is (use, capacity, build-up), and to the announcer’s ob-
ligation to contract the ensuing documentation pro-
duction with the winning participant. The members
of the jury are required to accept the programme and
the general terms, and a report is requested about the
competition’s results.
ČIP: Please, explain the criteria using the Crikvenica
– Centre and the Split – Prva voda – Marjan competi-
tions as examples.
TP: In terms of the announcer category, they repre-
sent the two basic competition types. In compliance
with the Public Procurement Act, the Crikvenica City
Office announced the tender invitation within the
open competition for the preliminary urban planning
– architectural design for the centre of Crikvenica. The
Competition Committee ruled that the announcement