-
LANDSCAPES OF POSTMODERNITY: CHANGES IN THE BUILT FABRIC OF
BELGRADE AND SOFIA SINCE THE END OF SOCIALISM1785
Sonia Hirt2
Program of Urban Affairs and PlanningVirginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University
Abstract: In this article, I discuss recent physical changes in
the built fabric of the Serbiancapital of Belgrade and the
Bulgarian capital of Sofia. I apply two bodies of literature,
involvingpostsocialist urban transitions and postmodern urban
transitions. I present empirical observa-tions on changes in
building functions, scales, and styles in both cities. I show that
certaingeneral common traits prevail in the evolution of urban
forms in both Belgrade and Sofia, but Ialso argue that the
contrasting social and cultural experiences of Serbia and Bulgaria
duringsocialism and postsocialism produced some locally specific
results. I further suggest that post-socialist cities represent
textbook examples of urban postmodernization, much as socialist
citiesepitomized the essential legacy of modernist urbanity. [Key
words: postsocialist cities, postmod-ern urbanism, Belgrade,
Sofia.]
In his 1992 Summer Mediations, Vaclav Havel (1992b, pp. 104105)
painted a visionof the impending transformation of Pragues urban
fabric in the following optimisticterms:
Life in the towns and villages will have overcome the legacy of
grayness, unifor-mity, anonymity, and ugliness inherited from the
totalitarian era. Every mainstreet will have at least two bakeries,
two sweet-shops, two pubs, and many othersmall shops, all privately
owned and independent. Prefabricated high-rise apart-ment blocks
and other kinds of gigantic public housing developments will
nolonger be built. Instead, there will be developments of family
houses, villas, town-houses and low-rise apartment buildings. They
will be better constructed, morevaried and on a more human scale.
Existing high-rise housing estates, whereso many have made their
homes over the last four decades, will be enlivened in
1This research was supported by the National Council for
Eurasian and East European Studies, the GrahamFoundation for
Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts, and the Humanities Program at
Virginia Polytechnic Insti-tute and State University. The author
thanks the editors, the referees, as well as Z. Nedovic-Budic, J.
Scarpaci,and J. Steiff for their extremely helpful comments on
earlier drafts. The author is deeply indebted to M.Petrovic and Z.
Gligorijevic for their invaluable insights on Belgrades landscape,
as well as to the staff of theBelgrades Urban Institute (especially
M. Ferencak), the Belgrades Institute of Informatics and
Statistics(especially O. Momchilovich) and the Serbian Institute of
Statistics (especially S. Gazo). Without the thought-ful input of
these Belgrade colleagues, the article could not have been
completed. Finally, the author thanks herresearch assistants D.
Prichard and S. Swenson.2Correspondence concerning this article
should be addresses to Sonia Hirt, Assistant Professor of
UrbanAffairs and Planning, 213 Architecture Annex, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg,Virginia
24061; telephone: 540-231-7509; fax: 540-231-3367; e-mail:
[email protected] Geography, 2008, 29, 8, pp. 785810. DOI:
10.2747/0272-3638.29.8.785Copyright 2008 by Bellwether Publishing,
Ltd. All rights reserved.
-
786 SONIA HIRT
different wayssome redesigned and altered, others gradually
phased out to makeroom for something more adequate for the 21st
century.
Without being an urban geographer or a sociologist, Havel
grasped precisely theessence of socialist urbanism: massiveness,
uniformity, and scarcity of urban services. Itake his statement as
a close parallel to the summary of the fundamentals of the
socialistcity, which were proposed by sociologist Ivan Szelenyi in
1996 (pp. 300303) and notedby many other theorists (e.g., Scarpaci,
2000; Sheppard, 2000; Banerjee, 2004): (1) lackof functional
diversity (especially shortage of commercial functions); (2)
striking gran-deur and rigid order of spaces and buildings, as
exhibited in colossal but visually disci-plined public plazas and
massive housing estates; and (3) oppressive monotony
ofarchitectural styles.3 Havels vision has been equally insightful
in outlining the broaddimensions of postsocialist restructuring. In
essence, he expected three interrelatedprocesses of change:
commercialization of the built fabric, decrease in spatial scale
anddecline of spatial formalism, and diversification of
architectural stylesall of whichhave been discussed to varying
degrees in the literature on postsocialist urbanism (e.g.,Sykora,
1998, 2007, and Garb and Dybicz, 2006, on commercialization;
Bodnar, 2001,Ioan, 2007, and Stanilov, 2007a, on decline in spatial
scale and spatial formalism; andAndrusz, 1996, Sarmany-Parsons,
1998, and Boym, 2001, on changes in architecturalstyles).
In this study, I turn to two southeastern European cities, the
Serbian capital ofBelgrade and the Bulgarian capital of Sofia. I
offer observations on their built fabricaccording to the three
types of change outlined above: functional changes, changes
inbuilding and spatial scale, and changes in architectural style.
By comparing the two cities,I aim to discern and reflect upon both
the trends that transcend the individual cases andthose that set
them apart (regarding comparative case studies, see Yin, 1994, and
Nijman,2007). Such comparisons are especially needed in the
literature on postsocialist urbanism,which has been dominated by
studies of single cities (Sykora, 2000). This study alsoextends
existing work on Sofia (Hirt, 2006) while offering novel
observations onBelgradea city that has received insufficient
attention due to Serbias recent inter-national isolation.
My hypothesis is that Belgrade and Sofia have undergone similar
transitions: in bothcities, functional reorganization is driven by
sharp increases in commercial uses; in both,a new paradigm of
development, defined by smaller projects and more fragmentedspaces,
has replaced the socialist order and grandeur; and in both,
architectural styleshave been radically diversified. Regardless of
these similarities, I note some differencesthat result from former
Yugoslavias unique experiences prior to 1990, Serbias
societalcollapse during the 1990s, and its belated embrace of a
pro-Western development after2000. Without dismissing the
importance of the local, I argue that the above-listedchanges are
inherent to East European postsocialism. I also further hypothesize
that they
3Szelenyis categories are much broader. For example, regarding
the socialist lack of diversity, he implies a
lack of diversity in social behaviors. It would be virtually
impossible to provide evidence for changes alongSzelenyis broader
categories in a single article. I have, therefore, modified his
framework and used it in amuch narrower senseonly as it pertains to
my focus, the physical features of the built fabric.
-
LANDSCAPES OF POSTMODERNITY 787
fit well into the framework of a global modern-to-postmodern
urban change. I provide atheoretical case as to why postsocialism
and postmodernism are related. I suggest thatpostsocialist cities
provide highly vivid examples of the rupture between the modern
andthe postmodern, perhaps as vivid as examples in the so-called
Western world.
I employ several data sources. Where appropriate, I use simple
quantitative data fromthe Institute of Informatics and Statistics
in Belgrade, the National Statistical Institute inSofia, and select
municipal sources. Noting that many changes (e.g., those in
aesthetics)are not quantifiable and that there may be no reliable
numeric measure of postmodernurbanism, I rely heavily on personal
observation and the thick description of the builtfabrica method
used in architectural essays and similar to that of Leontidou
(1993) in
Fig. 1. Belgrade, Serbia. The map shows the administrative
districts of the metropolis, the boundaries ofthe so-called City
Proper (according to the Institute of Informatics and Statistics),
the Planned City (accordingto the Urban Institute), and various
neighborhoods referred to in the article. Author: David S.
Prichard.her study of Mediterranean postmodernisms. Many of my
examples come from twosocialist housing districtsNovi Beograd in
Belgrade and Mladost in Sofia (Figs. 1 and
-
788 SONIA HIRT
2).4 As landmark examples of socialist urbanism, these places
display well the archetyp-ical postsocialist (and postmodern)
changes. I also use a photographic survey as well asinterviews with
the Chief Architects of both cities and experts from Sofias
Directorate ofArchitecture and Urban Planning and Belgrades Urban
Institute.
My study is organized as follows. I first outline the general
processes of transformingsocialist into capitalist cities, and
connect postsocialist urbanism with postmodern urban-ism. Next, I
present a brief history of Belgrade and Sofia within the context of
pertinentsocietal changes in Yugoslavia/Serbia and Bulgaria. Third,
I introduce my empirical noteson changes in the built fabric of
Belgrade and Sofia. I then interpret these changes notonly as
postsocialist but also as inherently postmodern.
4Sources for all maps, tables, and charts are: in Belgrade, the
Institute for Informatics and Statistics (2005) and
Fig. 2. Sofia, Bulgaria. The map shows the administrative
districts of the metropolis, the boundaries of theso-called Compact
City (according to the Directorate of Architecture and Urban
Planning), and various neigh-borhoods referred to in the article.
Author: David S. Prichard.the Urban Institute of Belgrade (2003);
and in Sofia, the National Statistical Institute (1993, 2003) and
theDirectorate of Architecture and Urban Planning (2003). Some
information was obtained from personal com-munications with staff
from these agencies. All photos were taken by the author.
-
LANDSCAPES OF POSTMODERNITY 789
FROM THE SOCIALIST TO THE POSTSOCIALIST CITY: GENERAL TRENDS
The Socialist City
The first important aspect of the socialist city discussed here
is the scarcity of commer-cial uses. This scarcity resulted from
the socialist emphasis on industry and the
systematicunderproduction of consumer goods, which translated into
fewer commercial spaces(Szelenyi, 1996; Stanilov, 2007b).
Furthermore, since socialist governments owned mosturban land, they
could reserve larger areas in prime urban locations for public and
indus-trial uses rather than the type of commerce found in CBDs in
the West (e.g., Bertaud andRenaud, 1995; Bertaud, 2006). They could
also retain substantial residential functions incity centers. The
second aspect of the socialist citythe striking grandeur of public
proj-ects (which includes housing estates because during socialism
they were built under pub-lic auspices)also had its roots in the
vast powers of socialist states to control land.Spatial grandeur,
however, had deep ideological roots as well (Crowley and Reid,
2002).It expressed the socialist dedication to an egalitarian
public realm and collectivist urbanliving, and a fascination with
big is beautiful projects on behalf of socialist elites(Andrusz,
1996; Banerjee, 2004). Finally, suppressing aesthetic diversity had
much to dowith totalitarian control (Klassanov, 1992). In housing,
it also had to do with economiesof scale and the socialist embrace
of Modernist functionalism and uniformity as theproper aesthetic
medium of progress and equality (Lizon, 1996; Scott, 1998).
These features of socialist urbanism were attuned to the key
aspects of the socialistsocioeconomic and political order:
dominance of production over consumption; domi-nance of the public
and the collective over the private and the individual; and
dominanceof order and discipline over diversity and marginality
(e.g., Banerjee, 2004).
The Postsocialist City
The abrupt collapse of Eastern European socialism brought about
the more gradual,post-1990 decomposition of the spatial
characteristics of the socialist city. The literaturepoints to
several factors behind this urban transition: economic,
institutional, social, andcultural. The first and most important
factor is the economic, the rebirth of the land andproperty market
following state policies of restitution and privatization
(Nedovic-Budicet al., 2006). Market pressures lead to major
land-use realignment as higher-intensity uses(e.g., commercial)
move in to displace lower-intensity uses (e.g., residential), and
as largeindustrial plants close down (Sykora, 1998). The end of
state control over urban land andreal estate parallels the abrupt
withdrawal of state agents from the production of housing(Stanilov,
2007a). The private firms that take the lead in building the
postsocialist city aretypically small, fragmented, and
capital-poor, although the situation varies from countryto country
based on the levels of development (Low and Tsenkova, 2003). This
reversalof roles between the public and the private sector
translates into a major shift in builtforms. Large ceremonial civic
projects (e.g., the Romanian Peoples Palace and VictoryBoulevard,
or the East German Alexanderplatz and Karl Marx Alee) are no longer
built.
Mass, large-scale residential construction ceases and most new
housing assumes a frag-mented form as either individual homes or
small multifamily dwellings.
-
790 SONIA HIRT
In social terms, privatization and the end of state control over
prices lead to rapid classstratification and the formation of an
impoverished mass as well as a small group ofnouveau riche (e.g.,
Milanovic, 1997).5 The lifting of travel barriers and the new
culturalopenness leads, at least initially, to a fascination with
all things Western, from pop musicto architecture, and a rejection
of the socialist cultural legacy (Sykora, 1994; Sarmany-Parsons,
1998). The latter translates into an overarching decline of the
very idea of abenevolent public realm (Kharkhordin, 1995; Bailey,
2002; Stanilov, 2007c) and theweakening of urban planning controls
(Sykora, 1994, 1998; Nedovic-Budic, 2001; Hirt,2005). It also
brings about a new generation of builders who rebuff modernist
functional-ism and collectivism, assert a radical aesthetic
individualism, and import eclectic styles(Andrusz, 1996; Boym,
2001). Nowhere is this more apparent than in the lavish homes ofthe
nouveau riche (Sarmany-Parsons, 1998; Humphrey, 2002).
In short, the literature has noted several broad societal
changes that lead us to expectthat Belgrade and Sofia should have
evolved in the direction outlined by Szelenyi andothers. It is
important to note, however, that the trends mentioned above have
mostly beendiscussed in the context of states such as Bulgaria,
which were once orthodox socialistand underwent a relatively rapid
transition. Former Yugoslavia and its successor Serbiadeviate from
the typical model. Whereas during the first two decades after World
War IIthe republic was ruled by a classic socialist regime, reforms
starting in the mid-1960stransformed it into an economy comprising
both socialist and capitalist elements(Schrenk, 1979).6 Post-1965
Yugoslavia had higher living standards and much deepercultural
links with the West than other East European states, and its
citizens could travelfreely.7 The 1990s, however, brought about a
reversal of fortunes. All Eastern Europeancountries experienced
socioeconomic problems during the 1990s, but none suffered adeeper
crisis than former Yugoslavia. The 1990s was a period of
hyperinflation, war, andinternational isolation. Some stability was
achieved between 1995 and 1998 but it wasreversed by NATOs bombing
in 1999. Housing was privatized hastily in 19921993.Other
privatization reforms also began at that time, but many were later
overturned,leading scholars to label the 1990s as the decade of the
blocked transition (Petrovic,
5In the mid-1990s, the Gini coefficient of inequality was 0.45
in Serbia and 0.34 in Bulgaria, up from about0.25 a decade earlier
(Milanovic, 1997; Djuric-Kuzmanovic and Zarkov, 1999). In 1999, the
top 8% of theBulgarian population commanded resources equal to
those of the bottom 75% (Rajchev et al., 2000).6The Yugoslav model
of self-management or market socialism meant that most industrial
firms weresocially owned, but about 90% of agriculture was private.
Profitability was in theory the main economic princi-ple. In
practice, in socially owned firms, if profits were generated they
would go to the employees throughwages; if losses occurred, the
firm asked the state for help (Hadzic, 2002). Although this differs
from the modelof orthodox socialism, there are many shared
elements: most urban land in former Yugoslavia was state-ownedand
the methods of housing production and distribution were quite
similar (Petrovic, 2001).7An example of this cultural openness was
the routine participation of Yugoslav architects in Western
architec-tural forums. Whereas Bulgarian architects looked for
Soviet guidance, their Yugoslav colleagues looked West.All Sofias
urban plans from the 1940s and 1950s were juried by architects from
the Eastern bloc (Hirt, 2005).In contrast, the Yugoslav Master
Urban Regulation from 1949 was written following German, British,
andSwedish legislation (Nedovic-Budic and Cavric, 2006). The most
significant architectural venue of the mid-20th century, the
Congress of International Architecture (CIAM), held its 10th
Congress in 1956 in Dubrovnik(now part of Croatia). Yugoslav
architects were an integral part of the Western avant-garde and
many promi-
nent ones like N. Dobrovic and D. Brasovan were honorary members
of the Royal Institute of British Archi-tects. Yugoslavias closer
ties to the West under socialism continued the already-strong
Serbian standing inglobal architecture (Maric, 2002; Blagojevic,
2003).
-
LANDSCAPES OF POSTMODERNITY 791
2001; Hadzic, 2002). As the state focused on more pressing
issues, particularly wars,local planning authority nearly
collapsed, which led to a shocking upsurge in illegalconstruction
(Vujovic and Petrovic, 2007). It was not until 2000, under the new
regime,that Serbia started the pro-Western transition that had
begun a decade earlier in most otherEastern European nations.
Ironically then, a country that had notable experience in
quasi-capitalist economics and was well integrated into Western
culture entered the 21stcentury in a weaker position than other
countries in the region.
The preceding discussion leads to two questions. (1) Have both
cities undergone thethree types of spatial change suggested by
Szelenyi, Havel, and others? And (2) Are therenotable differences
between changes in Belgrade and changes in Sofia? The next
theoret-ical section builds the case for a broader third question.
(3) How does postsocialist urbanrestructuring relate to what many
geographers have described over the past 20 years as aglobal
modern-to-postmodern transition in built forms?
POSTSOCIALIST AND POSTMODERN?
A powerful case could be made that socialismas a socioeconomic
order dependenton large-scale, Fordist-type industrial production;
a hierarchical, highly bureaucratizedpolitical regime; and a
technocratic, Enlightenment-inspired ideology for
relentlessprogressrepresents the climax of Western modernity
(Murray, 1992; Inglehart, 1997).Contrasts between socialism and
Western liberal capitalism, of course, should not beoverlooked: the
balance between state and markets, as well as between collective
andindividual actions were clearly different (e.g., Wu, 2003).
These basic contrasts under-pinned the key differences between
socialist and capitalist cities. Yet in Baumans view,socialisms and
capitalisms shared emphasis on science-based industry and
administra-tion, and common embrace of homogeneous culture made
them the two legs on whichmodernity stood (Bauman, 1995, p. 148)
Not only can socialism and capitalism beconceptualized as
alternative modernities (Ray, 1997), but arguably socialism took
themodern project further: it was modernitys most devout, vigorous
and gallant champion(Bauman, 1991, p. 38, also 1992; see also
Scott, 1998). Indeed, it was under socialistauspices that the
modernist dream of limitless industrial progress (at the expense of
sim-ple, everyday pleasures), and an omnipotent, rational, and
ostensibly just public realm (atthe expense of small, private
freedoms) was pushed to its limits and executed, so vigor-ously and
meticulously, in the organization of urban space (Banerjee, 2004).
If Harveysdefinition of modern urbanism as urbanism led by
large-scale, metropolitan-wide, tech-nologically rational and
efficient urban plans, backed by absolutely no-frills
architecture(1990, p. 66) is correct, then socialist cities were
its most archetypical examples.
Following the interpretation of socialism as modernitys peak,
several theorists includ-ing Havel (1992a, 1994) have argued that
socialisms end marked modernitys end, andpostsocialism is a part of
an epochal postmodern transition (see also Inglehart, 1997). Butif
postsocialism can be taken as part of postmodernity, then
postsocialist and postmodernforms should have an elective affinity
for each other (Kumar, 1995). Of course, thepostmodern urbanism of
Dear (2000) or Ellin (1996) is too complex to be presented
here.Still, there is no doubt that it entails: intense
commercialization of built forms as part of
the postindustrial economic shift; substitution of formal,
master-planned order withsmall, piecemeal, fragmented developments
resulting from the reduced role of the state in
-
792 SONIA HIRT
city-building; and a new, dramatic diversity of aesthetic styles
(e.g., Jencks, 1987; Relph,1987; Harvey, 1990; Leontidou, 1993;
Dear and Flusty, 2002a, 2002b; Ley, 2003).
As these definitions reveal, there are overlaps between
postsocialist and postmodernurbanity: both entail
commercialization, fragmentation, and diversity.8 The overlaps
arenot coincidental because the structural processes underlying
them (e.g., deindustrializa-tion, decline of the public realm, and
growing cultural pluralism) are present in both. Ifanything,
postmodern changes may have been more abrupt in postsocialist
states than incapitalist ones because, as Bauman and Havel noted,
socialism took industrialism,collectivist order, and homogeneity to
the extreme. With these theories in mind, I nowturn to Belgrade and
Sofia as examples of postsocialist/postmodern change.
COMPARATIVE CITY PROFILES OF BELGRADE AND SOFIA
Both Belgrade and Sofia are ancient cities. Belgrade became the
Serbian capital in the13th century. Overtaken by the Ottomans in
1521, it served for centuries as a majorbattleground for Austrians,
Hungarians, and Turks. It regained its capital city status in1841.
In 1918, it became the capital of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and
Slovenes (later,Yugoslavia). In 2006, after Montenegros secession,
it again became the capital of Serbiaalone. Sofia, once an
important regional node, declined after the Ottoman invasion inthe
1300s. Yet it was selected to be the state capital in 1879
following Bulgarias indepen-dence.
Both Belgrade and Sofia experienced substantial growth during
most of the 20thcentury. By the early 1900s, both had acquired the
typical form of the European city: abusy core of elegant civic,
commercial, and mixed-use buildings; a ring of higher-incomeareas;
and a periphery housing the poor and the growing industries
(Staddon and Mollov,2000). Belgrades previous capital status and
its earlier liberation from Ottoman ruletranslates into a more
historically significant fabric, which does not cease to
impressdespite the damage endured during World War II and the
turmoil of the 1990s.
The postWorld War II triumph of socialist regimes had major
impacts on both cities.In both Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, most urban
land, industries, major real estate, and busi-nesses were
nationalized within a decade after the war, and urban development
wasmonopolized by the state. The new priorities were the
egalitarian distribution of resources(including housing) and
planned urbanization (Hirt, 2006; Nedovic-Budic and Cavric,2006;
Vujosevic and Nedovic-Budic, 2006). Industrial plants were built
primarily at theurban edge (e.g., the Tito Shipyard in Belgrade and
the chemical giant Kremikovtsi inSofia), but also in certain prime
urban locations (e.g., warehousing and engine plants incentral
Belgrade and textiles in central Sofia). Industrial growth spurred
rural-to-urbanmigration. Belgrades population grew from 650,000 in
1948 to 1,470,000 in 1981, andSofias from 530,000 in 1946 to
1,066,000 in 1975. Since then, growth has stabilized.Belgrade,
however, has recently absorbed 150,000 refugees from Kosovo and
Croatia,some of whom may not have been included in the latest
census.
8Because of size limitations, I have focused on only three
themes, thereby ignoring many other importantaspects of postmodern
urbanism. One such aspect is the proliferation of explicitly
private, walled-off spaces,and both Belgrade and Sofia are rich in
such spaces.
-
LANDSCAPES OF POSTMODERNITY 793
The greatest spatial legacy of socialism is embodied in the vast
districts around the oldcity centers. Following the ideas of the
1934 Athens Charter, these districts included mas-sive buildings
made of prefabricated units. In the heroic spirit of modernity,
ground wasbroken in 1948 to create Belgrades grandest project,
appropriately named Novi Beograd(New Belgrade). Practically a city
within the city, Novi Beograd today houses 200,000people. A similar
transformation started in Sofia in the early 1960s with the
building ofMladost (youth) and Luylin, each designed for 100,000
people (Figs. 1 and 2).9 Fromthe mid-1960s onward, orthodox
socialism in Yugoslavia no longer existed. Industryremained in
state hands but small private retailing was permitted, and
government wasdecentralized. However, reforms stagnated during the
1980s and collapsed after 1990.
As noted earlier, postsocialist Serbia and Bulgaria followed
different trajectories.Bulgarias economy was hit hard in the early
1990s; steady recovery only began after1998. Serbia was in wars and
isolation throughout the 1990s. From 1989 to 1993, SerbianGDP per
capita dropped by 60%; recovery began after 2000. In 2005, Serbias
per capitaGDP was at 60% of its 1989 level; Bulgarias was at 90%
(UN Economic Commissionfor Europe, 2005, pp. 23; EBRD, 2007a,
2007b). Serbia lags in privatization and foreigndirect investment
(FDI).10 In 2006, Serbian GDP per capita was about $7,200,
whereasBulgarias was $8,800. Bulgaria joined the European Union in
2007; Serbia is not likelyto enter until after 2010.
Dramatic changes at the state level have had major impacts on
both cities. In terms ofpopulation, neither city has changed
radically. Belgrade today contains 1.6 million inhab-itants; Sofias
total is 1.2 million (Table 1). Living standards are low: average
monthlysalary is US$400 in Sofia and US$500 in Belgrade. Poverty is
visible in faded faadesand self-built illegal houses, especially in
Belgrade (Zegarac, 1999). Social stratificationhas had clear
spatial impactsSofias Lozenets and Belgrades Dedinje are now
favoredlocations for a newly affluent class whose wealth is of
unclear origin. In both cities, 90%
9Consequently, many other similar housing areas were built in
both cities. In Belgrade, they include Banija andBanovo Brdo; in
Sofia, Nadezhda and Studentski Grad.10
TABLE 1. POPULATION AND AREA OF BELGRADE AND SOFIA
Belgrade Sofia
YearMetropolis
(322,268 ha)City proper(35,996 ha) Year
Metropolis(134,185 ha)
Compact city(19,080 ha)
1971 1,209,000 n/a 1975 1,066,000 n/a
1981 1,470,000 1,092,000 1985 1,202,000 n/a
1991 1,602,000 1,171,000 1992 1,190,000 n/a
2002 1,576,000 1,200,000 2002 1,194,000 1,096,000Serbias private
sector share of GDP is 55%, whereas Bulgarias is 75% (EBRD, 2007a,
2007b). In 2005, FDIin Serbia was $1,286 million, but $2,223
million in Bulgaria (Invest Bulgaria, 2006; Serbia Investment
andExport Promotion Agency, 2006).
-
794 SONIA HIRT
of housing is private (Buckley and Tsenkova, 2001; Petrovic,
2001). New dwellings areprivately built. Development firms have
proliferated,11 although most have been smalland
capital-poor.12
THREE ASPECTS OF THE CHANGING FABRIC OF BELGRADE AND SOFIA
Let us now consider three changes in built forms, involving
function, scale, and style.
Functional Changes
After socialism, the major forces underlying functional
realignment in Belgrade andSofia have been the decline of industry
and the rise of commerce and services. From 1989to 2005, employment
in the secondary sector dropped sharplyfrom 39% to 32% inBelgrade,
and from 45% to 23% in Sofia. Conversely, employment in the
tertiary sectorincreased from 60% to 67% in Belgrade, and 53% to
74% in Sofia (Table 2). These trendspoint in the same direction,
but there is also notable local variation. The
postindustrialtransition seems to have begun earlier in Belgrade
but slowed down in the 1990s, likelythe result of two causes: (1)
the Yugoslav socialist regime did not adhere as closely to
theSoviets dominant industrial growth strategy as did Bulgarias
planners, and (2) becauseof lagging postsocialist privatization and
foreign investment in the aftermath of the 1990swars and isolation,
Serbias economy did not restructure as swiftly after 1989. The
differ-ence in priorities between the Yugoslav and Bulgarian
socialist regimes is reflected inspatial terms as well: Belgrades
industrial zones left over from socialism occupy lessland and
therefore a smaller share of the urban area (Table 3). Even so, if
measuredaccording to share of the built-up urban area, Belgrades
and Sofias industrial zonesamount to 10% and 20%, respectively,13
compared to about 5% in capitalist cities like
11There were 349 building firms in Belgrade in 1980 and 3088 in
2005.12Most local private building firms had fewer than 10
employees (Buckley and Tsenkova, 2001; UN Economic
TABLE 2. EMPLOYMENT STRUCTURE OF BELGRADE AND SOFIA
(PERCENTAGES)
BELGRADE SOFIA
Metropolis(322,268 ha)
City proper(35,996 ha)
Metropolis(134,185 ha)
Compact city(19,080 ha)
1989 2005 1989 2005 1989 2002 1989 2002
Primary sector 1.44 1.71 n/a 0.79 1.79 2.39 n/a n/a
Secondary sector 38.67 31.64 n/a 27.57 44.81 23.21 n/a n/a
Tertiary sector 59.89 66.65 n/a 71.64 53.40 74.40 n/a
n/aCommission for Europe, 2005).13By built-up urban area, I mean
the total area in the central (compact) city excluding green,
water, vacant, andagricultural lands.
-
LANDSCAPES OF POSTMODERNITY 795
Parisclear testimony for socialisms heavy emphasis on
industrialization. As many ofthe socialist industrial giants went
bankrupt in the early 1990s, Belgrade and Sofia arenow left with
massive stretches of industrial lands in disrepair; Belgrades new
masterplan, for example, puts the number at 63% (Urban Institute of
Belgrade, 2003).
In contrast to declining industry, commerce in both cities has
exploded. Historic datashow that the two cities started from almost
identical positions in terms of retail supply.In 1980, Belgrade had
4,899 retail outlets; in 1981, Sofia had 4,106 outlets.14 The
num-bers grew slowly during the 1980s. Between 1989 and 2005,
however, although neithercity increased in population, the number
of retail facilities in each about quadrupled: from5,947 to 24,629
in Belgrade, and from 4,761 to 16,224 in Sofia. These figures
translateinto 3.7 outlets per 1,000 people in Belgrade in 1989
compared to 15.4 in 2005, and 3.9outlets per 1,000 in Sofia in 1989
compared to 13.2 in 2005 (Figs. 3 and 4).15
Statistics from Belgrade offer additional insights. During the
1990s, data were col-lected on retail in private versus public
ownership. The numbers show rapid growth inprivate-sector retailing
and a slow withdrawal of public-sector retailing (Fig. 3). In
Sofia,
14This amounts to 3.3 outlets per 1,000 people in Belgrade and
3.5 outlets in Sofia. Admittedly, retail spacemay be a better
measure of retail supply than the number of retail outlets.
However, Sofia has collected data onretail space only sporadically,
so I used the more systematic data on retail outlets. This
approach, however, haslimitations. For example, during the 1970s
and 1980s, the relatively prosperous Belgrade authorities made
sig-nificant investments in large shopping centers in socialist
housing districts such as Novi Beograd. Such shop-ping areas were
much more limited in Sofias socialist districts. Thus it is
possible that Belgrade had moreretail space per person than did
Sofia. This is a logical hypothesis considering the higher
purchasing power of
TABLE 3. FUNCTIONAL BALANCE IN BELGRADE AND SOFIA
(PERCENTAGES)
Functional areas
BELGRADE (2001) SOFIA (2001)
Planned city(77,602 ha)
Central city(13,146 ha)
Metropolis(134,185)
Compact city(19,080)
Residential areas 16.20 30.02 10.40 37.30
Commercial and public areas 2.31 9.73 2.30 8.10
Industrial areas 2.06 4.67 4.40 13.40
Infrastructure 6.14 3.64 2.50 6.30
Green areas 15.09 20.47 37.90 10.60
Sport and recreation areas 0.88 1.87 0.40 1.30
Water 5.25 9.32 2.20 0.20
Agricultural areas 51.10 5.50 36.80 6.70
Vacant and other areas 0.97 14.78 3.10 16.10
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00Belgrades citizens.15Belgrades
higher number from 2005 may be due to the slightly higher
purchasing power of its populationand because the city has absorbed
refugees not included in the official data.
-
796 SONIA HIRT
such data were never collected; if they had been, they would
most likely show a muchmore abrupt transition from all-public
retailing in 1990 to all-private retailing by 1992,since the
postsocialist privatization of public assets occurred in Sofia both
earlier andfaster.
Commercialization has been most visible in two types of urban
areas: the historicurban cores (where most retail outlets were
concentrated prior to socialism but were thenreplaced by public and
residential uses after nationalization in the late 1940s), and
thesocialist estates (where socialist planning failed to provide
sufficient services). In the oldcores, postsocialist market
pressures for high-rent (i.e., commercial) land uses in
primelocations caused notable depopulation. From 1991 to 2002,
Sofias Sredets (Middle)district lost 10,000 people (24% of its
residents); Belgrades Stari Grad (Old Town) lost13,000 (18% of its
residents). These numbers point to the fact that one of the key
features
Fig. 3. Growth in number of retail outlets in Sofia.
Fig. 4. Growth in number of retail outlets in Belgrade.of the
socialist citythe residential downtownis beginning to fade away. In
the social-ist estates, commercialization has also been highly
visible as small-unit retailing spread
-
LANDSCAPES OF POSTMODERNITY 797
through public spaces and took over the lower floors of grey
residential buildings, addinga layer of vivid informality to the
once-bland, orderly built fabric (Figs. 5 and 6).
Along with the retail revolution, there has also been a dramatic
increase in officespace. In 1989, high-end private office space did
not exist in either city. But by 2007,Sofia had 606,000 sq m of
Class A and B office space; Belgrade had 270,000
(ColliersInternational Bulgaria, 2006, 2007a, 2007b; Colliers
International Serbia, 2007a, 2007b).Belgrades lower number reflects
the fact that high-end office space is typically sought
bymultinational firms, which have only recently entered Serbia.
A notable trend in both cities is a shift in type of commercial
space from local to morecommonly foreign-dominated. The 1990s were
marked by the growth of local businessesthat moved (legally or not)
into existing buildings (e.g., remodeled apartments,
garages,residential entry halls) or into kiosks and self-styled
merchants quarters placed uponpublic space. Lately, however, local
merchants have been aggressively challenged bylarger foreign firms
(this is why the number of retail units has leveled off since
about2000; Figs. 3 and 4). By 2006, Sofia had 25 foreign-owned
hypermarkets and 4 malls, andBelgrade had 17 hypermarkets and 3
malls, many of which are built upon the open publicspaces in
socialist areas such as Novi Beograd and Mladost.
In short then, Belgrade and Sofia have undergone industrial
decline and intense com-mercialization. Although there are
important differences (e.g., Sofia relied more heavily
Fig. 5. Kaleidoscopic minishops have moved into the entry halls
and the ground-floor apartments of thisgrey concrete socialist
residential tower in Novi Beograd.on industry during socialism; but
it is now Belgrade that slightly lags behind in certaintypes of
high-end commercial and office space) due to variations in the
national context
-
798 SONIA HIRT
both before and after 1989, the directions of change appear to
be parallel. Undoubtedly,both de-industrialization and
commercialization are processes typical of postsocialistEastern
Europe (Stanilov, 2007b). Yet both are also integral to global
urban changes com-monly depicted as postmodern (Harvey, 1990). If
anything, the notes from the Balkanssuggest that the postsocialist
processes of change (e.g., the quadrupling of commercialoutlets in
a few years in the context of zero population growth) proceed with
a remarkableintensity that may be hard to find in a typical
capitalist city (Sykora, 1994).
Changes in Building and Spatial Scale
As noted earlier, an important feature of the socialist city
according to Szelenyi andothers was spatial grandeur. Enabled by
the vast powers of socialist planners to controlspace, this feature
was most clearly visible in two types of projects: ceremonial
civicspaces and housing projects (which, under socialism, were of
course built under publicauspices). Both Belgrade and Sofia offer
excellent examples. Novi Beograd was the firstand most massive of
several housing estates that surrounded Belgrades old core
between1950 and 1980. In addition to its colossal residential
towers, the district includes a numberof equally grand public
buildings and spaces such as the Yugoslav Palace of the
Federationand the New Fairgrounds. Sofias center was transformed
twice under socialism, each
Fig. 6. Small private shops have overtaken the entire ground
floor and even parts of the second floor of thisonce exclusively
residential building in Sofias Mladost.time after the demolition of
vast stretches of historic urban fabric: first in the 1950s withthe
construction of the Largo complex, which comprises a number of
ceremonial public
-
LANDSCAPES OF POSTMODERNITY 799
buildings along a wide formal boulevard, and second during the
1980s with the erectionof the massive Peoples Palace and its
adjacent plazas.
There have been no new public projects of such spatial scale
after socialism (in fact,the once public Peoples Palace in Sofia
now houses a private convention center, shops,and a cinema). The
economic crisis of the 1990s, the re-emergence of the land market,
thediminished capacity of the public sector to build, and the
fragmented nature of the privatedevelopment industry have all
combined to spell the end of socialist-type grandeur.16
This decline in spatial scale is equally well reflected in
housing. In lieu of the largetowers for collectivist living
produced during socialism, the postsocialist market
offerssingle-family homes, row housing, and medium-sized
multifamily buildings. InBelgrade, the share of single-family homes
among all new housing units built in 2003, forinstance, represented
65% of all new housing units as compared to 36% in 1990 (Vujovicand
Petrovic, 2007). Sofia does not maintain statistics on
single-family homes but its datashow that, from 1989 to 2001, the
average number of dwelling units per building droppedfrom about 10
to 5, which also hints at a notable shift in the scale of new
housing forms.
Socialist districts such as Novi Beograd and Mladost provide a
useful illustration. Thescales of their residential structures are
similar.17 As compared to buildings that form the19th- and
early-to-mid-20th-century cores of Belgrade and Sofia, Novi Beograd
andMladost are characterized by very tall and large modernist
buildings (of more than 20units on the average; Table 4). A look at
historic data in Mladost offers insights into howthis scale has
changed over time. In the 1970s, the average number of units per
buildingwas 34; in the 1980s, it rose to 48; in the 1990s, however,
it dropped to 13. And, while the
16One exception to this rule is the building of Belgrades St.
Sava Cathedral (the largest functioning EasternOrthodox church in
the world). Most construction occurred during the Milosevic regime,
with the clear goal of
TABLE 4. COMPARATIVE RESIDENTIAL PROFILES OF NOVI BEOGRAD AND
MLADOST
Novi Beograd(2002)
Mladost(2001)
Land area (ha) 4,074 1,678
Population 217,773 95,505
Residential units 78,324 39,289
Residential buildings 3,265 1,851
Average number of units per building 24 21
Share of dwelling units located in buildings of up to four
stories 0.35 0.08
Share of dwelling units located in buildings between five and
nine stories 0.37 0.68
Share of residential units located in buildings of more than
nine stories 0.28 0.25boosting national pride. Large commercial
venues like the foreign hypermarkets are another exception.17There
is one key difference. Novi Beograd lies close to Belgrades core;
Mladost is farther out. Because ofthis, Novi Beograd is now an
extension of Belgrades downtown; Mladost comes closer to being an
edge city.
-
800 SONIA HIRT
large majority of units built during socialism were in buildings
exceeding six stories, onlyhalf of those built in the 1990s were in
buildings of such height. Comparable data on NoviBeograd are not
available18 but an extensive visual inspection indicates a similar
trendtoward smaller-scale built formsa trend that has resulted in
contrasting socialist andpostsocialist layers of the city (Figs. 7
and 8).
However, there is an important difference. In Belgrade, the
shift in building scale, atleast in housing projects, began before
socialisms end. Residential neighborhoods con-structed in Novi
Beograd during the 1980s (e.g., in Beanijska Kosa) already
exhibited atransition toward a more human-scale environmentan
environment no longer domi-nated by massive, concrete,
Le-Corbusier-like structures (Fig. 9).
In Belgrade, there also was a parallel transition in the
organization of open publicspace. The modernist dictum of placing
freestanding buildings among vast stretches ofcommon green spacean
idea that affirmed the supremacy of the public realm over pri-vate
interests (Holston, 1987)seems to have given way to a different
design model.Green space in front of buildings from the 1980s often
is organized into small, semipri-vate yards framed by landscaping
elements (Fig. 9). No such shift can be observed in thesocialist
areas of Sofia. The interviewees suggested that this contrast stems
at leastpartially from the different ideological climates of
Bulgaria and Yugoslavia in the 1980s:
I dont think that conditions here [in Bulgaria] in the 1980s
were very different fromthose in the 1970s. The transition really
started in 1990. I think by the 1980s mostof my colleagues had
already developed a certain allergy toward the panel-made
Fig. 7. A shift in scale and styles as seen from the edge of
Sofia. The tall, grey buildings in the backgroundform the socialist
estates. In front is a layer of single- and two-family homes and
low-height apartment build-ings built since the end of socialism.
There is a clear architectural rupture between the concrete,
uniform, andflat-roofed socialist buildings and the layer of
smaller postsocialist structures with their multilayered
volumes,sloped roofs, and colorful facades of red brick and painted
stucco.18Comparable data from the 1970s and 1980s could not be
obtained. Parts of Novi Beograd were recentlyincluded in Surcin.
Post-2000 data do not cover the same area as earlier data and have
inconsistencies.
-
LANDSCAPES OF POSTMODERNITY 801
buildings. But to design differently was not quite allowed. Only
select architectsfavored by the regime had a bit more freedom to
experiment. For example, echoingtraditional Bulgarian architecture
was already in fashion but this was happeningmainly in landmark
public buildings. Most of us who designed the regular residen-tial
blocks still operated in the mode of mass-housing production. The
idea ofbuilding private yards had not received much official
endorsement. Here and there,some colleagues experimented with
larger, semienclosed balconies to give peoplemore privacy, but
otherwise the idea was that the socialist man will thrive in
thesocialist districts, as we had gotten accustomed to designing
them. Trying to do theopposite would mean that you are antimodern,
if not worse. (Interview with expertfrom Sofias Directorate of
Architecture and Urban Planning, June 2005)
I think by 1980, most of us [Yugoslav architects] had taken down
the portrait of LeCorbusier off the wall. Our architects were very
much in tune with the globaltrends, I think, and there was a pretty
strong professional consensus that mistakeswere made in the Athens
Charter. It was pretty clear that these enormous mod-ernist
buildings and vast empty public spaces carried a heavy human cost,
psycho-logically speaking. So the whole [modernist] idea was
already pass. (Interviewwith expert from Municipality of Belgrade,
July 2005)
The observations above suggest that despite the fact that there
are some contrasts (e.g.,the earlier introduction of human-scale
forms and semiprivate spaces in Belgrades hous-ing projects in the
1980s), the two cities share the broad outlines of change. In both,
thecauses behind the decline of spatial and building scale stem
from the economic crisis andthe sharply reduced role of the
once-almighty public sector in city-building. These expe-
Fig. 8. A shift in scale and styles as seen from the edge of
Belgrade. The massive concrete towers of NoviBeograd comprise the
photos backdrop. In front is a layer of more humanely scaled,
post-1980 buildingsexhibiting various stylistic influences, such as
revived national, postmodern and neoclassic. Belgrade differsfrom
Sofia in that the shift in scale and styles started earlier in
Belgrade and is visible in socialist districts likeNovi Beograd
itself.riences have affected cities across Eastern Europe although
to varying degrees dependingmostly on the depth of the 1990s
economic downturn in the rspective countries (e.g.,
-
802 SONIA HIRT
Stanilov, 2007a). Yet, whereas these changes are clearly linked
to the postsocialist transi-tion, they are also reminiscent of the
decline of public spaces and shift in building scalesdescribed by
theorists of postmodern urbanism (Ellin, 1996; Loukaitou-Sideris
andBanerjee, 1998).
Changes in Architectural Styles
As the previous section alluded, Yugoslav architecture was
already moving away fromorthodox modernism in the 1980s. Exposed
concrete, flat roofs, and repetitive, purearchitectural masses gave
way to painted stucco, sloped tile roofs, and more
informal,multilayered volumes. New attention was focused on
architectural details, includingdetails inspired by traditional
Serbian styles. The shift in style is visible in Novi Beograd(Fig.
9) as well as in several other city areas, such as Padina and
Banija.
The 1990s intensified this architectural transition in Belgrade
and brought it, moreabruptly, to the doorstep of Sofia. The new
built forms are the visual opposite of socialistformalism,
repetitiveness, and purity of form; they are the spatial rejection
of the socialistmessage of strict state control. The resulting
architecture is perhaps best described as ad
Fig. 9. Belgrades cautious break with austere modernism in the
1980s. As compared to the bland greytowers which form the
background of Figure 8, this 1980s building shows the softer side
of Novi Beograd.Not only is it of more humane scale than its 1970s
predecessors, but it includes details borrowed from Serbiannational
architecturethe sloped tile roof, the white stucco faade, and the
dark-wood windows. Furthermore,green space around the building is
semienclosedyet another antimodernist novelty standing in sharp
con-trast to most of Novi Beograd.hoc architecture or perhaps
accidental architecture. If socialist districts were
carefullyplanned with formal public spaces and a coherent, uniform
style in mind, postsocialist
-
LANDSCAPES OF POSTMODERNITY 803
buildingswhether kiosks or small housespop up impromptu, often
without anyformal planning and right upon the once-formally
organized open public spaces. Thisnew spontaneity is particularly
true for Belgrade where planning authorities in the 1990snearly
collapsed, leading to the construction of myriad unauthorized small
buildings(Vujovic and Petrovic, 2007). The new forms pierce the
existing strict stylistic order withtheir surprising shapes and
bright colors (Fig. 10, also Figs. 5 and 6). As an architect
fromSofia shared, We seem to have moved from one extreme to the
other. Back in its day,Mladost must have been one of the most
boring places on earth. But look around nowyou walk a bit and you
learn to expect the unexpected (Interview from June 2005).
As the landscapes reveal, there is a sharp rupture between the
formal discipline of thelarge grey buildings from the socialist era
and the cheerful chaos of new shapes, signs,and logos. The latter
seems to be driven not only by capitalisms everlasting need to
self-advertise, but also by the freeing of a long-suppressed desire
of owners and builders to doas they wish without restrictions. As
one planner from Sofia put it, People are so sick ofbeing told how
to live that some now take pride in breaking the planning norms. I
thinkthe new rule [of architecture] is Shock thy neighbor
(Interview from June 2005).
The neighborhoods of the nouveau riche, such as Sofias Boyana
and Lozenetz andBelgrades Dedinje and Padina, are a particularly
compelling embodiment of the newrule. There, the startled visitor
has the dubious privilege of viewing a diversity of stylesthat
cross time and space, from Bulgarian and Serbian Revival to Tudor
and fromneogothic to neomodern. Popular details include gilded
lions, marble balustrades,Egyptian-like sculptures, and Doric,
Ionic, and Corinthian columns, placed strategically
Fig. 10. A series of small buildings that were erected illegally
on public space in Novi Beograd in the 1990sand later legalized.
The buildings contain dwellings and small businesses such as the
Bali Caf and a print shopwith the ambitious name PrintSerbia.on the
Ottoman-like stone walls that surround lavish homes. Of particular
prominence isa reinvigorated classicism popularly known as Mafia
Baroqueperhaps a reflection of
-
804 SONIA HIRT
the aspirations of new (and often illegally earned) money to
project legitimacy byembracing the striking glamour of the old,
classic style (Fig. 11).
The haphazard juxtaposition of the grey formalism left over from
the early socialistdecades, the cautious break with modernism from
the 1980s, and the informality and con-fused eclecticism of the
1990s have produced a postsocialist bricolage of uses, styles,
andsigns (Fig. 12). This bricolage seems the near-perfect
reflection of what Jonathan Raban(1974) once described as an urban
emporia of styles and what Charles Jencks (1993)referred to as the
dissonant beauty of heterogeneous architecture.
CONCLUSION
The empirical notes on Belgrade and Sofia offered above support
the claim that thebuilt fabrics of these cities are changing in
accordance with the theories of postsocialisturbanism. Both cities
have experienced commercialization, decrease of spatial scale,
andradical aesthetic diversification. However, the seeds of change
were planted earlier inBelgrade. Because of former Yugoslavias
pre-1990 pro-Western economic and culturalorientation,
de-industrialization began earlier. There were also visible shifts
toward amore humane development scale and a richer architecture,
which penetrated even thegrimmest socialist estates. On the other
hand, de-industrialization trends slowed duringthe 1990s, and
certain commercial spaceswhether for good or badnow lag behind.
Fig. 11. Mafia Baroque: The spectacular gates in front of a new
single-family home in Belgrades mostprestigious neighborhood,
Dedinje.As a result of the swifter demise of state authority and
the legal chaos that defined Serbiain the 1990s (and because of the
earlier break with modernism), Belgrade entered the 21st
-
LANDSCAPES OF POSTMODERNITY 805
century with a more radical informality of built forms and a
braver stylistic eclecticismthan did Sofia.
Differences aside, however, Belgrade and Sofia clearly share the
broad outline ofchanges in functions, scales, and styles. If, as
noted earlier, Szelenyis three features ofthe socialist city
reflect the dominance of production over consumption, the public
andthe collective over the private and the individual, and order
and discipline over diversityand marginality, then the three
postsocialist features described here manifest the dawn ofa
postindustrial consumer society, the sharp decline of the public
realm, and the challengeto disciplinary authority posed by a newly
emboldened pluralism in everyday life.
But put in those terms, the three aspects of postsocialist
urbanism do not seem thatuniquely postsocialist. Rather, they share
the basic outlines of a postmodern shift typi-cally discussed in
Western postindustrial contexts. What I propose here is that the
land-scapes of todays Eastern Europe may be as paradigmatic
postmodern examples as thelandscapes of California and other
avant-garde centers of Western urbanism (where post-modern
theorists usually take us; Jencks, 1993; Dear, 2000).
I argue that postsocialist spaces display the contrast between
the modern and the post-modern in strikingly vivid hues because
they speak of the culture of unrestrained person-
Fig. 12. Belgrades bricolage. In the background is a concrete,
monochromatic, and flat-roofed residentialbuilding from the 1970s.
In front of it are human-scale buildings from the 1980s with brick
faades and archedstructural elements in the postmodern tradition.
Today their lower floors are taken by small shops, which haveadded
a layer of competing logos, awnings, and miniroofs along this
street in Novi Beograd.alism and privatism and avalanche-like
collapse of officialdom that makespostsocialist societies perhaps
more postmodern than the societies that invented the term
-
806 SONIA HIRT
(Kharkhordin, 1995, pp. 224225). There, in postsocialist cities,
the remnants of a once-victorious disciplined modernity have made
their most heart-wrenching rendezvous(heart-wrenching for any true
modernist, that is) with the offspring of a thriving
postmo-dernity. There, in postsocialist cities, tiny, illegally
built shops from the 1990s unabash-edly consume the vast public
green spaces from the 1970s; piecemeal developmentcorrodes the
once-tightly planned and strictly enforced spatial order; a riot of
ad-hocshapes and colors overpowers the solemn aesthetics of
modernist functionalism and col-lectivism. Therefore, while others
have shown us the advent of postmodernity in Westerncityscapes such
as Baltimore (Harvey, 1990), I see it equally well displayed in
Belgrade.
REFERENCES
Andrusz, G., 1996, Structural change and boundary instability.
In G. Andrusz, M. Harloe,and I. Szelenyi, editors, Cities After
Socialism: Urban and Regional Change and Con-flict in
Post-Socialist Societies. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 3069.
Bailey, J., 2002, From public to private: The development of the
concept of the private.Social Research, Vol. 69, No. 1, 1531.
Banerjee, T., 2004, Beijing, Berlin and Bucharest: Legacies of
Socialist Modernity at theEnd of History. Paper presented at the
11th Conference of the International PlanningHistory Society, July
1417, Barcelona, Spain.
Bauman, Z., 1991, Living without an alternative. The Political
Quarterly, Vol. 62, No. 1,3544.
Bauman, Z., 1992, Imitations of Postmodernity. London, UK, and
New York, NY:Routledge.
Bauman, Z., 1995, Searching for a center that holds. In M.
Featherstone, S. Lash, and R.Roberson, editors, Global Modernities.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 140154.
Bertaud, A., 2006, The spatial structures of Central and Eastern
European cities. In S.Tsenkova and Z. Nedovic-Budic, editors, The
Urban Mosaic of Post-Socialist Europe.Heidelberg, Germany: Springer
and Physica-Verlag, 91112.
Bertaud, A. and Renaud, B., 1995, Cities Without Markets:
Location and Land Use in theSocialist City. Washington, DC: The
World Bank.
Blagojevic, L., 2003, The Elusive Margins of Belgrade
Architecture 19191941.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bodnar, J., 2001, Fin de Millenaire Budapest: Metamorphoses of
Urban Life. Minneapolis,MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Boym, S., 2001, Nostalgia, Moscow Style, Harvard Design
Magazine, Vol. 13, 18.Buckley, R. and Tsenkova, S., 2001, Strategia
za Razvitie na Grad Sofia: Predvaritelna
Ocenka [Stratregy for the development of the City of Sofia: A
preliminary assess-ment]. Sofia, Bulgaria: Stolichna Obshtina,
Direkcia po Arhitektura i Gradoustrojstvo.(In Bulgarian)
Colliers International Bulgaria, 2006, Retail Market Overview.
Retrieved October 11,2007, from
http://www.colliers.com/Content/Repositories/Base/Markets/Bulgaria/English/Market_Report/PDFs/RetailMarketReportFirstHalf2006.pdf
Colliers International Bulgaria, 2007a, Market Overview: Office in
Bulgaria Second Half2007. Retrieved October 11, 2007, from
http://www.colliers.com/Content/Repositories/
-
LANDSCAPES OF POSTMODERNITY 807
Base/Markets/Bulgaria/English/Market_Report/PDFs/SofiaOfficeMarketOverviewH22007.pdf
Colliers International Bulgaria, 2007b, Market Overview: Retail
in Bulgaria Second Half2007. Retrieved October 11, 2007, from
http://www.colliers.com/Content/Repositories/Base/Markets/Bulgaria/English/Market_Report/PDFs/BulgariaRetailMarketReport1stHalfof2007.pdf
Colliers International Serbia, 2007a, Office Market Overview:
Belgrade. RetrievedOctober 11, 2007, from
http://www.colliers.com/Content/Repositories/Base/Markets/SerbiaMontenegro/English/Market_Report/PDFs/BelgradeOfficeFirstHalf2007.pdf
Colliers International Serbia, 2007b, Retail Market Overview:
Belgrade. RetrievedOctober 11, 2007, from
http://www.colliers.com/Content/Repositories/Base/Markets/SerbiaMontenegro/English/Market_Report/PDFs/SerbiaRetailFirstHalf2007.pdf
Crowley, D. and Reid, S., editors, 2002, Socialist Spaces: Sites
of Everyday Life in theEastern Bloc. Oxford, UK: Berg.
Dear, M., 2000, The Postmodern Urban Condition. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.Dear, M. and Flusty, S., 2002a, Introduction: How to map
a radical break. In M. Dear and
S. Flusty, editors, The Spaces of Postmodernity. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.Dear, M. and Flusty, S., 2002b, Postmodern urbanism. In
M. Dear and S. Flusty, editors,
The Spaces of Postmodernity. Malden, MA: Blackwell,
216234.Directorate of Architecture and Urban Design [Direkcia po
Arhitektura i Gradous-
trojstvo], 2003, Obsht Ustrojstven Plan na Grad Sofia i
Stolichnata Obshtina:Sukraten Doklad [General Development Plan of
Sofia and the Capital Region: AnAbbreviated Report]. Sofia,
Bulgaria: Stolichna Obshtina. (In Bulgarian)
Djuric-Kuzmanovic, T. and Zarkov, D., 1999, Poverty and Directed
Non-Development inSerbia. Retrieved October 3, 2007, from
http://condor.depaul.edu/~rrotenbe/aeer/v17n2/Kuzmanovic.pdf
EBRD (European Bank for Reconstruction and Development), 2007a,
Bulgaria: EBRDCountry Factsheet. Retrieved October 9, 2007, from
http://www.ebrd.com/pubs/factsh/country/bulgaria.pdf
EBRD (European Bank for Reconstruction and Development), 2007b,
Serbia: EBRDCountry Factsheet, Retrieved October 9, 2007, from
http://www.ebrd.com/pubs/factsh/country/serbia.pdf
Ellin, N., 1996, Postmodern Urbanism. New York, NY: Princeton
Architectural Press.Garb, Y. and Dybicz, T., 2006, The retail
revolution in post-socialist Central Europe and
its lessons. In S. Tsenkova and Z. Nedovic-Budic, editors, The
Urban Mosaic of Post-Socialist Europe: Space, Institutions and
Policy. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer andPhysica-Verlag,
231252.
Hadzic, M., 2002, Rethinking privatization in Serbia. Eastern
European Economics, Vol.40, No. 6, 623.
Harvey, D., 1990, The Condition of Post-Modernity: An Enquiry
into the Origins of Cul-tural Change. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Havel, V., 1992a, The End of the Modern Era. Excerpts from a
speech delivered at theWorld Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland
on February 4, 2004. New York Times,
March 1, Section 4, p. 15.
Havel, V., 1992b, Summer Meditations (P. Wilson, trans.). New
York, NY: A. Knopf.
-
808 SONIA HIRT
Havel, V., 1994, Search for something of value: Man as observer
increasingly alienatedfrom himself as being. Buffalo News, July 10,
Viewpoints section, p. 8.
Hirt, S., 2005, Planning the post-communist city: Experiences
from Sofia. InternationalPlanning Studies, Vol. 10, No. 3/4,
219240.
Hirt, S., 2006, Post-socialist urban forms: Notes from Sofia.
Urban Geography, Vol. 27,464488.
Holston, J., 1987, The Modernist City: An Anthropological
Critique of Brasilia. Chicago,IL: University of Chicago Press.
Humphrey, C., 2002, The villas of the New Russians: A sketch of
consumption andcultural identity in post-Soviet landscapes. In C.
Humphrey, editor, The Unmaking ofSoviet Life: Everyday Economies
After Socialism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UniversityPress.
Inglehart, R., 1997, Modernization and Postmodernization:
Cultural, Economic andSocial Change in 43 Societies. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Institute for Informatics and Statistics (Zavod za Informatiu i
Statistiku), 2005, Statis-ticheski godishnik za grada Beograda
[Statistical Yearbook of the City of Belgrade].Belgrade, Serbia:
Institute for Informatics and Statistics. (In Serbian)
Invest Bulgaria, 2006, Bulgaria Factsheet 2006: Economy,
Investment, Business &Industry. Retrieved October 10, 2007,
from http://www.bulgarianembassy-london.org/pdf/Factsheet.pdf
Ioan, A., 2007, The peculiar history of (post)communist public
places and spaces;Bucharest as a case study. In K. Stanilov,
editor, The Post-Socialist City: Urban Formand Space
Transformations in Central and Eastern Europe After
Socialism.Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 301312.
Jencks, C., 1987, Postmodernism: The New Classicism in Art and
Architecture. NewYork, NY: Rizzoli.
Jencks, C., 1993, Heteropolis: Los AngelesThe Riots and Strange
Beauty of Heteroge-neous Architecture. New York, NY: St. Martins
Press.
Kharkhordin, O., 1995, The Soviet individual: Genealogy of a
dissimulating animal. InM. Featherstone, S. Lash, and R. Robertson,
editors, Global Modernities. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage, 209226.
Klassanov, M., 1992, Totalitarism, democraciya, arhitektura
[Totalitarianism, democracy,architecture]. Arhitektura, Vol. 6,
2631. (In Bulgarian)
Kumar, K., 1995, From Post-Industrial to Post-Modern Society.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.Leontidou, L., 1993, Postmodernism and the
city: Mediterranean versions. Urban Studies,
Vol. 3, No. 6, 949965.Ley, D., 2003, Forgetting postmodernism?
Recuperating a social history of local knowl-
edge. Progress in Human Geography, Vol. 27, No. 5, 537560.Lizon,
P., 1996, East-Central Europe: The unhappy heritage of socialist
mass housing.
Journal of Architectural Education, Vol. 50, No. 2,
104114.Loukaitou-Sideris, A. and Banerjee, T., 1998, Urban Design
Downtown: Poetics and
Politics of Form. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.Low, S. and Tsenkova, S., 2003, Housing Change in East and
Central Europe: Integra-
tion or Fragmentation? Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Maric, D., 2002, Vodich Kroz Modernu Arhitectury Beograda [Guide
to Modern Archi-
tecture in Belgrade]. Belgrade, Serbia: Drujstvo Arhitekta
Beograda. (In Serbian)
-
LANDSCAPES OF POSTMODERNITY 809
Milanovic, B., 1997, Income, Inequality and Poverty During the
Transition from Plannedto Market Economy. Washington, DC: The World
Bank.
Murray, R., 1992, Fordism and post-Fordism. In C. Jencks,
editor, A Post-ModernReader. London, UK: Academy Editions,
267276.
National Statistical Institute (Nacionalen Statisticheski
Institut), 1993, StatisticheskiSbornikSofia [Statistical
compilationSofia]. Sofia, Bulgaria: National
StatisticalInstitute.
National Statistical Institute (Nacionalen Statisticheski
Institut), 2003, Sofia v Chisla[Sofia in numbers]. Sofia, Bulgaria:
National Statistical Institute. (In Bulgarian)
Nedovic-Budic, Z., 2001, Adjustment of planning practice to the
Eastern and CentralEuropean context. Journal of American Planning
Association, Vol. 67, No. 1, 3852.
Nedovic-Budic, Z. and Cavric, B., 2006, Waves of planning: A
framework for studyingthe evolution of planning systems and
empirical insights from Serbia and Montenegro.Planning
Perspectives, Vol. 21 (October), 393425.
Nedovic-Budic, Z., Tsenkova, S., and Marcuse, P., 2006, The
urban mosaic of post-socialist Europe. In S. Tsenkova and Z.
Nedovic-Budic, editors, The Urban Mosaic ofPost-Socialist Europe.
Heidelberg, Germany: Springer and Physica-Verlag, 320.
Nijman, J., 2007, IntroductionComparative urbanism. Urban
Geography, Vol. 28, 16.Perovic, M. and Zegarac, Z., 2000, The
destruction of an architectural culture: The 1999
bombing of Belgrade. Cities, Vol. 17, No. 6, 395408.Petrovic,
M., 2001, Post-socialist housing policy transformation in
Yugoslavia and
Belgrade. European Journal of Housing Policy, Vol. 1, No. 2,
211231.Raban, J., 1974, Soft City. London, UK: Hamilton.Rajchev,
A., Kolev, K., Boundjoulov, A., and Dimova, L., 2000, Socialnoto
Razdelenie v
Bulgaria [Social Stratification in Bulgaria]. Sofia, Bulgaria:
Institut za Razvitie naDemokraciyata.
Ray, L., 1997, Post-communism: Postmodernity or modernity
revisited? The BritishJournal of Sociology, Vol. 48, No. 4,
543560.
Relph, E., 1987, The Modern Urban Landscape. Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins Press.Sarmany-Parsons, I., 1998, Aesthetic aspects of
change in urban space in Prague and
Budapest during the transition. In G. Enyedi, editor, Social
Change and UrbanRestructuring in Central Europe. Budapest, Hungary:
Akademiai Kiado, 209231.
Scarpaci, J., 2000, On the transformation of socialist cities.
Urban Geography, Vol. 21,659669.
Schrenk, M., 1979, Yugoslavia: Self-Management, Socialism and
the Challenges ofDevelopment. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Scott, J., 1998, Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to
Improve the Human Condi-tion Have Failed. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Serbia Investment and Export Promotion Agency, 2006, FDI Trace
Records. RetrievedOctober 10, 2007, from
http://www/siepa.sr.gov.yu/investment/investor_guide/fdi.htm
Sheppard, E., 2000, Socialist cities? Urban Geography, Vol. 21,
758763.Staddon, C. and Mollov, B., 2000, City profile: Sofia,
Bulgaria. Cities, Vol. 17, No. 5,
379387.
Stanilov, K., 2007a, Housing trends in Central and Eastern
European cities during and
after the period of the transition. In K. Stanilov, editor, The
Post-Socialist City: Urban
-
810 SONIA HIRT
Form and Space Transformations in Central and Eastern Europe
After Socialism.Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 173190.
Stanilov, K., 2007b, The restructuring of non-residential uses
in the post-socialist metrop-olis. In K. Stanilov, editor, The
Post-Socialist City: Urban Form and Space Transfor-mations in
Central and Eastern Europe After Socialism. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands:Springer, 73100.
Stanilov, K., 2007c, Urban planning and the challenges of
post-socialist transformation.In K. Stanilov, editor, The
Post-Socialist City: Urban Form and Space Transforma-tions in
Central and Eastern Europe After Socialism. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands:Springer, 413426.
Sykora, L., 1994, Local urban restructuring as a mirror of
globalization processes: Praguein the 1990s. Urban Studies, Vol.
31, No. 7, 11491166.
Sykora, L., 1998, Commercial property development in Budapest,
Prague and Warsaw.In G. Enyedi, editor, Social Change and Urban
Restructuring in Central Europe.Budapest, Hungary: Akademiai Kiado,
109136.
Sykora, L., 2000, The geography of post-communist cities:
Research agenda for 2000+.Acta Facultatis Rerum Naturalium
Universitatis Comenieanae, Geographica, Supple-mentum, Vol. 2 (II),
269278.
Sykora, L., 2007, Office development and post-communist city
formation: The caseof Prague. In K. Stanilov, editor, The
Post-Socialist City: Urban Form and SpaceTransformations in Central
and Eastern Europe After Socialism. Dordrecht, TheNetherlands:
Springer, 117146.
Szelenyi, I., 1996, Cities under socialismAnd after. In G.
Andrusz, M. Harloe, and I.Szelenyi, editors, Cities After
Socialism: Urban and Regional Change and Conflict inPost-Socialist
Societies. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 286317.
UN Economic Commission for Europe, 2005, Country Profiles of
Housing Sector:Serbia and Montenegro. Geneva, Switzerland, and New
York, NY: United Nations.
Urban Institute of Belgrade (Urbanisticki Zavod Beograda), 2003,
Slujebeni List GradaBeograda [Belgrade Master Plan]. Belgrade,
Serbia: Urbanisticki Zavod Beograda.(In Serbian)
Vujosevic, M. and Nedovic-Budic, Z., 2006, Planning and the
societal context: The caseof Belgrade, Serbia. In S. Tsekova and Z.
Nedovic-Budic, editors, The Urban Mosaicof Post-Socialist Europe.
Heidelberg, Germany: Springer and Physica-Verlag, 275294.
Vujovic, M. and Petrovic, M., 2007, Belgrades post-socialist
urban evolution. In K.Stanilov, editor, The Post-Socialist City:
Urban Form and Space Transformations inCentral and Eastern Europe
After Socialism. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer,361384.
Wu, F., 2003, Commentary. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 35,
13311338.Yin, R., 1994, Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.Zegarac, Z., 1999, Illegal construction in Belgrade and the
prospects of urban develop-
ment planning, Cities, Vol. 16, No. 5, 365370.