Belgrade, Serbia

Cities 26 (2009) 293–303
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Cities
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities
City profile
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 Profile, I present the
evolution of the built environment of Belgrade in five historic stages: ancient/medieval/Ottoman, early
modern, communist, transitional, and contemporary. I show how each period left a distinct spatial
imprint on Belgrade’s fabric. Finally, I discuss some contemporary challenges and opportunities in planning Belgrade’s 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 Belgrade’s lovely downtown streets,
flanked 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 world’s 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 landmarks—a sight
one can find 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 Belgrade—a 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 confidence 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
would be among the most prosperous metropolises of ‘‘the New
Europe” en par with Prague and Budapest, if only, if only the
1990s had never happened.
In this City Profile, I present the evolution of Belgrade in five
historic stages: ancient/medieval/Ottoman, early modern (between independence from the Ottoman Empire to World War II),
communist (1945–1989), transitional (the tumultuous 1990s, during which Yugoslavia disintegrated and Serbia underwent a profound societal crisis), and contemporary (following Serbia’s
political and economic stabilization since the election of its first
democratic post-communist regime in 2000). I argue that each period left a distinct spatial imprint on the old city. Finally, I focus on
contemporary issues in Belgrade and discuss planning challenges
and opportunities in shaping its future.
Ancient, medieval and ottoman history
Archeological excavations show that humans resided on the territory of today’s Belgrade as far back as 5000 BC, making the city
one of the oldest settlements in Europe. The Celtic tribe Scordisci
built upon the foundations of an earlier Thracian and Illyrian settlement and gave the town its first known name, Singidunum.
The town was conquered by Roman legions in 86 AD. The Romans
endowed it with a square castrum (fort), which forms the foundation of Belgrade’s landmark Kalemegdan Fortress; a grid street
structure, which still shapes parts of today’s city center; a forum,
a basilica and other civic buildings. Singidunum prospered during
the Roman period and eventually became part of Rome’s Eastern
successor, Byzantium. In the sixth and seventh centuries AD, Slavs
294
S. Hirt / Cities 26 (2009) 293–303
Population
Population of Belgrade 1878-2007
1800000
1600000
1400000
1200000
1000000
800000
600000
400000
200000
0
1878 1905 1914 1931 1941 1948
1953 1961 1971 1981 1991 2002 2007
Year
Fig. 1. Population growth in Belgrade.
moved into the town, renaming it Beligrad (later, Beograd) or
White City (Norris, 2008; Gligorijevic et al., 2007; Jovanovic, 2007).
For several centuries, Belgrade was site of perpetual rivalry between Byzantines, Bulgarians and Hungarians. In the 13th century,
under the reign of King Dragutin Nemanic, Belgrade became part of
the expanding Serbian Empire. Despot Stefan Lazarevic designated
Belgrade as Serbian capital in 1427. He strengthened its fortifications and built a large castle, parts of which still remain. At the
time, Belgrade’s population is thought to have neared 50,000 people. The Ottomans first besieged the city in 1440 but were not able
to conquer it until 1521. In that year, Belgrade was razed and most
of its residents were killed or deported. Rebuilt under Islamic principles, with many mosques, Belgrade eventually became one of the
largest cities in the Ottoman Empire. Austrian forces captured the
city three times but were defeated by the Ottomans, who partially
demolished it following each recapture. The Ottoman period ended
in the early 1800s, when an uprising led by Karadjordje Petrovic
defeated and expelled most Ottomans from Belgrade (Norris,
2008; Gligorijevic et al., 2007; Jovanovic, 2007). Over the next
few decades Serbia operated in all practical matters as an independent nation-state, although formal international recognition did
not come until 1867.
Belgrade between independence and World War II
Like other Southeast European states liberated from centurieslong Ottoman control, 19th century Serbia embarked quickly on
a road toward industrial modernization and cultural Europeanization. By the mid-1800s, its capital had asserted itself as the nation’s
unrivaled administrative, economic and cultural center. The next
century was marked by steady urban population growth, which
was interrupted by the World Wars and eventually leveled off
about 1990 (see Fig. 1).
Serbia’s post-Ottoman Europeanization had powerful implications for its capital. The restructuring of the city was clearly driven
by two complementary goals: to endow the urban built fabric with
rich references to Serbian nationhood and reorganize it according
to European planning principles, thus strengthening Serbian national identity while grounding it within the broader context of
European civilization. In line with these goals, artifacts associated
with the Islamic period were fairly systematically removed (some
Ottoman-era landmarks still stand and are now protected by law).
Belgrade’s center was re-shaped according to European planning
ideals, with orderly plazas containing ornamental fountains and
the usual sculptures glorifying national heroes on horseback, as
well as a series of straight tree-lined boulevards (some in the footprints of the old Roman grid) flanked by imposing civic buildings—
theaters, libraries, galleries, universities, and public offices
designed in various historicist styles. The 1867 plan authored by
Serbia’s first urban planner, Emilijan Josimovic, envisioned
straightening the ‘‘oriental” street network in the city (e.g., Grozdanic, 2008; Perovic, 1985).1 Belgrade’s gems like Knez Mihajlova
(Prince Michael’s) 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 Belgrade’s 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).
Belgrade’s 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, Belgrade’s most prestigious neighborhood Dedinje, which first attracted the city’s 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 Europe’s 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
influence through the 20th and 21st centuries, see, for example, Maric (2006).
S. Hirt / Cities 26 (2009) 293–303
295
Fig. 2. Belgrade’s historic downtown, which exhibits the traditional morphology patterns and eclectic mix of architectural styles typical of other large cities in continental
Europe.
Fig. 3. Belgrade’s most famous pedestrian street, Knez Mihajlova.
296
S. Hirt / Cities 26 (2009) 293–303
B. Krstic, P. Krstic, N. Dobrovic and D. Brasovan joined the fast-burgeoning global Modern avant-garde. Many of Belgrade’s 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
ownership—a 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 planning—from federal through republican to municipal level.
Thus, local plans strictly followed the orders provided in the fiveyear 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 first 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 economy—tasks 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, Belgrade’s 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-sufficient 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 intensified after the 1950 Master Plan endorsed urbanization on the Sava’s 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 Beograd’s Modern
architecture).
In morphological terms, Belgrade’s Modernist districts marked a
clear break with pre-World-War-II built patterns. In line with
Modernist ideals of industrial efficiency and progress, the new districts included large flat-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, Belgrade’s districts were better supplied with services than
their counterparts in other Balkan capitals like Bucharest or Sofia.
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 world’s 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 world’s 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 sector—a share much higher than in other communist
nations; Hadzic, 2002). At that time, significant 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 Yugoslavia’s continuing political decentralization and democratization. This is reflected in the
cautious break with severe Modernism visible in Belgrade’s fabric
from the 1970s on Hirt (2008) and the early call for historic preservation and architectural contextualism issued in Belgrade’s,
1972 Master Plan. It is also reflected 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).
Belgrade in war, turmoil and transition
4
I refer to the Athens Charter which was adopted by the International Congress of
Modern Architecture in 1934. The Charter outlined the main principles of Modernist
urban design, including standardized construction methods, large green and public
spaces, segregated land uses, modernized transportation networks, etc.
In 1989, Yugoslavia was in a stronger position than any other
East European country to implement a short and successful transition toward a democratic, free-market society. The country’s
S. Hirt / Cities 26 (2009) 293–303
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 Belgrade’s latest Master Plan. Reprinted with modifications with the permission of
Urban Geography, Vol. 29, No. 8, pp. 785–810. (c) Bellwether Publishing, Ltd., 8640 Guilford Road, Suite 200, Columbia, MD 21046. All rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Large Modernist structures—like the ones shown in the photo—characterize communist-era districts such as Novi Beograd. Unlike Belgrade’s 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
S. Hirt / Cities 26 (2009) 293–303
Fig. 6. In the 1980s, Novi Beograd’s 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.
decentralized political structure, thriving cultural contacts with
the West, and decades-long experimentation with quasi-capitalist
reforms all seemed to point in this direction. Of course, what happened in the 1990s was precisely the opposite, as the governments
of all six Yugoslav republics became dominated by nationalist
elites, which led the country to brutal wars.5
In Serbia, some attempts to move in a democratic direction
were made in the early 1990s. A number of privatization reforms
were in fact carried out; by 1994, nearly all public housing (95–
98%) was privatized throughout the republic and in its capital city
(Petrovic, 2001). However, the bloody 1991–1995 war with Croatia
and Bosnia and the hyperinflation of 1993–1994 devastated the
Serbian economy, and GDP fell by 60% in four years. In the mid1990s, reforms ceased. The autocratic regime of Slobodan Milosevic overturned many earlier initiatives and centralized power at
the expense of local autonomy.
As a result of the economic crisis, the decline of municipal powers, and the overall chaos that engulfed Serbia as a nation in war
and international isolation, local planning regimes nearly collapsed
and the planning profession entered a major legitimacy crisis
(Vujosevic and Nedovic-Budic, 2006). Simultaneously, since the
public sector cut funds for housing maintenance and largely withdrew from housing production, the existing stock began to visibly
deteriorate and the number of dwellings built per year dramatically declined, leading to near-crisis conditions in large cities like
5
This article, of course, cannot dissect the complex causes of the disintegration of
Yugoslavia. To place Belgrade’s transition in context, however, it is useful to keep the
basic chronology in mind. In short, Slovenia declared independence in 1991. Croatia
and Bosnia followed suit soon thereafter. Their declarations of independence led to
several years of war, which ended in 1995 with the enactment of the Dayton Peace
Accord. The Kosovo conflict took place in 1999—the year in which Serbia was bombed
by NATO and Kosovo was declared an international protectorate. Montenegro became
an independent state in 2007. Kosovo seceded in 2008; at the time of writing about 50
countries have recognized its sovereignty. Serbia disputes this status.
Belgrade. Even in 2003, after the stabilization of Serbia’s economy,
Belgrade’s housing output comprised just a quarter of its housing
output in 1990 (Vujovic and Petrovic, 2007). The problem was severely aggravated by the influx of ethnic Serbs expelled from other
parts of former Yugoslavia: 600,000 in Serbia and over 100,000 in
Belgrade alone. The cumulative effect of these traumatic circumstances was an explosion in the number of illegally built dwellings.
Some unauthorized housing construction, comprising mostly modest huts on the periphery of Belgrade, had in fact slipped under the
radar of communist authorities as part of Belgrade’s intense post1945 industrialization and urbanization (Zegarac, 1999). However,
in the 1990s, such construction became so widespread that it rendered the original meaning of the term ‘‘illegal” obsolete. In 1997,
for instance, the estimated number of units erected without a legal
building permit matched the number of those erected with a permit (Vujovic and Petrovic, 2007; Petrovic, 2001). Of course, the
erection of nominally unsanctioned homes could be a necessary
last-resort strategy employed by poor residents, refugees included,
to access urban jobs and services when state agencies otherwise
fail to provide them. In Belgrade, however, building illegal homes
also became a strategy of the upper classes, including elites in
the Milosevic regime, who did so to prey on public space and infrastructure. The city’s most desirable areas, Dedinje and Senjak, became ridden with such illegal villas; in fact, entire new
neighborhoods, like Padina, were created in this fashion. Erected
in violation of basic building norms and often located on public
space, the new residences used extremely lavish and kitschy styles
(e.g., some are adorned by statues of Aphrodite!; Hirt, 2008). Such
styles have prompted one critic to refer to them as turbo-architecture (after turbo-folk, a somewhat misguided but flamboyant
musical genre that mixes Western pop with Balkan folk; Weiss,
2007), and another as the Karic-style (Prodanovic, 2004; The Karic
family is one the wealthiest in Serbia). Coupled with the ruins of
public buildings destroyed by NATO bombs in 1999 (some of these
299
S. Hirt / Cities 26 (2009) 293–303
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 Belgrade’s 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
Current economic, political and administrative structure
In 2000, Serbia elected its first post-communist democratic government. Since then, the country has made a series of important
steps toward democratization and integration into the European
Union. The Serbian economy has rebounded: GDP has been
increasing by 6–8% per annum, although unemployment remains
high at 18.6% in Serbia and 14% in the capital city. In 2005, Belgrade’s GDP was 4,800 billion Euros or about 3000 Euros per capita.
Although this is a vast improvement since 2000, it remains 23%
lower in GDP and 27% lower in GDP per capita than it was in the
year 1989, when Belgrade was at its economic peak (Gligorijevic
et al., 2007). The current economic profile of the metropolis is as
follows: 66% of the employed urban population works in the tertiary sector (as compared to 60% in 1989), 31% is employed in
the secondary sector (as compared to 39% in 1989), and less than
2% is employed in the primary sector (no change since in 1989;
Institute for Informatics and Statistics, 2006). These figures clearly
reflect the de-industrialization trend typical of other post-communist nations.
In administrative terms, the metropolis with its 1,576,000
inhabitants is divided into 17 districts or municipalities (see
Fig. 4). The metropolitan area is very large (3222 sq km, as earlier noted) and includes the so-called City Proper—the central urban area—along with vast agricultural regions with very low
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. Čukarica
2. Novi Beograd
3. Palilula
4. Rakovica
5. Savsi Venac
6. Stari grad
7. Voždovac
8. Vračar
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. Surčin
21,312
28,923
38,351
33,900
40,995
27,075
28,814
Total
322,268
Area within city
proper (ha)
5560
4074
4536
3036
1400
698
3242
292
9992
3165
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
S. Hirt / Cities 26 (2009) 293–303
characterized by a stronger tertiary sector (at 72%) and higherincome residents.
economy and the lack of foreign investment during most of the
1990s. The first foreign-owned hypermarket entered Belgrade in
1998; as of 2007, there were 18 big-box commercial facilities in
the city, and several more are under construction. Space in such
facilities reached 115,000 sq. m—a more than fourfold increase
since 2004 (Colliers International Serbia, 2008a). The largest new
commercial superstore, and perhaps the first to truly qualify as
an upscale Western-type mall, is Delta 67 in Novi Beograd; its floor
area is 87,000 sq m and it includes a number of well-known European chains, from Adidas to Zara, as well as movie theatres, sports
facilities and fifteen restaurants. As in other cities, the aggressive
spread of such vast retail establishments may enhance consumers’
choices; yet, as also elsewhere, their impact on small business, traffic and the aesthetic environment of the city has hardly been
beneficial.
Parallel to the shift in type of retail, there has been a shift in retail location. The small retail businesses of the 1990s were commonly situated in remodeled existing buildings—especially in the
neighborhoods in and around the city center. This trend caused
depopulation in parts of central Belgrade, as residents began selling their properties to commercial bidders (e.g., the district of Stari
Grad or Old Town, for example, lost 18% of its residents in about
10 years). Because of their need for vast open plots, however, the
large retailers of the post-2000 period generally build green-field
developments at the periphery of the central urbanized areas. In
this respect, Novi Beograd is the exception that proves the rule. Located right across from Old Town, yet developed during the communist-era with solid infrastructure, wide boulevards, convenient
mass transit access, relatively good modern architecture, and ample green spaces, the district has become both an extension of
and an alternative to the historic core. It has attracted the largest
amount of commercial and office development of any district in
the metropolis, and today holds about a fifth of the city’s total commercial space, including the biggest malls and hypermarkets (e.g.,
Delta 67), and the local headquarters of various multi-national
banks and other businesses. It has further remained one of the
most desirable places to live, as evidenced by its high residential
values, which are competitive with rents in downtown and the
most prestigious urban neighborhoods (e.g., rents average 10 Euros
per sq m in Novi Beograd, and 11 Euros per sq m in Stari Grad and
Dedinje; Serbian Investment and Export Promotion Agency, 2007;
also Colliers International Serbia, 2008b). In this sense, the district
represents a near-anomaly in post-communist urban change,
showing that prime location and quality of development may beat
the grim predictions of some scholars issued during the 1990s that
the communist districts would inevitably become ghettoes of decay (e.g., see Andrusz et al., 1996).
As the previous paragraphs have already hinted, changes in residential patterns have also been an integral part of Belgrade’s contemporary development. Like other post-communist cities, the
Current processes of urban change
The processes of spatial restructuring in Belgrade since 2000 are
broadly reminiscent of those that have occurred in the capital cities
of other East European states since the end of communism and
especially since the stabilization of their respective economies in
the mid- to late-1990s (e.g., see Hirt, 2006 on Sofia; Sykora,
1999a,b on Prague). Construction activity has boomed (e.g., the value of construction works per year increased nearly seven times
between 2000 and 2005). As elsewhere in Eastern Europe, landuse changes reflect the processes of de-industrialization and tertiarization of the urban economy. The signs of de-industrialization
are evident in a series of communist-era brownfield sites throughout the city. Some relatively large industries are located in the
most attractive central parts of the city (e.g., in Novi Beograd) as
a result of the communist policy of prioritizing industry over other
land uses. How to restructure these sites presents a substantial
planning challenge, as all recent planning documents indicate.
Regardless of relative de-industrialization, Belgrade remains the
largest industrial zone in Serbia: it employs over 20% of the country’s industrial labor-force. A third of business space in Belgrade is
taken by industry. The large heavy chemical and surface mining
complexes in Belgrade’s periphery are still in operation, providing
important employment opportunities but also producing major
pollution.
In contrast to declining industry, commercial uses have increased steadily since 1989 regardless of the economic downturn
of the 1990s. Belgrade may have been better provided with services than other communist capitals as a result of its higher living
standards and the relatively liberal economic leanings of the Yugoslav government. Still, the year 1989 marked a threshold in the
commercialization of the urban fabric: the number of commercial
outlets about quadrupled between 1989 and 2005 in the conditions of no population growth (see Fig. 8). Between 2000 and
2005 alone, business space used for retail purposes increased by
nearly a million square meters—a growth increment larger by far
than that recorded for any other purpose (City of Belgrade, 2008).
As in other post-communist cities, there has been a notable shift
in the type of retail over time. During the early post-communist
years, new retail came primarily in the form of small, local, often
family owned spaces constructed on an ad hoc basis (e.g., remodeled apartments, garages and kiosks, many of which were located
on public green space without building permits). The last few
years, however, have been marked by the entry of malls and hypermarkets sponsored by a combination of Western and Serbian capital. For good or ill, retail consolidation in Belgrade has been slower
than in other capital cities in the region, due to Serbia’s depressed
Total number of retail stores in Belgrade 1960-2005
30000
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
S. Hirt / Cities 26 (2009) 293–303
Serbian capital has experienced notable socio-spatial stratification
with the formation of very expensive districts, mostly in and
around the historic core (e.g., in traditionally wealthy neighborhoods like Dedinje) and very poor districts, mostly near the large
industries in the far-out outskirts. An estimated 25,000 people in
Belgrade live in 29 slums and 64 other slum-like settlements,
which do not meet basic health and sanitary conditions (Tsenkova,
2005a).
As noted earlier, some neighborhoods in the city center have
experienced depopulation, and there are some signs of upperand middle-class decentralization (e.g., posh new residences with
views of the Danube are built in Zemun, whereas middle-class
homes are spreading in parts of Surčin and Obrenovac). However,
it seems premature to say that Belgrade is experiencing the fullfledged suburbanization typical of many other large East European
cities. In new housing, Belgrade’s highest-growth districts over the
last few years have been Čukarica and Novi Beograd, followed by
Zvezdara and Vračar (Colliers International Serbia, 2008a; Institute
for Informatics and Statistics, 2006; see Fig. 4 for the location of the
districts). All are adjacent the center. The Serbian capital thus far
presents an exception to the general suburbanization trend in Eastern Europe, likely because of the outstanding appeal of its center
(which commands the highest residential prices not only in Serbia
but throughout Southeastern Europe; Tsenkova, 2005b) and because attractive areas in the vicinity of the center continue to have
land available for residential development.
Even though in terms of the location of new housing, Belgrade
may represent an exception among East European capitals, in
terms of character, new housing has followed general trends in
the region. Instead of the individually constructed homes, which
were typical of the 1990s, the majority of new dwellings in Belgrade—especially those which serve the upper-class market—now
come as part of larger housing communities, some comprising single-family homes and some comprising medium-scale multi-story
apartment and mixed-use buildings. The new developments, many
of which neighbor the large Modernist districts of Novi Beograd,
301
exhibit a revived interest in traditional neighborhood morphology.
They are more reminiscent in scale and character of Belgrade’s
early 20th-century fabric than of the fabric constructed during
communism (see Fig. 9). In lieu of Modernist discipline, standardization and vast open spaces, Belgrade’s new housing offers bright
colors, subtle eclecticism of styles and scales, and a return to the
traditional street corridor and the semi-private interior yard.
The entry of global capital, including Western development
firms, is underlying another residential trend, which may become
more prominent in the future: the trend toward building large, flashy and often gated communities, targeting expatriates, employees
of foreign firms and embassies, and Belgrade’s top business echelon. Such developments include: Belville, the largest residential
project in Serbia with 1788 units located nearby Delta 67 in Novi
Beograd, which will be completed in 2009; and Marina in Stari
Grad, a mixed-used project with 500 dwellings which is the first
major waterfront re-development in Belgrade and is scheduled to
open in 2011.
Current planning challenges
Despite the many appealing qualities of Belgrade’s built environment, the city faces a number of severe planning challenges.
Some of these challenges are typical, in various degrees, of cities
throughout East-Central Europe. These include brownfield redevelopment, pollution caused by the large industrial facilities
constructed before 1989, stark socio-spatial stratification, and
deteriorating housing stock in some of the communist-era housing
districts.
Other problems are specific to the large cities of former Yugoslavia, including Sarajevo, Skopje and Pristina, as well as the Albanian capital of Tirana. One such issue is the very large number (an
estimated 146,000 in Belgrade) of illegally erected buildings,
mostly from the 1990s (Tsenkova, 2005a). Although such buildings
provide an affordable alternative for many urban dwellers, they
also put a serious strain on the existing urban infrastructure, which
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
S. Hirt / Cities 26 (2009) 293–303
was never designed to accommodate them. In Belgrade, of course,
the problem has been exacerbated by the entry of thousands of refugees. In 2002, Serbia adopted a National Strategy for Resolving the
Problems of Refugees and Internally Displaced People. This document recommends a number of housing strategies, such as the
development of public rental units. The refugee issue features
prominently in local planning debates. However, due to the scarcity of public funds, little has been done to assist them. The overwhelming majority of refugees have learned to resolve their life
struggles privately, by relying on themselves and their relatives,
and by settling either in self-built dwellings or in overcrowded
existing residential structures (see Tsenkova, 2005a).
Another issue facing Belgrade’s municipal authorities is resolving the status of urban land. Unlike most other post-communist
countries in East-Central Europe, Serbia has yet to fully denationalize developable urban land. In Belgrade, vast chunks of vacant land
zoned for construction are under public ownership and can be
leased for up to 99 years under conditions prescribed by the city
authorities (Serbia Investment and Export Promotion Industry,
2007; Tsenkova, 2005b). Such public controls may be saving Belgrade from the unbridled sprawl and other abuses that commonly
followed the quick privatization of land, parks and other green
spaces in cities such as Sofia (see Hirt and Kovachev, 2006); however, they have clearly not saved it from illegal construction. Furthermore, the murky ownership situation deters local and foreign
investments crucial to revitalizing the city. It may be true that
some foreign investments, such as those that produced the series
of vast suburban business parks and residential subdivisions in
other East European cities, have hardly been beneficial (again, Sofia
is a negative example to keep in mind here). Still, it is hard to imagine good reasons for sticking to a strategy that reduces foreign
investment in the challenging economic situation Belgrade still
faces.
Finally, it must be noted that it not clear for how long Belgrade’s
center will succeed in out-competing ex-urban locations in attracting residents and businesses. The opening of Airport City Belgrade,
a complex of 12 glittering glass buildings with offices and retail
amidst a sea of asphalt, signals that preserving Belgrade’s center
may become a new challenge for planners. Although Airport City
is technically in the district of Novi Beograd, it is an ex-urban business park, whose owners proudly boast having more parking than
any other business node in the city.
Conclusions: Planning the future of belgrade
After a decade of steep decline, Serbia and its capital have finally embarked on the road to recovery. Serbia is becoming a highgrowth spot in Eastern Europe; in 2006 it attracted 4400 billion
Euros of Foreign Direct Investment—three times more than in the
previous year (Serbia Investment and Export Promotion Agency,
2008). Classified as a ‘‘potential candidate country,” it is expected
to enter the European Union between 2012 and 2015. Belgrade’s
location at the junction of two pan-European transport corridors
makes it a regional node of primary significance (these corridors
are Corridor VII from Romania to Germany, and Corridor X from
Greece to Austria and Germany). Belgrade’s highly educated population and strengthening economy will likely further ensure its
growing importance in Southeast Europe and beyond.
In 2006–2007, Belgrade was voted ‘Southern European City of
the Future’.6 Because of its strong historic and architectural heritage
and its vibrant civic life, it is also likely to more fully realize its
6
This was a competition organized by the Financial Times, which selects ‘Cities of
the Future’ in 13 regions of Europe. The region of Southern Europe includes Slovenia,
Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece,
Turkey, Cyprus and Malta.
potential as a cultural capital of Europe. Over the last few years,
the city has adopted three key planning documents: the Master Plan
(City of Belgrade, 2003), the Regional Physical Plan (City of Belgrade,
2004), and the Development Strategy (City of Belgrade, 2008). These
documents set a number of goals and strategies around the themes
of improving environmental sustainability, economic competitiveness, social cohesion and territorial polycentrism, and strengthening
cultural identity.
Whether these goals will be achieved will largely depend on
how Belgrade’s policy-makers will position the city in the context
of European integration. It will also depend on how quickly the
unfortunate legacy of the 1990s can be overcome, and on whether
planning can reassert itself as a vital tool that can fight problems
such as rampant sprawl, loss of public space, and traffic congestion—problems that plague many East European capital cities, yet
Belgrade has thus far avoided.
Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank the journal editors and referees
for their extremely helpful recommendations on earlier drafts. She
is also deeply grateful to her colleagues Dr. Z. Nedovic-Budic, Dr. M.
Petrovic and Dr. Z. Gligorijevic for sharing their insights on Belgrade, Dr. J. Steiff for her editorial recommendations and her
friends B. and V. Vukomanovic for making her stay in Belgrade so
pleasant. Research in Belgrade was funded by the National Council
of Eurasian and East European Studies, the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, the Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts, and the Humanities Stipend at
Virginia Tech. The author expresses her deep gratitude to these
institutions.
References
Andrusz, G, Harloe, M and Szelenyi, I (1996) Cities after Socialism: Urban and
Regional Change and Conflict in Post-Socialist Societies. Blackwell, Malden and
Oxford.
Blagojevic, L (2003) Modernism in Serbia: The Elusive Margins of Belgrade
Architecture 1919–1941. MIT Press, Cambridge.
City of Belgrade (2003) Sluzbeni List Grada Beograda. City of Belgrade, Belgrade (in
Serbian).
City of Belgrade (2004) Regionalni Prostorni Plan Administrativnog Podrucja
Beograda. City of Belgrade, Belgrade (in Serbian).
City of Belgrade (2008) City of Belgrade Development Strategy: Goals, Concept and
Strategic Priorities of Sustainable Development (Draft). Unpublished document
made available to the author from Mr. Dusan Damjanovic, Project Director,
PALGO Center.
Colliers International Serbia (2008a) Market Overview Belgrade: Residential Market
Second Half of 2008. <http://www.colliers.com/Content/Repositories/Base/Markets/
Serbia/English/Market_Report/PDFs/BelgradeResidential2ndHalf2008.pdf>
(accessed 1.12.08).
Colliers International Serbia (2008b) Market Overview Belgrade: Retail Market Second
Half of 2008. <http://www.colliers.com/Content/Repositories/Base/Markets/
Serbia/English/Market_Report/PDFs/BelgradeRetail2ndHalf2008.pdf> (accessed
1.12.08).
Curcic, B (2006) Almost Architecture: Srdan Jovanovic Weiss wrote a book on Serbian
‘‘Turbo Architecture.” <http://kuda.org/?q=en/node/712> (accessed 28.11.08).
Gajic, R and Dimitrijevic-Markovic, S (2006) Managing integration and
disintegration processes in modern urbanism settlements—the case of New
Belgrade. In Paper Presented at the 42nd Congress of the International Society of
City and Regional Planners, Istanbul, September 14–18.
Gligorijevic, Z (2006) Can new developments and city identity grow in harmony?
The quest for a successful public space design for New Belgrade. In Paper
Presented at the 42nd Congress of the International Society of City and Regional
Planners, Istanbul, September 14–18.
Gligorijevic, Z, Ferencak, M, Savic, D and Velovic, V (2007). Financing Metropolitan
Governments in Transitional Countries: Case Study Belgrade. Unpublished
document made available by the Town Planning Institute of Belgrade.
Grozdanic, M (2008). Belgrade—European Metropolis, Transformations through
Space
and
Time.
<http://www.isocarp.net/Data/case_studies/1125.pdf>
(accessed 25.11.08).
Hadzic, M (2002) Rethinking privatization in Serbia. Eastern European Economics
40(6), 6–23.
Hirt, S (2006) Post-socialist urban forms: notes from Sofia. Urban Geography 27(5),
464–488.
S. Hirt / Cities 26 (2009) 293–303
Hirt, S (2008) Landscapes of post-modernity: changes in the built fabric of Belgrade
and Sofia since the end of socialism. Urban Geography 29(8), 785–809.
Hirt, S and Kovachev, A (2006) The changing spatial structure of post-socialist Sofia.
In The Urban Mosaic of Post-socialist Europe: Space* Institutions and Policy, S
Tsenkova and Z Nedovic-Budic (eds.), pp. 113–130. Springer and PhysicaVerlag, Heidelberg and New York.
Institute for Informatics and Statistics (2006). Statistical Yearbook of Belgrade.
Institute for Informatics and Statistics, Belgrade.
Institute of Urbanism, (undated) Urban Face of Modern Belgrade. <http://
www.urbel.com/default.aspx?ID=uzb_BG_planoviLN=ENG> (accessed 5.1.08).
Jovanovic, G (ed.) (2007) Belgrade. Intersistem, Belgrade.
Lazar, M and Djokic, J (2006). Complex history as a source of planning problems: old
Belgrade fairgrounds. In Paper Presented at the 42nd Congress of the International
Society of City and Regional Planners, Istanbul, September 14–18.
Manevic, Z, Davison, R and Davison, D (1990) Art deco and national tendencies in
serbian architecture. Journal of Decorative and Propaganda Arts 17(Autumn), 71–
75.
Manevic, Z (undated) Beograd—Architecture and Building. <http://www.web.mit.
edu/most/www/ser/Belgrade/zoran_manevic.html> (accessed 25.11.08).
Maric, D (2002) Vodic Kroz Modernu Arhitekturu Beograda. Association of Belgrade
Architects, Belgrade (in Serbian).
Maric, I (2006) Tradicionalno Graditeljstvo Pomoravlja i Savremena Arhitektura.
Institute of Architecture and Urbanism, Belgrade (in Serbian).
Nedovic-Budic, Z and Cavric, B (2006) Waves of planning: a framework for studying
the evolution of planning systems and empirical insights from Serbia and
Montenegro. Planning Perspectives 21(October), 393–425.
Nedovic-Budic, Z and Vujosevic, M (2004) Interplay between political governance,
socio-economic and planning systems: case study of former yugoslavia and
present Serbia and Montenegro. In Paper presented at the International
Conference Winds of Societal Change: Remaking Post-communist Cities,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, June 18–19. <http://www.reec.uiuc.
edu/events/FisherForum/FisherForum2004/Nedovic%20&%20Vujosevic.pdf>
(accessed 26.11.08).
Nedovic-Budic, Z, Djordjevic, D and Dabovic, T (2008) Serbian planning legislation
in the context of socialism and post-socialism. In Paper presented at the
303
International Academic Forum on Planning, Law and Property Rights, Warsaw,
February 14–15.
Norris, D (2008) Belgrade: A Cultural History. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Perovic, M (1985) Iskustva Proslosti. Belgrade’s Urban Planning Institute, Belgrade
(in Serbian).
Perovic, M and Zegarac, Z (2000) The destruction of an architectural culture: the
1999 bombing of Belgrade. Cities 17(6), 395–408.
Petrovic, M (2001) Post-socialist housing policy transformation on Yugoslavia and
Belgrade. European Journal of Housing Policy 1(2), 211–231.
Prodanovic, M (2004) Stariji Ilepsi Beograd. 3rd ed.. Stubovi Kulture, Belgrade (in
Serbian).
Serbian Investment and Export Promotion Agency (2007) Real Estate Industry in
Serbia. <http://www.siepa.gov.rs/site/en/home/2/publications/sector_brochures/
RealEstateIndustryinSerbia.pdf> (accessed 1.12.08).
Sykora, L (1999a) Changes in the internal structure of post-communist Prague.
Geojournal 49(1), 79–89.
Sykora, L (1999b) Processes of socio-spatial differentiation in post-communist
Prague. Housing Studies 14(5), 679–701.
Tsenkova, S (2005a) Country Profiles on the Housing Sector: Serbia and Montenegro.
Economic Commission for Europe, United Nations, New York and Geneva.
Tsenkova, S (2005b) Trends and Progress in Housing Reforms in South Eastern Europe.
Council of Europe, Paris.
Vujosevic, M and Nedovic-Budic, Z (2006) Planning and societal context—the case of
Belgrade, Serbia. In The Urban Mosaic of Post-socialist Europe: Space, S Tsenkova
and Z Nedovic-Budic (eds.), pp. 275–294. Institutions and Policy, Physica-Verlag
and Springer, Heidelberg.
Vujovic, S and Petrovic, M (2007) Belgrade’s post-socialist urban evolution:
reflections by the actors in the development process. In The Post-socialist City:
Urban Form and Space Transformations in Central and Eastern Europe after
Socialism, K Stanilov (ed.), pp. 361–384. Springer, Dordrecht.
Weiss, S (2007) Almost Architecture. Akademie Schloss Solitude, Stuttgart.
Zegarac, Z (1999) Illegal construction in Belgrade and the prospects for urban
development planning. Cities 16(5), 365–370.