hirt pejzazi postmodernizma

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.


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).


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.


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


City proper(35,996 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.


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


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


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.


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


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


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/


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)


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.

hirt pejzazi postmodernizma

Documents