Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Cities
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities
City prole
Belgrade, Serbia
Sonia Hirt *
Urban Affairs and Planning Program, 213 Architecture Annex, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg, VA 24061, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 6 January 2009
Received in revised form 5 April 2009
Accepted 10 April 2009
Available online 28 May 2009
a b s t r a c t
Few cities in Europe have a history as dramatic and tumultuous as that of the Serbian capital of Belgrade.
The gracious White City, which rises spectacularly along the banks of the Danube and the Sava River,
has been the site of wars, conquests and rapidly changing fortunes for much of its thousands-years long
history. Belgrade suffered heavy destruction under both World Wars, and it has the unfortunate distinction of being the only European capital to be bombed at the end of the 20th century. Its modern history is
marked by abrupt shifts in political status: from a capital of a relatively small nation-state, to a center of a
larger and prosperous multi-national federation, to a capital of a nation-state once again. These shifts parallel the changing geopolitical position of Serbia/Yugoslavia in Europe. In this City Prole, I present the
evolution of the built environment of Belgrade in ve historic stages: ancient/medieval/Ottoman, early
modern, communist, transitional, and contemporary. I show how each period left a distinct spatial
imprint on Belgrades fabric. Finally, I discuss some contemporary challenges and opportunities in planning Belgrades future.
Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Introduction
Belgrade (Beograd in Serbian), a vibrant metropolis of 1.6 million residents that rises spectacularly along the banks of the Danube and the Sava rivers, is located in the northwestern part of
the Balkan Peninsula. It is the largest city in Serbia and throughout
the territory of the former Yugoslavia. It is the third largest city on
the Danube (after Vienna and Budapest) and the fourth largest city
in Southeast Europe (after Istanbul, Athens and Bucharest).
Today, strolling through Belgrades lovely downtown streets,
anked by impressive Neo-classic, Art Nouveau and Modernist
architecture and full of people, cafes, shops, clubs, tourist bureaus
and all the other markings of a bustling European urban center, one
can hardly imagine that only 10 years ago the city was the capital
of a state that the worlds most powerful military alliance considered a pariah and bombed for 79 straight days. The reminders of
war come quickly in the form of charred and half-ruined buildings,
most of which were important architectural landmarksa sight
one can nd in no other European capital except perhaps Sarajevo.
The physical scars of war are few, however. The more painful legacy of the tumultuous 1990s may be the delayed economic and
cultural recovery of Belgradea city that in the 1970s and 1980s
was one of the trendiest and most cosmopolitan centers of Europe,
yet lived through poverty and isolation during the 1990s, and is
only now beginning to recover both its condence and its vibrancy.
A common rhetorical question among Serbs is whether Belgrade
* Tel.: +1 540 231 7509.
E-mail address: shirt@vt.edu
URL: http://www.uap.vt.edu/faculty/hirt.html
0264-2751/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.cities.2009.04.001
294
Population
Year
Fig. 1. Population growth in Belgrade.
straightening the oriental street network in the city (e.g., Grozdanic, 2008; Perovic, 1985).1 Belgrades gems like Knez Mihajlova
(Prince Michaels) Street, Terazije Square and Republic Square were
laid out about that time in the Neo-classicist and Neo-Baroque spirit,
with later additions in the style of the Viennese Secession. Bustling
with people at all hours of the day, they are landscapes that any
European capital could be proud of see Figs. 2 and 3).
The early 20th century saw the continuous expansion of Belgrade with the construction and renovation of multiple grand vistas and plazas. In the Monumental City design tradition, the master
plans from 1914 and 1923 built on Belgrades existing structure,
while strengthening its orthogonal street system, creating urban
parks, and envisioning a number of long diagonal vistas, whose
intersections formed spectacular public plazas (e.g. Perovic,
1985).2 A novelty on the local architectural scene was the National
Romantic style, which mixed European classicism with references
to old Serbian3 and Byzantine aesthetics (e.g. Maric, 2002; Manevic
et al., 1990; Manevic, undated).
Belgrades early 20th century neighborhoods had morphology
patterns similar to those in other large continental European cities
at the time: their dense fabric was made of medium-scale residential and mixed-use buildings, placed to form continuous and eclectic street facades and small interior courtyards. Some outlying,
suburban residential districts were also developed at the time
according to European fashions. For example, Belgrades most prestigious neighborhood Dedinje, which rst attracted the citys upper
class in the early 1900s and contains the Royal Palace and many
foreign embassies, was laid out with ample tree-lined sidewalks
and spacious green yards as a Belgrade-style garden suburb.
Belgrade endured heavy damage during World War I under Austrian and German attacks. In 1918, Serbian troops with French help
expelled the foreign armies. In the same year Serbia, emerging victorious from the war, formed a union with its neighbors called the
Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (renamed Yugoslavia in
1929). Belgrade now became the capital of a much larger new state.
The city also expanded territorially toward the north to include the
Zemun area, which had a largely Slavic population yet had been ruled by the Hapsburgs (the border between Serbia and the AustroHungarian Empire ran through northern Belgrade until 1918).
In the interwar years, Belgrade prospered both economically
and culturally, becoming one of Central-East Europes most vibrant
urban centers. The sciences, the arts and architecture entered an
exceptionally creative period. Serbian architects like M. Zlokovic,
1
For a full chronology of Master Plans of Belgrade, see Institute of Urbanism
(undated).
2
For the relationship between urban planning in Serbia and the dominant Western
ideologies like the French Beaux-Arts and the English Garden Cities, see NedovicBudic and Cavric (2006).
3
For select characteristics of traditional Serbian residential architecture and its
inuence through the 20th and 21st centuries, see, for example, Maric (2006).
295
Fig. 2. Belgrades historic downtown, which exhibits the traditional morphology patterns and eclectic mix of architectural styles typical of other large cities in continental
Europe.
296
B. Krstic, P. Krstic, N. Dobrovic and D. Brasovan joined the fast-burgeoning global Modern avant-garde. Many of Belgrades streets became scenes of brave aesthetic experimentation and included
some of the best exemplars of interwar Modern architecture in
the region (see Blagojevic, 2003; Maric, 2002).
World War II exerted a heavy toll on Belgrade. The Luftwaffe
bombed the city in 1941, destroying hundreds of buildings, including the Royal Palace, many churches and hospitals, and the major
industrial facilities. The National Library, with its 300,000 medieval
manuscripts, was burned down. The city was under German occupation until late October of 1944. About 50,000 citizens died during
the bombing campaign or were killed in mass executions. In
November 1945, leading his triumphant partisan troops into Belgrade, Josip Tito declared the end of Nazi rule and the birth of
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
Belgrade during communism
Communism introduced a fundamentally different paradigm in
city-building. Despite its famous break with Stalinism in 1948, the
Yugoslav regime adhered closely to the communist doctrine. Most
urban land and large production means were put under public
ownershipa process that took about a dozen years (however,
the overwhelming amount of agricultural resources, about 90%, remained in private hands). The state took the role of primary urban
developer. New legislation delineated a strictly hierarchical system
of planningfrom federal through republican to municipal level.
Thus, local plans strictly followed the orders provided in the veyear national economic plans; in fact, their essential purpose was
to translate national economic goals into spatial terms at the local
level (Nedovic-Budic and Cavric, 2006).
The rst post-war planning goals were to rebuild the war-damaged urban fabric, including the heavily scarred downtown streets,
provide new housing, restore the operation of the vital civic services, and restart the economytasks which were accomplished
in about a decade or so. From the 1950s on, a new set of statewide
ideologically driven objectives were put in place related to urban
industrial expansion, the building of classless cities, and the production of large new residential districts utilizing industrialized
construction technologies (Nedovic-Budic and Cavric, 2006; Nedovic-Budic and Vujosevic, 2004).
For the Yugoslav capital, this meant the construction of a number of massive chemical, metallurgical, and machine-building factories (e.g., the Tito Shipyard), as well as an explosive population
growth (population nearly doubled in the late 1940s; see Fig. 1).
This growth was fed by natural increase, by in-migration following
the building of the new urban industries, and by the steady territorial expansion of the metropolis. By the mid-1950s, Belgrades territory comprised 2090 sq km. Aggressive annexation continued
through the 1960s and in 1971 the capital metropolis reached its
present administrative borders, which enclose 3222 sq km of land
(Gligorijevic et al., 2007).
Intensive post-war growth mandated the urgent building of
mass housing. The pioneering project was Novi Beograd (New Belgrade). The idea of creating a vast new district across the Sava River
and opposite the historic center dated back to the 1923 Master
Plan of Belgrade. In fact, the site was used in the 1930s as a state
fairground showcasing early industrial progress in Yugoslavia.
Construction of self-sufcient neighborhoods comprising not only
large residential buildings but also a complex range of services
and vast civic spaces as prescribed in the Athens Charter4 started
in 1948 and intensied after the 1950 Master Plan endorsed urbanization on the Savas left bank (Grozdanic, 2008; Gligorijevic, 2006;
Gajic and Dimitrijevic-Markovic, 2006; Lazar and Djokic, 2006). Today, Novi Beograd houses 220,000 people; it is the most populated
administrative unit of the capital city. Similar districts, such as Banovo Brdo and Banjica, were built throughout the communist era
alongside other parts of old Belgrade (see Fig. 4 for the administrative units of the city and Fig. 5 for Novi Beograds Modern
architecture).
In morphological terms, Belgrades Modernist districts marked a
clear break with pre-World-War-II built patterns. In line with
Modernist ideals of industrial efciency and progress, the new districts included large at-roofed residential buildings made of prefabricated panels. Instead of aesthetic eclecticism, these buildings
offered a sense of discipline and egalitarianism. Rather than framing semi-private interior courtyards, as was typical of the early
20th century neighborhoods, the new buildings were placed far
and apart from each other. They formed vast open public green
spaces, thus conveying a clear message for the dominance of the
communist public realm over private (i.e., bourgeois) interests.
Although the new districts complied with the general principles
of Modernism, it is important to note that their architecture deviated from orthodox communist examples at least to an extent.
First, Belgrades districts were better supplied with services than
their counterparts in other Balkan capitals like Bucharest or Soa.
Second, their design was of superior architectural quality (Hirt,
2008; see Fig. 6). The latter may be partially attributed to the higher level of economic development of Yugoslavia compared to its
Eastern neighbors and the higher-quality materials used in construction. Access to greater resources alone, however, can hardly
explain the stark contrast between the dreadful monotony of typical communist housing projects and the more imaginative design
language used in places like Novi Beograd. A likely reason for this
relative success is that Yugoslav architects continued to be an integral part of worlds artistic avant-garde in ways their colleagues in
more doctrinal communist nations were no longer permitted. A
number of examples support this point: lead Yugoslav architects
were members of the worlds premiere architectural bodies; Yugoslav post-war planning laws were written after extensive exchanges with Western experts (Nedovic-Budic and Cavric, 2006);
the 1956 Congress of International Architecture was held in
Dubrovnik.
Political reforms initiated in the 1960s shifted some powers
from the federal to the republican levels and permitted private
ownership of small and medium business enterprises (as a result,
in the late 1980s about a third of the Yugoslav GDP came from
the private sectora share much higher than in other communist
nations; Hadzic, 2002). At that time, signicant planning responsibilities were transferred from the federal authorities to the individual republics.
Progressive trends in planning and architecture only strengthened through the 1970s parallel to Yugoslavias continuing political decentralization and democratization. This is reected in the
cautious break with severe Modernism visible in Belgrades fabric
from the 1970s on Hirt (2008) and the early call for historic preservation and architectural contextualism issued in Belgrades,
1972 Master Plan. It is also reected in the high levels of civic
participation that characterized planning in the 1970s and 1980s
(Nedovic-Budic et al., 2008; Vujosevic and Nedovic-Budic, 2006).
297
Fig. 4. Administrative districts (municipalities) in Belgrade and individual neighborhoods mentioned in the paper. The map also shows the City Proper, which incorporates
the heavily urbanized central areas of the vast metropolis, as well as the territory subject to Belgrades latest Master Plan. Reprinted with modications with the permission of
Urban Geography, Vol. 29, No. 8, pp. 785810. (c) Bellwether Publishing, Ltd., 8640 Guilford Road, Suite 200, Columbia, MD 21046. All rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Large Modernist structureslike the ones shown in the photocharacterize communist-era districts such as Novi Beograd. Unlike Belgrades traditional
neighborhoods, the Modernist districts comprise large free-standing towers sharing vast common green spaces, designed to convey a message of industrial progress and
egalitarianism.
298
Fig. 6. In the 1980s, Novi Beograds Modernism softened by adopting a more humane scale and incorporating sloped roofs, color, semi-private spaces and even some
elements from traditional Serbian residential architecture. Such architectural innovations are largely absent in other capital cities in the region during the same period.
299
Fig. 7. Crowned by a cupola and surrounded by ornate but secure gating, this new home in Zemun overlooks the Danube and is one of the relatively tasteful examples of
lavish new architecture.
buildings were premier examples of Belgrades historic and modern architecture; Perovic and Zegarac, 2000) these pompous mansions may be the true architectural legacy of the disastrous
Milosevic years (also Curcic, 2006; see Fig. 7).
Belgrade after 2000
population densities (see Table 1). The City Proper occupies only
11% of the metropolitan area. Ten of the municipalities are
regarded as urban and seven as suburban (in fact, four urban
municipalities are partially suburban; they include lands outside
the City Proper; see Table 1 and Fig. 4). Predictably, districts
within the City Proper, especially in or near the city center,
have much higher population densities. Also, the City Proper is
Table 1
Belgrade: Area and population by administrative district (municipality) according to
the 2002 census. Source: Institute for Informatics and Statistics, 2006.
Area
(ha)
Urban districts
1. Cukarica
2. Novi Beograd
3. Palilula
4. Rakovica
5. Savsi Venac
6. Stari grad
7. Vozdovac
8. Vracar
9. Zemun
10. Zvezdara
15,650
4074
44,661
3036
1400
698
14,864
292
15,058
3165
Suburban districts
11. Barajevo
12. Grocka
13. Lazarevac
14. Mladenovac
15. Obrenovac
16. Sopot
17. Surcin
21,312
28,923
38,351
33,900
40,995
27,075
28,814
Total
322,268
35,995
Population
2002
Population density
(per ha)
168,508
217,773
155,902
99,000
42,505
55,543
151,768
58,386
191,645
132,621
10.77
53.45
3.49
32.61
30.36
79.57
10.21
199.95
12.73
41.90
24,641
75,466
58,511
52,490
70,975
20,390
n/a
1.16
2.61
1.53
1.55
1.73
0.75
1,576,124
4.89
300
20000
15000
10000
5000
Year
Fig. 8. Growth of retail outlets in Belgrade.
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1980
1970
0
1960
Total retail
25000
301
Fig. 9. New housing in Belgrade. As compared to the Modernist districts with their large and grey residential towers and vast public spaces, the new developments exhibit a
much greater variety of scales, styles and colors. They also embrace the traditional morphological patterns of old Belgrade, including the corridor street and the semi-private
interior yard. Photo by Town Planning Institute, Belgrade.
302
303