architectural policy of republic of serbia
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/13/2019 Architectural Policy of Republic of Serbia
1/16
Conference Proceedings2nd International Scientific Conference RESPAG 2013
160
ARCHITECTURAL POLICY OF REPUBLIC OF SERBIA
Milica Pajki1, Marija Martinovi
1and Mladen Pei
1
1Faculty of Architecture University of Belgrade, Serbia
e-mails: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
1. HISTORY OF THE IDEA OF ARCHITECTURAL POLICY
Having in mind that in the last 30 years there has been a growing recognition of theimportance of architectural quality for social, cultural and economic development,
majority of European countries have been developing documents, formulated as
Architectural policies (in further text AP), in order to promote spatial design quality
and raise public awareness on the significance of the built environment. The idea of
Architectural policy came into focus across Europe in 1980s and 1990s, and it
represented important part of civic actions for a better environment, in the period of
rapid internationalization, urbanization and opening up of economies and aspiration
for overall sustainable development. The role of policies was to support the creation
of, and care for a good built environment, to raise the quality of life of its residents
and to stimulate cultural and economic activity (http://www.apoli.fi/etusivu). Besidesthat AP-s had a role, as a part of general aspiration for sustainable development, to
promote balanced building and care for the environment.
First countries that have produced and published an architectural policy programme,
or some kind of similar legislative document, before the late 1990s, were France, the
Netherlands, Ireland, Finland, Sweden, Great Britain, Italy and Belgium. During this
process European Federation for Architecture Policies (EFAP) had an active role
especially with the new EU Member States. It is interesting to analyze activities
regarding each country, their national AP and their path to EU membership. Some
have been adopted by the national governments before and in some after becomingan EU Member State in others. The timeline is individual for each country, and while
new countries are becoming active within architectural policy, the pioneer countries
are now developing a second, and in some cases a third generation of AP.
1.1.Timeline of the idea of Architectural policy
At first, the process of developing Architectural policies was un-institutional, but
nowadays it is been institutionalized within the structures of European Union and its
member states, through the The European Forum for Architectural Policies
(EFAP FEPA), which was set up in 2000, on the initiative of Finland and France.
-
8/13/2019 Architectural Policy of Republic of Serbia
2/16
Conference Proceedings2nd International Scientific Conference RESPAG 2013
161
Its role was to support exchange of information and to promote architectural policy
and quality in the built environment within the EU and Member States.
Although the role of EFAP is to organize, more or less, standardized form for
creating and implementation of AP, there are notable differences in separate national
AP-s, which are reflecting on the wide diversity of cultures across the EU. Most
probably differences in approaches are caused by different backgrounds of Member
States such as: historical development, political and legislative systems, cultural and
social context. With different starting points some of the AP initiatives have different
goals, aims and target groups. However, all differences on the side, it is possible to
identify a growing tendency for the development of architectural policies on different
levels of government - national, regional and local, on the whole territory of EU.
2. SURVEY ON ARCHITECTURAL POLICIES IN EUROPE
STRATEGIC GUIDLINES
Knowing that EFAP is an international network devoted to fostering and promoting
architecture and architectural policies in Europe, bridging public governance,
profession, culture and education, its primary aim, among several other objectives, is
to disseminate knowledge and best practices on architectural policies through
meetings of experts, public events and publications. In 2011 EFAP conducted a
survey in order to measure the implementation progress of architectural policies by
individual Member States (and a accessing States) and to review the impact of twoEuropean Council Resolutions on subject of architecture, adopted in 2000 and 2008
(Council Resolution on Architectural Quality in Urban and Rural Environments
(2001/C 73/04) and Council Conclusions on Architecture: Culture's Contribution to
Sustainable Development (2008/C 319/05)) (Table 1).
Table 1- Timeline:Strategic documments regarding Architecture Policies
Survey was supposed to provide a panoramic view on architectural policies and to
advise European authorities both on local and national level. The Survey covered 33
European countries (Table 2): 27 Member States of the European Union, 4 official
EU candidate countries (Croatia, Iceland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
and Turkey) and 2 outside EU countries (Norway and Switzerland). In the end
Survey target group increased to a total of 37 administrative structures (according to
Belgium and United Kingdom local specifities because their regions have replied to
the Survey separately).
-
8/13/2019 Architectural Policy of Republic of Serbia
3/16
Conference Proceedings2nd International Scientific Conference RESPAG 2013
162
Table 2- Countries that participated in the Survey
Specific questionnaire was distributed to all official participants and in the end
results were published as a part of Survey document organized in three sections: (1)
departments responsible for architectural policies; (2) official documents on
architectural policy and (3) initiatives and actions corresponding to architectural
policies. Among 37 administrative structures surveyed, it is showed that 16
administrations have a specific department responsibility for architectural policy, and
that in the other 21 administrations question of architectural policy is a shared
responsibility between two or more departments (Table 3 a,b).
(a)
-
8/13/2019 Architectural Policy of Republic of Serbia
4/16
Conference Proceedings2nd International Scientific Conference RESPAG 2013
163
Table 3 a,b- Existence of departments in charge for developing and implementation of AP in
European countries
Survey also showed that in the most administrations the responsibility for
architectural policy is clearly defined. However the main difference is in scope andnumber of specific department in charge of architectural policy and in official status
of AP documents. In some countries responsibility for AP is shared between various
departments and organizations (both official and non-officinal) and it is possible to
observe that the scope and configuration of the departments is diverse and in most
cases the departments have other assignments than solely architectural policy. Also
survey showed that in some countries AP-s are not recognized in a form of official
document per se and it is very hard to identify departments responsible for their
implementation. Most probably these differences are result of wide diversities in
historical development, political and legal systems, and cultural, social and economic
backgrounds, between countries. In summary when AP developed under the specificdepartment in the system of administrative structures the majority of the departments
are within the scope of the Ministries of Culture / Arts (Table 4).
According to the document SURVEY ON ARCHITECTURAL POLICIES IN
EUROPE, at the moment there are 16 countries that have an official document
regarding architectural policy at the national level (plus Iceland and Norway), and 14
more that are planning to develop this kind of official document or are in the final
phase of the official approval of this document, while 5 administrations mentioned
that they are not planning to develop this kind of soft policy documents. In countries
which adopted AP documents, three types could be identified: a) Legislation type(France and Sweden); b) Comprehensive policy type (Belgium / Flanders; Denmark;
-
8/13/2019 Architectural Policy of Republic of Serbia
5/16
Conference Proceedings2nd International Scientific Conference RESPAG 2013
164
Estonia; Finland; Ireland; Latvia; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Netherlands; UK /
Scotland; UK / Northern Ireland; Iceland; Norway); and c) Sectoral policy type
(Cyprus, UK / England and UK / Wales).
Table 4- Ministry responsible for architectural policy
2.1.Comprehensive AP type - Norway
In this research, we will concentrate on second type of policies the comprehensive
ones- as we believe that they are the most suitable for overall social context of
Republic of Serbia.
Norway Architectural Policy is published in Architecture. now - Norwegian
Architectural Policy and it starts with a definition that architecture is a complex
field that spans many sectors and that in its broadest sense comprises all our man-
made surroundings. Further it states that it embraces buildings and infrastructure,
outdoor spaces and landscape, it is about individual buildings and buildings in
interaction, about the totality of towns, population centres and landscapes.1 With
this broad definition authors wanted to emphasize a substantial number of public
sector authorities that will be important participants in the task of promoting, of what
they consider to be, a good architecture.
Architectural policy of Norway focuses on areas presented as six parts of strategy:
(1) Architecture should be distinguished by eco and energy friendly solutions, (2)
Cities and population centres should be developed with architecture of good quality,
(3) The government should safeguard cultural environment and building heritage,
(4)Architecture should be promoted by knowledge, competence and dissemination,
(5)The government should be a role model, (6) Norwegian architecture should be
visible internationally. All six parts are separate documents which are interconnected
and represent various Governments measures and initiatives for a complete
1
http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/KKD/Kultur/Rapporter%20og%20utredninger/KKD_architecture.now.pdf
-
8/13/2019 Architectural Policy of Republic of Serbia
6/16
Conference Proceedings2nd International Scientific Conference RESPAG 2013
165
overview of existing and planned measures and initiatives, being implemented on
national level in order to promote good architecture. Document itself is based on
what the government is planning and doing in the field of architecture, with special
remarks on regulatory framework, guidelines, finance schemes and other funding and
resources.2As stated in the AP, document is intended to:
to help and encourage coordination and collaboration across administrativeboundaries
be used as a tool to strengthen the quality and awareness - of architectureand our physical surroundings and to make evident the combined and total
national field of architecture
The final goal of the AP is to assess status, discuss further strategies and inspire
further work within the architectural field.
2.2.Comprehensive AP type - Netherlands
Contrary to Norwegian Architectural policy which is more general, with broader
goals and aims, in next paragraph we will analyze framework of Dutch Architectural
Policy which seems to be more concrete, especially regarding to concrete
architectural projects.Under the name Architectural policy 2001 2004 : Shaping the Netherlands AP
is presented as a document which aims to: make a tangible contribution to the
spatial and architectural quality of our country by launching a number of Major
Projects in which design is to play a central role. The implementation of policy is
planned within selected architectural projects, which are serving as models for future
reference. While working on these projects and overall AP, Dutch Government had
planned to:
examine government responsibility for architecture policy (e.g. management,facilitation);
do justice to the public aspect of architecture and public space, and tostimulate public debate on the built and rural environment;
strengthen the relationship between cultural history and modern architecture/ aiming for conservation through development;
give culture a major role in weighing up claims on space, in addition totraditional spatial planning interests;
stimulate design studies before projects are finalized; stimulate greater variety in homes and living environments, to do more
justice to peoples needs and the Netherlands changing culture;
2
http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/KKD/Kultur/Rapporter%20og%20utredninger/KKD_architecture.now.pdf
-
8/13/2019 Architectural Policy of Republic of Serbia
7/16
Conference Proceedings2nd International Scientific Conference RESPAG 2013
166
accept societys need for mobility, and to cater for it in an architecturallysound manner, keeping future needs in mind;
combat the fragmentation of the open spaces between urban areas bystrengthening the individual features of the landscape;
promote cultural patronage, both large (professional principals) and small(individuals);
look at what is possible, not what is obligatory.3. EXPERIENCE OF EAST EUROPEAN COUNTRIES
Given the rapid impact of globalization, fast economy growth and the resultant
instability of local economies, those eastern countries that were not in the EuropeanUnion were struggling with many problems within their cities and regions, due to the
lack of strategic planning. Also, dealing with the city became more and more
formidable and complex process, including a difficult shift from socialistic to
market-based economy and involving a wide range of actors in these transformations.
By following Lefebvres thesis that cities are spatial projections of society (Lefebvre,
1968,64) we can trace in which way did access of these countries to EU and their
architectural policies change the societies and their approach to space planning.
In May 2004, the three Baltic countries Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, five eastern
Europe countries of the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Poland andthe two Mediterranean islands of Malta and Cyprus joined the European Union,
changing the institutional map of Europe. The accession of ten new members to this
political and economical union was of great deal for governance and spatial
development in Central Eastern Europe. But by analyzing this group, one could
clearly observe their highly heterogeneous character, both spatially and socio-
economically. Firstly, the Mediterranean ones were growing in population and
increase of money inflow; while Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, although rising from
the same roots, as former republics of Soviet Union (in August 1991, Latvia and
Estonia declared the restoration of their full independence following Lithuania's 1990
example) sharing common experience of a rapid transition from socialist, centrally-planned to market-oriented states, had very different economics and land use
structures, diverse political and socio-economic history of the various newly created
and reconstituted states. Being also the former members of COMECON countries
(Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, 1949-91.) Hungary, Poland and Czech
Republic were in the similar situation.
In addition, transformation processes of rapid globalization and economy had various
and different effects on these new member states. For example, only three cities have
more than a million inhabitants: Budapest, Warsaw and Prague and all of them have
different density of population and occupy different areas. As group of authors in
Spatial Planning and Urban Development in the New EU Member States BetweenAdjustment and Reinvention suggest, over the course of the last decade, the larger
-
8/13/2019 Architectural Policy of Republic of Serbia
8/16
Conference Proceedings2nd International Scientific Conference RESPAG 2013
167
cities typically lost population, for various reasons: low birth rates, suburbanization
and dramatic rises in rents and property values in the inner cities, economic
restructuring and job loss. A particularity in the Baltic States is the emigration of the
Russian population (Table 5).
Simin Davoudi in her analyses (Altrock et all, 2006, 31) identifies three key
challenges for spatial planning in the new EU member states. She notes great
regional distinction both within the states as well as between them due to their
different developments since the decay of the Soviet Regime 15 years ago. She also
emphasizes the relationship between economic growth and environment protection as
inseparable from strategic spatial planning. Finally, for new members the quality of
the institutional context in the emerging regional governance patterns breaks out as
an important issue. The privatization of the housing stock is a central planningproblem in the cities, as are the transportation and environmental consequences of
urban sprawl (see KPMG 2004a).
Table 5- Cross-reference data about joined members of EU in 2004Country City Population Area Density
Hungary Budapest 1.741.000 525km2 3.300km2
Estonia Tallinn 423.000 159km2 2.600km2
Latvia Riga 700.000 304km2 2.300km2
Lithuania Vilnius 554.000 404km2 1.391km2
Czech republic Prague 1.262.000 399km2 2.500km2
Slovakia Bratislava 367.000 426km2 1.258km2Slovenia Ljubljana 280.000 163km2 1.664km2
Malta Valetta 7000 0.8km2 8.700km2
Cyprus Nicosia 310.000 111km2 2.860km2
Poland Warsaw 1.708.000 517km2 3.300km2
It seems that it was hardest to adjust for those states that were in socialistic regime.
Having in mind the analogy with Serbia, it is crucial to underline and explain those
kinds of transformations and policies in spatial planning.
In some of the transition countries, because of the process of Europeanization, the
political and planning systems have to transform for far-reaching EU regulations and
directives. As a result that also brought about radical readjustments in the national
urban hierarchy and new challenges for regional development.
Following Mina Petrovi, an Associate Professor on Faculty of Philosophy in
Belgrade, who states that Post-socialist societies are simultaneously facing at least
three types of transformation, causing complex structural changes (Petrovi, 2005 ):
(1) transformation from totalitarian to democratic society, from the planned to market
based economy and/or from supply to demand driven economy; (2) developmental:
from an industrial to post-industrial (service) economy and society, (3)
transformation from an isolated to an integrated position in the world economy,
which is itself transformed from an international to global type- we believe that in
these changes lies the great power for forming a regional AP-s.
-
8/13/2019 Architectural Policy of Republic of Serbia
9/16
Conference Proceedings2nd International Scientific Conference RESPAG 2013
168
Problem still lies in the fact that urban issues are hardly addressed in a
comprehensive manner at the national level. Local governments still work in chaos,
with no specified path of dealing with urban problems, fragmented administrative
structures and the private investor has a significant influence over decision-making.
This need for institutional reform, together with the lack of strategic planning is the
main obstruction for vivid and planed urban development.
Because of this, there are rising initiatives for developing national urban policies in
order to coordinate medium to long-term development (see KPMG 2004a).
4. EXPERIENCES OF FORMER YUGOSLAVIAN COUNTRIES
REGARDING ARCHITECTURAL POLICIES
4.1. Architecture Policy Republic of Slovenia
At the beginning of this research it is important to underline that Slovenia was a
former state within the Federal Socialistic Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), from
February 1944 until March 1990, sharing the similar socio-cultural, political and
economic situation as Serbia. It was raised from a system of "self-management
socialism", with one-party system of representation delegate, planned economy and
the specific system (the so-called worker self-management), in which the property
was mostly in the state and social ownership. Although the federation was divided
into six republics and two autonomous provinces, preservation of the nationalidentity of an individual and at the same time, the construction of identity of
Yugoslavia was very important issue. This remained the important part, which
Slovenia upgraded through its recent architectural policy.
As it says in the beginning of the document, The Spatial Development Strategy of
Sloveniais a strategic spatial planning document, adopted by the National Assembly
of the Republic of Slovenia at its session as of 18 June 2004, published in the
Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, and in force since 20 July 2004. The
preparation of the Spatial Development Strategy of Slovenia was conducted by the
Office for Spatial Development, Spatial Planning Directorate of the Ministry of theEnvironment, Spatial Planning and Energy. Its aim is inclined towards imposing
conditions for balanced economic, social and cultural development while ensuring
the kind of development which will also enable the conservation of the environment,
nature, heritage, and the quality of living(The Spatial Development Strategy of
Slovenia, 2004). Janez Kopa, at that time, Minister of the Environment, Spatial
Planning and Energy of Slovenia, states in the introduction of the document that The
Spatial Strategy is the basic strategic spatial development document. It is an
integrated planning document which implements in its core the concept of
sustainable spatial development. But this document isnt solely inclined to guiding
development and harmonization of sectoral policies. As Strategy preparation processinvolved all ministries and services for participation in the European spatial
-
8/13/2019 Architectural Policy of Republic of Serbia
10/16
Conference Proceedings2nd International Scientific Conference RESPAG 2013
169
development, Strategy for Economic Development of Slovenia was also a key
document in shaping the consciousness of future sustainable spatial development.
In the first chapter of the Strategy one can find basic premises and objectives of
Slovenian spatial development relying on the general grounds, characteristic features
of Slovenian space, geographic features and landscape and urban structure
characteristicsFollowing is the concept of Slovenian spatial development with
priorities and guidelines for achieving spatial development objectives. Development
of spatial systems is carried with extensive guidelines for development of nearly
every segment of urban development at regional and local levels. At the end of the
document are presented different measures for implementation of the strategy
(methods, guidelines, programs of importance, tasks and activities of spatial planningstakeholders and other responsible parties, monitoring).
Main Slovenian Spatial Development Objectives:
1. Rational and effective spatial development
2. Polycentric development of the network of cities, towns and other settlements
3. Increased competitiveness of Slovenian towns in Europe
4. High-quality development and attractiveness of cities, towns and other settlements
5. Harmonious development of areas with common spatial development
characteristics6. Complementarity of rural and urban area functions
7. Integration of infrastructure corridors with the European infrastructure systems
8. Prudent use of natural resources
9. Spatial development harmonized with spatial limitations
10. Cultural diversity as the foundation of the national spatial identity
11. Nature conservation
12. Environmental protection
4.2. Architecture policy Republic of Croatia
Unlike Slovenia, which adopted its architectural policy immediately after joining the
EU, Croatia did it in 2012, while in the process of accession. This example is even
more convenient for analyses in terms of Serbia because of three factors. Firstly,
Croatia was also a member of SFRY with the same social, cultural and economic
roots. Secondly, in the field of architecture and especially housing, during the 20th
century there was an analogy between two different schools of housing rising in
about the same time in Zagreb and Belgrade, and thirdly, Serbia is also inclining
towards soon becoming a member of the EU.
In Croatia, the initiative for the development and adoption of the AP was launchedby the Architects HKAIG and Association of Croatian Architects on the first
-
8/13/2019 Architectural Policy of Republic of Serbia
11/16
Conference Proceedings2nd International Scientific Conference RESPAG 2013
170
Congress of Croatian Architects in 2004. The national platform was published in
2012, supported by Ministry of Environmental Protection, Spatial Planning and
Construction, Council of Spatial Planning, The Croatian Chamber of Architects and
the Association of Croatian Architects.
The thematic fields covered by the Strategy are:
1. Social awareness
2. Interventions in public space
3. Architectural heritage (heritage)
5. Building and designing space
6. Habitation/housing
7. Architectural and urban competition for the best solution8. Education
9. Space and architecture as a catalyst for economic development
10. The legislative framework
The fresh and new objectives of Croatias AP could be seen in its relation to
importance of reprogramming housing for the new globalized society that necessarily
has its roots in extensively researching of this theme. Also awareness that education,
architectural and urban competition must gain the central position in the AP, are
qualities for stabile urban development.
All this is in the aim of achieving three main goals of Croatias AP: that culture ofbuilding could serve as a prerequisite for the quality of built space, the quality of the
built space could became a basis for a good life of every individual and finally,
aiming at reaching the quality of architecture that could serve as an incentive of
national development and progress.
5. IMPORTANCE OF ARCHITECTURAL POLICIES FOR SPATIAL
DEVELOPMENT
It is being believed that through the preparation and implementation of Architectural
policies process of Europeanization is occurring. During this process each countryhas the opportunity to learn from the other - to make use of already existing policies,
and to use other countries experiences. However there is a specific part of each
policy, which is bound to the constitutional, administrative and political framework
in which the policy was developed.
Member States are, encouraged by the European Council Resolution (2001) and
European Council Conclusions (2008) on architecture, promoting architectural
quality as a precondition to improving the quality of life of European citizens. EU
institutions are constantly stimulating implementation of AP, although they are a
kind of soft policies which are not mandatory for the Member States. In this way AP
are very often acting as a catalyst of the public discourse on general architecturalknowledge and quality.
-
8/13/2019 Architectural Policy of Republic of Serbia
12/16
Conference Proceedings2nd International Scientific Conference RESPAG 2013
171
These policies are seen as one of the possible ways to achieve improvement of life
conditions and to improve the quality of the built environment. This is what
architectural policies should offer and strive to in the future.
Table 6- Geographic distribution of official documents of AP
By analyzing existing AP across European countries (Table 6) it could be concluded
that general aims in most of the AP-s are:
To raise the quality of public building and property management to a higher level
and thus set an example to the whole construction sector in our country;
To promote the use of methods which will advance good architecture and highquality building;
To enhance innovation through professional architectural education and through
research and development work;
To enhance the conservation of our architectural heritage and development of the
environments as a part of cultural history and architecture;
Also AP-s contain general remarks on the relationship between discipline of
architecture and other part of society, such as:
architecture is a fundamental feature of the history, culture and fabric of lifeof each of the countries;
-
8/13/2019 Architectural Policy of Republic of Serbia
13/16
Conference Proceedings2nd International Scientific Conference RESPAG 2013
172
architectural quality is a constituent part of both the rural and urbanenvironment;
the cultural dimension and the quality of the physical treatment of spaceshould be taken into account in Community regional and cohesion policies;
Architecture is an intellectual, cultural, artistic and professional activity.Architectural service therefore is professional service which is both cultural
and economic;
Almost all AP-s emphasize both the citizens right and duty to take responsibility of
their own environments and it that sense they are raising questions about:
The challenge posed by sustainability and climate change; The challenge posed by changes and transformations; The challenge posed by knowledge and innovation; The challenge of towns and populated areas to be developed by means of
good-quality architecture;
The responsibility of the State for taking care of cultural environment andbuilding heritage;
6. INSTEAD OF CONCLUSION
While joining the European Union, Serbia will become a part of global spatial
system. According to that, built and natural environment will become an integral part
of EU territory and cohesive approach will be needed for dealing with architecture
and urban environment. With the idea that a built environment is a prerequisite for
quality of life, it should be developed in accordance to the existing local heritage,
along with further urbanization and sustainability of the natural environment.
Expected urban growth across Serbia, and the changes to overall surroundings and
infrastructure associated with it will affect the environment of the whole country, and
probably of neighbour countries. Because of that it will be necessary to make plans
on regional level, and as it is showed, AP would be a valuable and useful tool for
governing that process. AP are offering integrated approach to the questions ofspatial development, and with the support of the general public in the future they
could become comprehensive documentations of the measures necessary for the
creation and preservation of a quality built environment in Republic of Serbia.
During the process of developing its own AP Serbia should use previous experience
of other countries that already have, or are still in the early stages of developing their
policies, in order to increase the awareness of the people to the role of architecture
and the responsibilities of improving the quality of the built environment. As earlier
mentioned, most differences in approaches and content of AP are caused by different
backgrounds of the states creating them, such as: historical development, political
-
8/13/2019 Architectural Policy of Republic of Serbia
14/16
Conference Proceedings2nd International Scientific Conference RESPAG 2013
173
and legislative systems, cultural and social context. Accordingly, with different
starting points some of the AP initiatives have different goals, aims and target
groups. But, being an ex communist country Serbia could use the practical
knowledge of other Eastern European countries because of their experience,
including a difficult shift from socialistic to market-based economy and involving a
wide range of actors in these transformations of becoming a part of EU. Then,
especially from the countries of former Yugoslavia, which are already members
(Slovenia), or are in the final stage of EU accession (Croatia), we could review the
thematic fields because of their similar historical, ideological and cultural
background.
Experiences from other EU countries could be used, as examples of more advanced
models. As in countries which adopted AP documents three types could be identified,it is our strong belief that in Serbia most efficient would be the comprehensive policy
type (like those in Belgium / Flanders; Denmark; Estonia; Finland; Ireland; Latvia;
Lithuania; Luxembourg; Netherlands; UK / Scotland; UK / Northern Ireland;
Iceland; Norway) because of its non binding character of what should/ is possible in
various fields of culture, economy, politics... Like in the cases of Netherlands and
Norway, Serbia should conduct its AP by accenting the general strategy,
organization, guidelines, potential from education to construction, objectives of
spatial development relying on the general grounds, characteristic features of space,
geographic features and landscape and urban structure characteristics
By implementing basic guidelines from other European AP, Serbian model should
formulate important principles and contain directives for short and long-term actions.
First step in starting the policy document should be a better understanding of the
present state in the field of architecture and urban planning, followed by public
discussion that includes architect, politicians, general public and all involved parties,
taking into account experiences of implementations of AP in the other European
countries. Afterwards particular part of AP should be developed in coordination with
local administrations, professional organizations, government and non-government
departments and organizations in order to achieve broad consensus on this question.
Regarding this consensus the general and primary intention of the architecturalpolicy should be to promote the quality of the planning and construction of buildings
in Serbia, in which the concept of "quality" cannot be defined as one particular
attitude to architecture and its surroundings, but rather as a mindset and a more
complex approach to spatial development.
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The paper is the result of research carried out within the scientific projects Research
and systematization of housing construction in Serbia in the context of globalization
-
8/13/2019 Architectural Policy of Republic of Serbia
15/16
Conference Proceedings2nd International Scientific Conference RESPAG 2013
174
and of European integration in order to improve the quality and standard of living
TR-36 034 and Studying climate change and its influence on the environment:
impacts, adaptation and mitigation TR- 43007, both financed by the Ministry of
Education and Science, Republic of Serbia.
8. REFERENCES
Figures and tables:
Table 1 4, 6: Public document - The European Forum for Architectural Policies (2011)
Survey on Architecture Policies, http://www.efap-fepa.eu/ (accessed 30thJuly 2012).
Table 5: by the authors.
Bibliography:
Altrock, U., Guntner, S., Huning , S., Peters, D. (2006) Spatial Planning And Urban
Development in the New EU Member States: From Adjustment to Reinvention,Burlington:
Ashgate Publishing Company.
Baker, S. (2006) Sustainable development. London-New York: Routledge.CEB (2010) Sustainable Housing and urban development: the CebS Contribution,
http://www.coebank.org/Upload/infocentre/brochure/en/housing.pdf (accessed 1st November
2011).
KPMG (2004a),National Urban Policies in the European Union, Amstelveen.Lefebvre, H. (1968)Le droit a la ville, Paris: Anthropos.
Ministarstvo graditeljstva i prostornog uredjenja Republike Hrvatske (2012) Arhitektonske
politike Republike Hrvatske 20132020. : Apolitika, http://www.mgipu.hr/doc/ApolitikA/
ApolitikA_2013-2020.pdf (accessed 07th January, 2013).
Petrovi, M. (2005) Cities after Socialism as a Research Issue, http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/
23378/1/DP34.pdf(accessed 20thDecember, 2012).
The European Forum for Architectural Policies (2011) Survey on Architecture Policies,
http://www.efap-fepa.eu/ (accessed 30thJuly 2012).
The Ministry of Culture and Church Affairs (2009)Architecture.Now - Norwegian
ArchitecturalPolicy, http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/KKD/Kultur/Rapporter
%20og%20utredninger/KKD_architecture.now.pdf (accessed 07th
January, 2013).The Ministries of Education, Culture & Science Housing, Spatial Planning & the
Environment Transport, Public Works & Water Management Agriculture, Nature
Management & Fisheries (2001)Architectural policy 2001 - 2004 : Shaping the
Netherlands, http://www.apoli.fi/instancedata/prime_product_julkaisu/apoli/embeds/11574_n
etherlands.pdf (accessed 07th January, 2013).
The Spatial Development Strategy of Slovenia(2004) Ljubljana: Ministry of the
Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy, Office for Spatial Development, 2004 (availableat http://www.arhiv.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/publikacije/drugo/en/
sprs_eng.pdf)
-
8/13/2019 Architectural Policy of Republic of Serbia
16/16
Conference Proceedings2nd International Scientific Conference RESPAG 2013
175
SUMMARY
Historical development of the idea of Architectural Policies is tied to international
debates between professionals from European countries, which later on, in the 1980s
and 1990s, moved to the national level. Today, the majority of European countries
already have a national architectural policy programme and the rest of them are in the
process of creating similar strategies.
Republic of Serbia is actively involved in the process of joining the EU. Therefore,
since Serbia is not a member state, there are no concrete actions to support EU
Council Conclusions on architecture regarding sustainable development and to start
working on Architectural Policy of Republic of Serbia. But in the near future, during
the process of accession, Serbian administration would have to consider thisquestion.
Finally, this research considered the initiatives for a platform that would serve as the
initial precondition for researching and establishing architectural policy in Serbia,
which is a prerequisite for non-institutional communication and networking of
architectural initiatives and organizations on local and global level.