Content uploaded by Florina Jerliu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Florina Jerliu on Jan 09, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
MESTO
DEJINY
a
55
Introduction
It is widely recognized that modernist architecture is not homogenous in the sense
of perceived architectural and ideological rationality and functionality. Various agendas
have been pursued and diff erent approaches and solutions produced,1 each depending
on the vision of prosperity that countries worldwide embraced in the aftermath of the
Second World War. It is also recognized that modernist architecture emerged under
very diff erent regimes and conditions which, as Heuvel notes, were “sometimes not
quite as progressive as propagated” and were “indeed at times outright repressive”.2
In socialist Yugoslavia,
3
modernist architecture and urbanism were critical in the
construction of socialism and as means for diff erentiating new developments from the
capitalist form of urbanization.
Negative references to unresolved contradictions between
the individual and society, the city and the villages, urban centres and their per ipheries –
which Yugoslav urbanists of the times attributed to capitalist societies – were used
to assign socialist urbanism the role of terminating the “spontaneous development”
of settlements and, by that, diminishing the above-mentioned contradictions, which
would lead to the aspired abolition of the old city division.4 In this endeavour, modernist
* As the Assistant Professors, both authors are affi liated with the University of Prishtina. Vlora Navakazi is the
corresponding author of this article.
1 CASCIATO, Maristella. Modern Architecture is Durable : Using Change to Preserve. In: HEUVEL, Dirk van den
et al. Proc. of the 10th Int. DOCOMOMO Conf. : The Challenge of Change: Dealing with the Legacy of the Modern
Movement. Netherlands : IOS Press, 2008, pp. xiii-xiv.
2 HEUVEL, Dirk van den. Buildings and Ideologies. In: HEUVEL, Dirk van den et al. Proc. of the 10th Int.
DOCOMOMO Conf. : The Challenge of Change : Dealing with the Legacy of the Modern Movement. Netherlands :
IOS Press, 2008, p. 35.
3 This article often refers to countries, such as Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, that no longer exist. These
names are used when referring to the historical context in which they were still geopolitical entities.
4 MITROVIC, Mihajlo. Gradovi i Naselja u Srbiji [Cities and Villages in Serbia]. Beograd : Urbanistički Zavod
Narodne Republike Srbije, 1953, p. 11-13.
The Socialist Modernization of Prishtina: Interrogating
Types of Urban and Architectural Contributions to the City
Florina Jerliu – Vlora Navakazi
*
This study introduces the contextual history in which socialist modernization was accomplished in
Prish tina, the capi tal city of Kos ovo. It explores t he changing im age of the cit y through inter preting the
tempora l and spatial for ms of urban and archi tectural cont ributions t hat occurred bet ween late 1940s
and 1980s. Our analysis classifi es six types of such contribution, comparable to Hamilton’s model of
the soc ialist city, w hich prove that the i ntentions of the moder nist socialis t urbanism and arch itecture
in Prishtina were similar to other socialist cities. However, the political and cultural background of
Prishtina was diff erent from other ex-Yugoslavian cities, and we try to show what impact it had in the
shaping of its urban and socialist features. Analysis identifi ed two major undertakings to support this
argument: fi rstly, the destruction of traditional architec ture with high symbolic value, with intention
to erase the cultural construct of the city through, allegedly, the liquidation of primitive culture and
the backwardness of the city; and secondly, and the fragmentary nature of urban development which
made sure that such backwardness would frame the urban identity of the city in the modern context.
Keywords: Socialist Modernization. Urban Destruction. Prishtina. Modern Urbanism. Landmarks.
vol. 7, 2018, 2, pp. 55-74
MESTO
DEJINY
a
56
concepts in socialist Yugoslavia produced various urban regeneration approaches in
which former Ottoman provinces were given specifi c attention in terms of ideological
modernization, as noted by A. Shukriu: Ever since the fi rst fi ve-year plan of economic
development of the People’s Republic of Serbia (1951) the principle was forced “to
make eff or ts and be determined to entirely liquidate the backwardness of our Republic,
especially in the province of Kosovo and Metohija and Sandzak”.5
The transformation of Ottoman cities into modern cities was a widespread
phenomenon in Southeast Europe, including Yugoslavia. Conley and Makas note that
this approach was more about “revenge” against the existing urban customs and forms
of the Ottoman city, and that modernization and the construction of a new national
identity was synonymous with the notion of Europeanization.6 De-Ottomanization of
Prishtina, which used to be an important regional centre within the Ottoman Empire
and was once the centre of the Kosovo Vilayet (between 1878 and 1888), meant not
only becoming European and modern, but also Yugoslavian, an identity which was
contested by Kosovo’s Albanian population in the aftermath of the Second World War.
7
The development approach that stemmed from the goal to “liquidate backwardness”
in Prishtina aimed to forge a new societal and political structure that would suppress
Albanian nationalism (which was considered “the most hostile element”8 by the new
Yugoslav regime) and to maintain “the constitutionally inferior status”
9
of Kosovo
within the Republic of Serbia, within which country Albanians were recognized as
a national minority (not a constituent national group); in Kosovo they already formed
the majority of the population.10
The goal of the socialis t regime, deriv ing from the economic mid-term plan , was further
disseminated through the city monograph and later in urban plans and reports, making
sure that new policies were “publicly put to their most decisive test s”.
11
In this contex t, new
urbanism emerged at the expense of built heritage and regardless of the relevance and
distinc tiveness of traditional values and the histor ic dimensions of the cit y which evolved
during the Ottoman era. As a result, between 1947 and throughout the 1950s and 1960s,
Prishtina lost its symbolic histor ic core, including the old Bazaar (Albanian: Çarshia e Vjetër)
as well as the surrounding historic environment. A similar fate befell Novi Pazar’s Bazaar
(Bosnian: Tijesna čaršija) in Sandzak, which was also destroyed in 1947.
In principle, the concept of building the new modernist legacy in socialist Yugoslavia
did not compromise historic centres
throughout the country. Urban development
schemes in ex-federal capitals introduced physical and func tional extensions of existing
5 SHUKRIU, A. Zhvillimi Ekonomik [Economic Development]. In: Kosovo and Metohija 1943 – 1963. Belgrade :
Beogradski Grafi cki zavod, 1963, p. 11.
6 DAMLJANOVIĆ CONLEY, Tanja – GUNZBURGER MAKAŠ, Emily. Shaping Central and Southeastern European
Capital Cities in the Age of Nationalism. In: GUNZBURGER MAKAŠ, Emily – DAMLJANOVIĆ CONLEY, Tanja (Eds.).
Capital Cities in the Aftermath of Empires : Planning in Central and Southeastern Europe. London; New York :
Routledge, 2009, p. 14.
7 See: MALCOLM, Noel. Kosovo : A short History. London : Macmillan Publishers, 1998, pp. 316-317.
8 GUNZBURGER MAKAŠ, E. – DAMLJANOVIĆ CONLEY, T. (Eds.). Capital..., p. 148.
9 VICKERS, Miranda. Between Serb and Albanian : A history of Kosovo. New York : Columbia University Press,
1998, p. 147.
10 See: PULA, Besnik. The Emergence of the Kosovo “Parallel State”, 1988 – 1992. In: Nationalities Papers,
2004, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 797-826. Also: MALCOLM, N. Kosovo..., pp. 327-328.
11 FISHER, Jack C. Planning the City of Socialist Man. In: Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 1962,
vol. 28, no. 4, s. 251-265. DOI: 10. 1080/01944366208979451
MESTO
DEJINY
a
57
urban centres – for example, in Novi Beograd, Novi Zagreb, and Novo Sarajevo – or
large-scale additions to formerly existing settlements, such as Podgorica (Titograd)
and Velenje.
12
The latter approach applied partially in the case of Prishtina as well, but
the prevailing approach consisted of “general radical reconstruction”, a term coined by
modern urbanists to describe interventions that led to the destruction of the traditional
city core from the Ottoman period. In principle, this approach was based on socialist
theory, which, according to Fisher, was to be made visible in spatial terms. Similar
examples outside Yugoslavia include Nowa Huta and Nowe Tychy in Poland, Sztalinvaros
in Hungary, Dimitrovgrad and resort cities along the Black Sea in Bulgaria, and Havirov
and Nová Dubnica in Czechoslovakia.13
The various forms of urbanization and architecture in socialist cities in the former
Yugoslavia have been discussed broadly by many scholars,
14
but very few studies exist
on Prishtina and its urban history in the context of Yugoslav socialist modernization.
15
One reason can be found in the fact that this period is often discussed through the
example of the capital cities of former Yugoslav republics, while Prishtina, as the
centre of the former province of Kosovo, did not provide an exemplary project of mass
urbanization and landmark architecture (apart from one or two fi ne examples, the
most notable among which is the National Library of Kosovo).
16
Another reason may be
associated with the fact that Prishtina – and Kosovo in general – are usually discussed
through the lens of the post-socialist political history of the former Yugoslavia, in
which case architectural religious monuments are mainly mentioned in the framework
of ethnic confl ict and “contested heritage”.17
Through the use of offi cial documents, monographs and archival reports of the
period, including old photographs and observations on the site, we explore the way
in which Prishtina transformed from an Ottoman to a modern socialist city. Although
limited in numbers, offi cial documents provide suffi cient information on the pace of
urbanization through the massive destruction of the inner-city area between the late
12 FRENCH, Richard Anthony – HAMILTON, Frederick Edwin Ian (Eds.). The Socialist City : Spatial Structure and
Urban Policy. Chichester; New York : Wiley, 1979, p. 183.
13 FISHER, J. C. Planning..., s. 251-265. DOI: 10. 1080/01944366208979451
14 See: THALER, Wolfgang – MRDULJAS, Maroje – KULIĆ, Vladimir. Modernism In-Between : The Mediatory
Architectures of Socialist Yugoslavia. Berlin : Jovis, 2012, 272 p. STIERLI, Martino – KULIĆ, Vladimir et al.
Toward a Concrete Utopia : Architecture in Yugoslavia, 1948 – 1980, 2018. LE NORMAND, Brigitte. Designing
Tito’s Capital : Urban Planning, Modernism, and Socialism. Pittsburgh : University of Pittsburgh Press, 2014, 320
p. TSENKOVA, Sasha. Housing Policy Reforms in Post-Socialist Europe : Lost in Transition. Heilderbeg : Physica-
Verlag, 2009, 262 p; etc. On recent literature about socialist Yugoslavia, see: MEDER, Iris. New Literature on the
Architecture of Socialist Modernity in Yugoslavia. In: Südosteuropa, 2016, vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 396-418.
15 See: HERSCHER, Andrew. Modernity, Heritage and Counter-Heritage. In: Future Anterior [online], 2006
(Winter), vol. 3, no. 2. [cit. 5. 10. 2018]. Available on the Internet: <https://courseworks2.columbia.edu/
courses/10532/fi les/579068/preview?verifi er>. SYLEJMANI, Sherafedin. Prishtina ime [My Prishtina]. Prishtina :
Java Multimedia Production, 2010, 132 p. HOXHA, Eliza. Qyteti dhe Dashuria : Ditar Urban [City and Love : Urban
Diary]. Prishtina : Center for Humanistic Studies “Gani Bobi”, 2012. GJINOLLI, Ilir – KABASHI, Lulzim (Eds.).
Kosovo modern : An architectural primer. Kosovo : National Gallery of Kosovo, 2015.
16 See: KULIĆ, Vladimir. “East? West? Or Both?” Foreign perceptions of architecture in Socialist Yugoslavia. In:
The Journal of Architecture, 2009, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 129-147.
17 On the discourse, see: GRAHAM Brian – HOWARD, Peter. The Contestation of Heritage. In: GRAHAM Brian –
HOWARD, Peter (Eds.). The Ashgate Research Companion to Heritage and Identity. Abingdon : Routledge, 2008,
pp. 19-72. On contested heritage in the former Yugoslavia, see: NAEF, Patrick – PLONER, Josef. Tourism, confl ict
and contested heritage in former Yugoslavia. In: Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 2016, vol. 14, no. 3,
pp. 181-188. DOI:10. 1080/14766825. 2016.1180802
MESTO
DEJINY
a
58
1940s and the 1970s, then between the 1970s and 1980s through new development.
18
In general, documents indicate that the planned destruction of existing structures to
make space for new modernist buildings was not based on genuine urban plans for
the city, but on fragmented interventions conducted in the spirit of a political vision
aiming at the termination of the so-called “backwardness” of the city, as the text in
the quotation above states, and which in fact was conducted through targeting the
most symbolic parts of the pre-modern city.
The initial phase of destruction was documented through an offi cial report on urban
plans and new construction between 1946 and 1951 in socialist Yugoslavia’s Serbia,
published by the Institute for Urban Planning in Belgrade in 1953. The report , entitled
“Cities and Settlements in Serbia” (Gradovi i Naselja u Srbiji) documents urban
development approaches in certain cities during the fi rst postwar decade, including
the construction of the socialist Prishtina on the foundations of its Ottoman core. Maps
and drawings provided in this repor t show the urban structures of the majorit y of cities
in Serbia before and after the planned development, coupled with explanations and
justifi cations of the approaches applied. In the Prishtina section, the report informs us
of the perspectives of the Regulation Plan (which was being fi nalized at that time, in
1953) validated through a narrative that contested the value of the city’s architectural
heritage from the Ottoman period, which state urbanists defi ned as being too remote
and, therefore, deserving of “general radical reconstruction”.
19
This approach, as
mentioned above, was only focused on symbolic parts of the city, thus leaving the
immediate surroundings of the new constructions untreated and underserviced.
As Le Normand notes in her book about Belgrade, analysis of the variations and
consistencies in the modernism of the former Yugoslavia should be “the work of many
authors”, since it is impossible to assume that the story of capital cities was replicated in
other smaller cities.
20
Drawing on this call to research, the aim of this article is to present
a timeline of the socialist modernization of Prishtina. While periods and approaches
in the development of the city correspond to the common model and development
timeframes of other socialist cities in Southeast Europe already discussed broadly
by numerous scholars, the socialist attributes of the capital city are only vaguely
identifi ed in the case of Prishtina. Being the capital city of the province of Kosovo,
within the Republic of Serbia and Yugoslavia, Prishtina had a contingent position as
both a provincial and a capital centre. Its provincial character was manifested through
means of urbanism: while modern housing quar ters showcased the regime’s approach
to improving living standards in Prishtina on equal terms with other Yugoslav cities,
these residences were developed as “model projects” with self-reliant infrastructure,
suggesting a lack of an overall vision for city’s future. Also, while these constructions
were built for the new working class, the question of representation of national
minorities
21
remained highly politicized in terms of granting privileges to the de facto
18 Two main archival documents provide statistical information about urban and architectural projects in
Prishtina during the period under discussion: Pecanin S. Spisak Detaljnih Planova na Teritoriji Grada Pristine [List
of Detailed Plans on the Territory of the City of Pristina] and Jovanovic B. Urbane aktivnosti u Pristini – Izvestaj,
June 1965. [Urban activities in Pristina – Report, June 1965]. Retrieved from the Municipal Archive of Prishtina
in May 2011.
19 See section on Prishtina in: MITROVIC, M. Gradovi..., pp. 165-166.
20 LE NORMAND, B. Designing..., p. 24.
21 See: HEPPNER, Harald. Capital city as national vision at the Serbs, Bulgarians and Romanians. In:
DOYTCHINOV, Grigor – ĐUKIĆ, Aleksandra – CĂTĂLINA, Ionită (Eds.). Planning Capital Cities : Belgrade, Bucharest,
MESTO
DEJINY
a
59
versus de jure minorities in Kosovo.
22
The character of a capital centre, on the other
hand, is readable in Prishtina’s modernist architectural landmarks, which showcase
the common visionary tendencies of this period in Yugoslavian architecture, as well
as in the international scene.
Our analysis identifi es six types of modernist contribution to the city, comparable
to Hamilton’s model of the Typical East European socialist city.
23
The fi rst four types
materialized simultaneously between the mid-1940s and the 1970s, in the form of
radical reconstruction: 1) The historic core: destruction of the Old Bazaar to create
space for new buildings for the central administration; 2) The inner-city: setting the
scene of the modern through sporadic construction of new apartment blocks inside
traditional quarters; 3) The modern city centre project: a massive renewal which
changed the image of the city; and 4) Disruption of traditional street-fronts through
the random infusion of collective apartment blocks, creating a panorama which
echoed simultaneously the progressiveness and the backwardness of the city. The
fi rst type corresponds with Hamilton’s fi rst type, (on the historic core); the second
combines his second type (on inner-city areas) and third type (on zones of transition
or reconstruction); while the third and fourth types identifi ed in case of Prishtina are
partial variations on Hamilton’s fourth type (on socialist housing of the 1950s). Two
other contributions materialized, mainly between the 1970s and the late 1980s, in the
form of new development: 5) New urban quarters created in outskirts of the existing
city, in nationalized agricultural lands, corresponding in variant to Hamilton’s fi fth
type (on residential districts of the 1960s and 1970s), and 6) Landmarks, distinctive
for their visionary architecture and potent transmission of state power.
In terms of spatial production, three of the above-mentioned types contain spatial
features identifi ed by Hirt and Stanislov: a high-density urban fabric dominated by the
city centre, where the majority of government departments, offi ces and retail buildings
are concentrated; while the fi fth type – namely, new urban quarters – corresponds
with the authors’ grouping of a core residential zone consisting of mono-functional
housing and industrial zones.24
The destruction of the Old Bazaar (1946 – 1953)
Ottoman Prishtina was a town with a compact urban structure and an identifi able
nucleus in the form of the Old Bazaar, which served as the town’s principal marketplace
and was frequented on a daily basis. Neighbourhoods were evenly distributed around
Sofi a. Graz : Verlag der Technischen Universität Graz, 2015, pp. 10-18.
22 See Malcolm’s account on the second-class position of Albanians in: MALCOLM, N. Kosovo..., p. 314.
23 Hamilton’s model consists of eight zones: (1) the historic medieval or renaissance core; (2) inner
commercial, housing, and industrial areas from the capitalist period; (3) a zone of socialist transition or renewal,
where modern construction is partially and progressively replacing inherited urban or relict-village features; (4)
socialist housing of the 1950s; (5) integrated socialist neighbourhoods and residential districts of the 1960s
and 1970s; (6) an open or planned “isolation belt”; (7) industrial or related zones; and (8) open countryside,
forest or hills, including touristic complexes. HAMILTON, Frederick Edwin Ian. Spatial structure in East European
Cities. In: FRENCH, Richard Anthony – HAMILTON, Frederick Edwin Ian (Eds.). The Socialist city : spatial structure
and urban policy. Chichester; New York : Wiley, 1979, p. 227. Scholars have used French and Hamilton’s spatial
model to analyze and narrate the production of the socialist city, its commonalities and variations. See the
consistency of Sofi a’s development with Hamilton’s model in: HIRT, Sonia. Iron curtains : Gates, suburbs and
Privatization of Space in the Post-Socialist City. Chichester : John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2012, p. 87.
24 HIRT, Sonia – STANILOV, Kiril. Twenty Years of Transition : The Evolution of Urban Planning in Eastern Europe
and the Former Soviet Union, 1989 – 2009. Nairobi : UN-Habitat, 2009, p. 23.
MESTO
DEJINY
a
60
bazaar and, as in other Ottoman cities, they maintained a superb distinction between
the public and private realms.
Throughout the late 1940s and 50s, the Prishtina’s Bazaar was the focus of modernist
interventions. B azaar shops were demolished through “voluntar y” labour imposed by the
state upon the owners, channelled through “Popular Front” volunteers.25 Although the
destruc tion of bazaars, mosques, and other structures from the Ot toman period occurred
in many cities in the region, this was not the case with cities like Sarajevo and Tirana, which
had a large local Muslim population.26 Instead, city planning would be directed towards
the creation of a new city centre, with the intention of excluding the old bazaar from the
inner-city area, as was the case with Skopje. After the earthquake of 1963, Skopje’s bazaar
once again became an integral part of the city’s central area, demonstrat ing new modern
intentions and greater sensitivity towards historical heritage.
27
While the bazaars of
Gjakova and Peja (both being secondary centres in Kosovo) were preserved for the same
reasons and later planned for with the same intention as Skopje’s, the bazaar in Prishtina
was destroyed, arguably because of its political signifi cance as a site of tension and the
bastion of the Albanian complotters.28 Its space was to be used for the new Brotherhood
and Unity Square, with two state institutions on either side of the square: namely, the
Municipal Assembly Building and the building of the Regional People’s Committee for
Kosovo (today the Parliament of Kosovo) (Fig. 1).
Makas and Conly note that the symbolic meaning of urban form was considered
“a potential generator of collective imagination and a canvas for national
representation”.
29
In the case of Prishtina, this new state administration complex, built in
the location of the pre-socialist socio-economic and political core, was to set the scene
for the new national representation of Kosovo in Yugoslavia. The symbolic meaning
of the complex was crowned with a monument to “Brotherhood and Unity” – a slogan
that promoted the equal rights of the Yugoslav people. Although brotherhood and
unity between peoples was the offi cial discourse in Yugoslavia, Albanians were openly
reminded about their inferior ethnic identity.
30
Thus, the monument was perceived
as controversial: it raised hopes for a better future for new generations, while at the
same time it triggered anxiety over losing an important aspect and the memory of
city’s identity. Through this intervention, the state became the offi cial arbitrator of
public commemoration and of national heritage constructed on the basis of the new
national memory that derived from the state.31
25 See: HERSCHER, Andrew. Is it true that Albanians are responsible for an orchestrated campaign to
destroy Kosova’s cultural heritage in modern times? In: DI LELLIO, Anna (Ed.). The Case for Kosova : Passage to
Independence. London; New York : Anthem Press, 2006, pp. 37-42.
26 DAMLJANOVIĆ CONLEY, T. – GUNZBURGER MAKAŠ, E. Shaping..., p. 9.
27 KRSTIKJ, Aleksandra – KOURA, Hisako. Transformation of the position of historic center in modernization –
Case study : Skopje’s Old Bazaar, R. Macedonia. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Urban Form.
Brisbane : ISUF, 2013, pp. 39-51.
28 On similar ethno-religious prejudices in perceptions of the Old Bazaar in Skopje, see: DIMOVA, Rozita.
Elusive centres of a Balkan city : Skopje between undesirable and reluctant heritage. In: International
Journal of Heritage Studies [online]. 2018. [cit. 28. 6. 2018]. Available on the Internet: <https://doi.
org/10. 1080/13527258. 2018.1482473>
29 DAMLJANOVIĆ CONLEY, T. – GUNZBURGER MAKAŠ, E. Shaping…, p. 10.
30 See note 18 in LE NORMAND, B. Designing..., p. 258. Also see: MALCOLM, N. Kosovo..., p. 314.
31 McDOWELL, Sara. Heri tage, Memory and Identity. In: GRAHAM Brian – HOWARD, Peter (Eds.). The Ashgate
Research Companion to Heritage and Identity. Abingdon : Routledge, 2008, p. 40.
MESTO
DEJINY
a
61
Fig. 1: Former Bazaar in Prishtina: a) New socialist state core; source: geodesic map 1986; b) Old
Bazaar in c.1937, source: geodesic survey map and location of crafts and religious buildings af-
ter F. Doli. (2001). Tradition al popular architecture of Kosova. pp. 112 – modifi ed by the author;
c) Aerial Photo of the ‘Brotherhood and Unity’ square, and d) Photo showing the Divan Yoll pro-
menade and part of the Bazaar before destruction. Photo source: Prishtina Municipality digital
photo archive: <https://kk-arkiva.rks-gov.net/prishtina/Galeria-(1)/Prishtina-e-vjeter.aspx>
(accessed October 20, 2018)
Concurrently, over 40 public drinking fountains, which distinguished the public
space in Ottoman Prishtina, were demolished over time.
32
The only public drinking
fountain that has survived is now protected by law, and is located near the Bazaar
Mosque. None of the traditional housing ensembles in the city centre enjoyed state
protection; hence, architectural structures which, at the time of designating the
protected area, were in bad shape soon decayed. This situation progressed from 1975
onwards, when the allocation of state resources moved to more productive sectors and
the production of housing was extended to the private sector. In the years to follow,
32 SYLEJMANI, Sh. Prishtina..., p. 80.
MESTO
DEJINY
a
62
many buildings were allowed to undergo physical alternations due to a long-term lack
of maintenance, or to improve living conditions within.33
The emergence of modernity (1947/8)
The beginning of modernist urbanization in Prishtina, as in other former Yugoslavian
cities, was marked by the construction of collective housing blocks. The socialist
imperative to “supply fl ats for everyone” was translated into housing provision, which
was relatively successful despite the fact that provision did not match the level of
population growth in the aftermath of the Second World War.
34
The housing sector,
and urban development in general, was owned by the state, given that the state had
nationalized urban land, real estate and the means of production.35
As early as 1947, a three-fl oor apartment block typology was introduced within
the traditional residential quarters of Prishtina. The “phoenix rising” implications
of this new architecture – a notion used by Zarecor when discussing the housing and
early socialist modernity in Czechoslovakia36 – made its appearance exemplary only as
a model development, a narrative which spoke of a future large-scale redevelopment
of traditional residences into compact modern neighbourhoods, which in fact was never
realized. The neglected spaces behind and between these modern edifi ces produced
a mismatch of spatial qualities that changed the perception and the image of the
city’s present and its “splendid” future in a matter of years (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2: Modernist housing in Prishtina introduced inside traditional quarters.
Photo source: Facebook community page “Prishtina e Vjetër” in: <https://web.facebook.com/
PrishtinaOLD/> (posted/accessed June 21, 2016)
33 TSENKOVA, S. Housing..., p. 30.
34 TSENKOVA, S. Housing..., p. 31.
35 HIRT, Sonia. Whatever happened to the (post)socialist city? In: Cities, 2013, vol. 32, pp. 29-38.
36 ZARECOR, Kimberly Elman. Manufacturing a socialist modernity : Housing in Czechoslovakia, 1945 – 1960.
Pittsburgh : University of Pittsburgh Press, 2011, pp. 13-16.
MESTO
DEJINY
a
63
The reason for limiting such interventions to “model developments” in specifi c
locations can partially be found in the fact that these buildings had replaced the
confi scated houses of those whom the regime had declared collaborators and enemies
of the country.37 In the case of Prishtina, confi scation (1944) and later nationalization
(1946) of lands and houses, which allowed for their redistribution to state offi cials,38
had aff ected mainly the Albanian population which, as Miranda Vickers notes, was
considered “politically unreliable”
39
and hence subject to systematic persecution and
discrimination.
40
Householders were prosecuted or killed and their families were dr iven
out of their homes. This kind of state intervention was a widespread phenomenon in the
Eastern Block. Ivan Szelenyi explains that the arbitrary removal of selected members of
the former ruling class enabled socialist regimes to obtain a certain amount of housing
stock deemed to address the egalitarian principles and the housing shortage problem
during the fi rst postwar phase.
41
Accordingly, vacant housing properties would then be
redistributed to the leading functionaries of the new socialist state. He further argues
that the social meaning of the housing problem is viewed by minorities as a problem
of social inequality,
42
which, in the case of Kosovo (and thus Prishtina), with Albanians
being de jure a minority in Yugoslavia and de facto a majority in Kosovo, might well
have been both engineered and perceived as political.43
Nevertheless, the major reason that these new housing constructions halted after
the erection of these model inner-city apartment blocks was that the regime, as in
other parts of Yugoslavia, was prioritizing infrastructure and industry, despite the
proclaimed prioritization of housing provision. As a consequence, the improvement
of living standard through new housing construction was largely postponed to a later
date.44
The new city centre (1947/8 to 1953/4)
The destruction of the Bazaar went hand-in-hand with the construction of new
public buildings and apartment blocks in the inner city, which started as early as 1947.
Actions taken during this period were referred to by modernist planners as “urban
activities” which, according to them, were “operative works necessary for preparing
a study on the development of Prishtina City”.45 The detailed urban plan for the city
centre was adopted in 1967, about two decades after the actual urban renewal begun.
46
37 LE NORMAND, B. Designing..., p. 30.
38 LE NORMAND, B. Designing..., p. 30.
39 VICKERS, M. Between..., p. 141.
40 VICKERS, Miranda. The Albanians : A Modern History. Third Edition. New York : I. B. Tauris Publishers, 2001,
p. 174.
41 SZELENYI, Ivan. Urban Inequalities under State Socialism. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1983, p. 29.
42 SZELENYI, I. Urban..., p. 20.
43 A recently published list of 381 Prishtina citizens deemed to be enemies and killed by partisans after WWII
opened a discussion about the politically motivated termination of the former elite in Prishtina. See: Ekskluzive:
Lista e të vrarëve nga komunistët në Prishtinë, që më dekada ishte top-sekret [Exclusive: List of the killed by
communists in Pristina, which for decades was top-secret]. [online]. [cit. 27. 10. 2018]. Available on the Internet:
<https://telegrafi .com/ekskluzive-lista-e-te-vrareve-nga-komunistet-ne-prishtine-qe-me-dekada-ishte-top-
sekret/>
44 LE NORMAND, B. Designing..., pp. 38, 73.
45 JOVANOVIC, B. Urbane aktivnosti u Pristini – Izvestaj, June 1965, Archival document.
46 PECANIN, S. Spisak Detaljnih Planova na Teritoriji Grada Pristine, Archival document.
MESTO
DEJINY
a
64
In the following decades (the 1950s and 60s), a major undertaking took place
along Lokaq Street: the former north-south axis of the town that stretched southwards
from the Old Bazaar, historically known for craft fairs and commerce. This street,
which as early as 1947 was named after Marshal Tito (today it is known as Mother
Teresa Boulevard) was redeveloped into the city’s main artery, along which new state
edifi ces were built. Apart from institutions, apartment housing blocks were built in
the surrounding area (Fig. 3.a).
The city centre project required major demolition beside that of the Old Bazaar.
A Catholic church and a 16
th
-century mosque, along with cemeteries located on the
eastern side of the street, were destroyed to create space for the Hotel Bozhur (today
Hotel Swiss Diamond) and the former Gërmia shopping mall; the River Prisht ina (Serbian:
Prištevka) was also buried in this very location. The western side of the boulevard, which
contained two historical layers from the past – Ottoman style two-story houses with
a commercial ground fl oor and early 20th-century edifi ces erected under the western
infl uence – suff ered the same fate (Fig. 3.b).
Fig. 3: Modern city centre of Prishtina, built on the foundations of its historic centre: a) Marshal
Tito Street and its surrounds (photo source: Mekuli E. and Cukic D. eds. The Prishtina Monograph,
1965); b) Urban architectural structures destroyed during the 1950s and 60s to make space for
Marshal Tito St reet . Top row, from the left : Lokac Mosque; the Catholic church, the River Prishtina.
Bottom: view of the boulevard with Lukac mosque on the left and 20th-century architecture on
the right. (Photo source: Facebook community page “Prishtina e Vjetër”: <https://web.facebook.
com/PrishtinaOLD/> (accessed January 24, 2017)
The redevelopment of the north-south axis into Marshal Tito Street was a project
that settled the new national iconography of socialist Prishtina. Its monumental and
regularized fronts were designed to resemble the architecture of other European
capitals, and used imported features found in other cities of Central and Southeastern
Europe.47 In the years to follow, the signifi cance of the street rose, as it was the route
along which the Marshal himself would parade when visiting or transiting Prishtina
on his way to Skopje. The impression that would emerge out of the restructured vistas
47 See: GUNZBURGER MAKAŠ, E. – DAMLJANOVIĆ CONLEY, T. (Eds.). Capital..., pp. 11-12.
MESTO
DEJINY
a
65
substantiated the alleged offi cial eff orts for the modernization of the capital of Kosovo
to take place on equal terms with that of other Yugoslav cities.
Disruption of traditional street-fronts (1960s)
One aspect of urban regeneration that had a critical impact on the urban and social
fragmentation of the historic city during the 1960s was the disruption of the perimetric
area of the traditional quarter, through widening the streets and building apartment
blocks in a random manner. One clear example of this is the former promenade Divan
Yoll, which used to defi ne the southern side of the traditional quarter of Tophane.
During the 1960s, the street was named after the Yugoslav Army (JNA), and along it
the JNA Cinema, as well as few housing blocks, were randomly infused. As with the fi rst
apartments blocks from 1947 discussed above, the urban quality of the areas between
and behind new buildings clashed, and the overall image of the once compact quarter
of Tophane suff ered.
As was the case in other socialist cities, the new residential buildings were
isolated units built by the state for the higher social strata, such as skilled workers and
technicians, bureaucrats, and intellectuals.48 Their proximity to the state institutions
(see Fig. 4) suggests that these buildings were built with the intention to supply fl ats
for those employed in state institutions, more than as a solution to upgrading existing
urban neighbourhoods in response to the fast-growing population of the city – an
approach which is otherwise typically pursued in the socialist city, as documented by
Hirt through the case of Sofi a.49 By maintaining such diversity in the city centre, the
offi cial narrative on socialist Prishtina was two-faced; on the one hand, it informed about
potentials of modern streets and architecture, while on the other hand, it disseminated
the label of so-called remote urban culture upon what was left of the underdeveloped
Ottoman-type neighbourhood. Many similar vistas in the city have been inherited from
the socialist past, suggesting that the socialist regime’s lack of interest in upgrading
these urban contexts was not only conditioned by changes in housing policy in years
to come, but was also intentional in the sense that upgrading the living (and working)
standards of the majority of Albanian citizens in Prishtina was not a priority.50
48 See: SZELENYI, I. Urban..., pp. 52-54.
49 HIRT, S. Iron..., p. 84.
50 Malcolm notes that during 1950 and ‘60s, a strong ethnic imbalance existed in Kosovo: Serbs and
Montenegrins accounted for 68% of administrative and leading positions and also made up about 50% of the
workers. He also notes that most investment in Kosovo was concentrated in “primary” industries (mining, basic
chemical plants and power stations, which supplied materials or energy for use elsewhere in Yugoslavia) which
were capital-intensive but not labour-intensive, and which were unfortunate for the fast-growing population in
Kosovo. See MALCOLM, N. Kosovo..., p. 323.
MESTO
DEJINY
a
66
Fig. 4: Former Divan Yoll promenade: Disruption of traditional quarters’ perimeter.
Source of picture: Facebook community page “Prishtina e Vjetër”: <https://web.facebook.com/
PrishtinaOLD/> (posted and accessed December 7, 2017)
This “piecemeal” approach to city development was a problem commonly
encountered elsewhere in Yugoslavia during the 1960s, as a result of a lack of
conformity in the implementation of urban plans following the adoption of the Urban
and Regional Planning Law in 1961. Le Normand tells of how “several detailed site
plans for parts of New Belgrade were adopted prior to the creation of the regulation
plan”.
51
While this was a typical approach pursued in Prishtina during 1960s, later
development plans moved the overall focus from Tophane and the inner city to the new
modern neighbourhoods, leaving the traditional area with a slightly worn-out look.52
Due to the maintenance of such vistas in the heart of the city in the decades to follow,
the perception is that the regime showcased the “persistence” of backwardness in
Prishtina and framed the city’s socio-spatial identity in the modern Yugoslav context.53
New neighbourhoods (1970 – 80s)
The dynamic of urban transition was overwhelming during the 1970s. In a matter
of years, Prishtina had gained the appearance of a socialist city being modernized
under the umbrella of the national identity of socialist Yugoslavia. In the space of ten
years, the population of Prishtina nearly doubled: from 69,514 registered inhabitants
in 1971 to 108,083 in 1981.54 Population growth raised the demand for housing stock.
Between late 1970s and late 1980s, the city expanded southwards, with four new
neighbourhoods of collective housing created using the mass prefabricated techniques
51 LE NORMAND, B. Designing..., p. 118.
52 See: HIRT, S. Iron..., p. 87.
53 Hirt notes when narrating Sofi a that: “selected downtown neighbourhoods which were occupied by socialist
elites retained an aura of prestige and desirability”. See: HIRT, S. Iron..., p. 87. The case of Prishtina diff ers in the
sense that after the fragmented transformations, areas like Tophane did not retain nor create the anticipated
image of a good place to live.
54 Municipality of Prishtina (1988). Urban Plan of Prishtina, 2000, p. 5.
MESTO
DEJINY
a
67
which, since the 1960s, had been predominant in urban housing construction in socialist
countries.55
Individual residential quarters were also built on three of Prishtina’s hills: the
Taukbashqe housing quarter (adjacent to Taukbashqe Park in the east), Aktashi 3
(southeast of the modern neighbourhood of Sunny Hill), and Dragodan (on the hill
to the west of the city, today known as Arbëria). These new neighbourhoods were
comprised of family houses designed according to standard blueprints, which aimed
to off er standardized living conditions in terms of design and comfort. As in other
socialist cities, houses were occupied by the rich and higher-income groups of workers.
56
The rest of the city, and especially the entire northern part of Prishtina, remained
underdeveloped and hidden behind new modern blocks.
Neighbourhoods of collective housing are surely the most visible contribution of
the period. They were built in relatively vacant lands that were nationalized by the state
and planned as state -owned collective housing , which was the main subsidized form of
housing tenure under socialism, as was typically the case in other socialist countries in
Southeast Europe.
57
Four such neighbourhoods were created in the southern part of the
city: Sunny Hill, Ulpiana, Dardania, and Lakrishte (Fig 6). As above (and as was typical in
socialist Central and Southeastern European cities), people with higher qualifi cations
and incomes obtained a large share of the housing in these new apartment buildings.
58
The residential blocks tended to cluster workers employed in state organizations and
industries,59 and were therefore functionally linked with the city centre through the
construction of a new east-west axis (today E. Maloku Street).
Fig. 5: Modernist qua rters in Prishtina. Fro m t he left : New neighbourh oods created in the s outhern
part of the city, picture taken in 1963; Ulpiana neighbourhood, picture taken in 1980s. Source:
Facebook community page “Prishtina e Vjetër”: <https://web.facebook.com/PrishtinaOLD/>
(accessed December 7, 2017) June 26, 2016
55 SMITH, David M. The Socialist City. In: ANDRUSZ, Gregory – HARLOE, Michael – SZELENYI, Ivan (Eds.). Cities
After Socialism : Urban and Regional Change and Confl ict in Post�Socialist Societies [online]. 2008, pp. 70-99. doi.
org/10. 1002/9780470712733.ch3
56 See: SZELENYI, I. Urban..., pp.10, 63.
57 MARCIŃCZAK, Szymon – GENTILE, Michael – RUFAT, Samuel – CHELCEA, Liviu. Urban Geographies of Hesitant
Transition : Tracing Socioeconomic Segregation in Post�Ceauşescu Bucharest. In: International Journal of Urban
and Regional Research, 2014, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 1399-1417.
58 SZELENYI, I. Urban..., pp. 56, 63.
59 MARCIŃCZAK, Sz. – GENTILE, M. – RUFAT, S. – CHELCEA, L. Urban..., pp. 1399-1417.
MESTO
DEJINY
a
68
In theory, as Hirt notes, new housing quarters were planned as self-suffi cient
neighbourhoods and were supposed to provide the new residents with a full range
of services.
60
In practice, services were simply left out, due to the prioritization of
residential construction over commercial, social, cultural, or other facilities.
61
While this
was certainly the case in Pr ishtina, evidence on the ground also shows neglect towards
basic street infrastructure. Although developed adjacent to each other, the modern
neighbourhoods failed to connect in spatial terms: a street network and transport
system that would interlink the neighbourhoods through district roads was not realized,
although it had been planned since 1953, while the eastern segment of the new axis
(E. Qabej Street – the extension of E. Maloku Street) terminated as a dead-end that
provided access to only one neighbourhood (Sunny Hill). Our observation, shaped in
the context of the street demonstrations of the 1990s,62 suggests that that the logic
behind dead-end streets in Prishtina and the keeping of main arteries disconnected
was intentional, in the sense that the regime wanted to have control over civic and
political activity in the city.
Landmarks (1970 – 80s)
The most remarkable contribution of the socialist period in Prishtina is the
architecture of public buildings, which transmits the highly progressive goals of
modernist architecture in the socialist Yugoslavia and beyond.63 As acknowledged by
scholars, the communist regime constructed public buildings that were elegant and
complex, and also quite potent in conveying the desired image of a socially, economically
and politically progressive state.
64
The avant-garde architecture in Yugoslavia is also
interpreted as a direct portrayal of the avant-garde status of Yugoslav socialism.
65
Today, public buildings from the socialist period in Prishtina represent the main
architectural landmarks of the city. They are positioned along the main streets that
defi ne the modern centre, with a few located in open spaces, with the intention of
creating exemplary urban blocks that transmit contemporary approaches in design
and building technology. Some of most notable buildings (such as the Youth and Sport
Centre, the National Library, the former Printing House, and the Central Bank of Kosovo)
have shaped Prishtina’s character as the capital city of Kosovo. The architecture of these
modern landmarks is quite diverse in terms of mass, form and aesthetic excellence,
as commonly observed in other Yugoslav cities. Nevertheless, we argue that popular
perception, rather than the intentions behind the landmarks, is the main driver of the
peculiar narrative on socialist Prishtina. In some of the more complex buildings, like
the Youth and Spor ts Centre and the National Library, symbolic meanings were publicly
60 HIRT, S. Iron..., p. 86.
61 LE NORMAND, B. Designing..., p. 132.
62 See: BIEBER, Florian – DASKALOVSKI, Zidas. (Eds.). Understanding the war in Kosovo. London : Frank Cass
Publishers, 2003, p. 322.
63 Recent major engagement to document the modern character of architecture in the socialist Yugoslavia
through an international exhibition is undertaken by MOMA: “Toward a Concrete Utopia : Architecture in
Yugoslavia, 1948 – 1980” introduces the exceptional work of socialist Yugoslavia’s leading architects to an
international audience. See: Toward a Concrete Utopia : Architecture in Yugoslavia [online]. [cit. 20. 7. 2018].
Available on the Internet: <www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/3931>
64 HIRT, S. Iron..., p. 178. LE NORMAND, B. Designing..., p. 38.
65 See: KULIĆ, Vladimir. An Avant-Garde Architecture for an Avant-Garde Socialism : Yugoslavia at EXPO ’58. In:
Journal of Contemporary History, 2012, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 161-184.
MESTO
DEJINY
a
69
communicated and reinterpreted among the general public, while for others lacking in
such formal interpretation, their meanings can be derived from political presumptions.
In narrating the Yugoslav pavilion for the Expo 1958 in Brussels, Kulić notes how
political messages, rather than architectural features or other qualities of the building,
were interwoven into its design and, by extension, the positive as well as negative
public perceptions of the pavilion.
66
For example, the ground fl oor of the pavilion was
completely open and had no doors, suggesting “Yugoslavia’s open borders and its
emergent international policy of ‘peaceful active coexistence’”.67 Similar tendencies
towards such ideological formulations are found in Prishtina, illustrating how political
notions predetermined both public perceptions and the overall political tension that
existed in Kosovo prior to the war of 1998/99. For example, the ideolog y of “brotherhood
and unity” is communicated through the massive and elaborate Sport s and Youth Palace.
Formerly called “Boro and Ramiz” and often referred only as “Bororamiz”, a message
of Slovenian economic superiority can be perceived through its daring eight-meter
console, supporting a four-storey segment of the former Ljubljanska Bank. In another
example, the cultural power and imposition of the Serbian “folk Estrada” is personifi ed
by the beautiful “semi-nude” façade of the Kosovo Energetic Corporation (KEK) building,
formerly known as “Lepa Brena”.
Fig. 6: Landmarks of modern architecture in Prishtina: (a) Sports and Youth Centre; (b) Former
Bank of Ljubljana; (c) KEK Building (source: author)
The Sports and Youth Palace (Fig. 6a) was built in phases between 1975 and 1981 as
a symbol of a new political era in Kosovo following the adoption of the Constitution of
1974, which granted Kosovo high-level autonomous status within Yugoslavia.
68
It was
named after two partisans declared “people’s heroes” – the Serbian Boro Vukmirović
and the Albanian Ramiz Sadiku – with the intention of fostering the idea of “brotherhood
and unity” between Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo. One popular interpretation of the
late-1970s of the building’s roof, which is composed of t wo sets of beams rising sharply
at the roof top, was that it represented these two Yugoslavian heroes rising to glory
in brotherhood and unity. As Kulić notes in his enlightening research on the evolving
cycle of the aforementioned Expo pavilion and its meaning, when such a frame of mind
exists, other qualities of the building are not noticed or interpreted. What people in
the 1980s knew little about is that certain formal stylistic features of the building
are similar to those of Metabolist architecture and the idea of megastructures, which
66 KULIĆ, V. An Avant-Garde..., pp. 161-184.
67 KULIĆ, V. An Avant-Garde..., pp. 161-184.
68 MALCOLM, N. Kosovo..., pp. 315, 324-325.
MESTO
DEJINY
a
70
became popular in 1970s and was familiar to Yugoslav architects particularly through
works such as Kenzo Tange’s masterplan for Skopje.
69
One such megastructure, planned
for Dar Es Salaam by another leading Metabolist architect, Kisho Kurokawa,
70
might
well have served as a source of inspiration to the architect of the Sports and Youth
Centre in Prishtina.
This aspect of landmark architecture, including architectural language, ideals and
style, is almost absent in the interpretation of the modernist architecture of Prishtina.
In contrast to the Sports and Youth Centre and some other public buildings built in
1970s, those from a decade later lack any overall interpretation, be it architectural or
based on formal ideology. Generally speaking, all modern landmarks in Prishtina are
appreciated in terms of aesthetics and innovation in construction technology, but the
public perception is mainly shaped around the perceived interest of former federal
republics in investing in Kosovo, with the exception of the “Boro and Ramiz” Palace,
which was partially fi nanced by Kosovars themselves through “self-contributions”.71
While certain landmarks were either named and later nicknamed based on fi rstly
imposed and later perceived ideology, the Ljubljanska Banka, built in the mid-1980s
72
(Fig. 6b) is acknowledged as a “friendly” modern building. It was the dimension of
Slovenian economic wealth against which the building gained most appreciation as
a welcome investment in Kosovo. Slovenia had also fi nanced Kosovo with a considerable
amount of money in the context of economic initiatives that prioritized investments in
less developed regions, with the intention of bringing about the anticipated equality
among the republics.73 Hence, Slovenia was perceived by Kosovars more as European
than Yugoslavian; also, because it was the fi rst among republics to question the Serbian
version of “Yugoslavism”.
74
These aspects of the political economy prevailed in the
69 In 1965, Japanese architect Kenzo Tange was selected as the winner of an international competition to
redesign and rebuild the city centre of Skopje after the earthquake of 1963 that destroyed more than half of the
city.
70 Compare photo of New Tanu National Headquarters, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, designed by Kisho Kurokawa:
KUROKAWA, Kisho. New Tanu National Headquarters, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, 1972 [online]. [cit. 15. 07. 2018].
Available on the Internet: <http://archiveofaffi nities.tumblr.com/post/4265467730/kisho-kurokawa-new-tanu-
national-headquarters>
71 Self-contribution was a form of fi nancing in which a portion of individuals’ salaries was allocated for
investing in the self-management of infrastructure; 30% of fi nances for the construction of the Sports and
Youth Palace came from “self-contribution”, with the remaining 70% raised through bank loans. See: Historiku
i Pallatit të Rinisë [History of the Youth Palace] [online]. [cit. 15. 7. 2018]. Available on the Internet: <http://www.
pallatirinise.com/indexcde7.html?option=com_content&view=article&id=1&Itemid=68>
72 By 1981, Ljubljanska Banka had established eight associated banks outside Slovenia, one of which was
the “Basic Bank Prishtina”. On the background, see: UDOVIČ, Boštjan. The Problem of Hard-currency Savings in
Ljubljanska Banka d. d., Ljubljana : Between Politics and (International) Law. In: Studia Historica Slovenica, 2011,
vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 185-213. Apart from the fact that Ljubljanska Banka was established in 1900 and was re-
established in 1972, there is no information or study describing the background of its role and assets in Kosovo,
including the building in Prishtina.
73 On aspects of the investment policy in the former Yugoslavia, see: FRUCHT, Richard. Eastern Europe : An
introduction to the people, lands, and culture. Santa Barbara : ABC-CLIO, 2005, p. 492.
74 The Serbian version of “Yugoslavism”, as perceived by Kosovo Albanians, takes reference from Dobrica
Cosic, a Serbian writer, who supported the Yugoslav Federation at the verge of its breakdown. In 1992, he
argued that Yugoslavism, the foundation of which was to be a free citizen where everyone in the Yugoslav
nation had equal rights (Yugoslavism of the Federation) could be sustained “as long as it enables the realization
of the historical goal of the Serb nation - the unifi cation of all Serbs into one state”. See more in: PAVKOVIĆ,
Aleksandar. From Yugoslavism to Serbism : the Serb national idea 1986 – 1996. In: Nations and Nationalism,
1998, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 511-528.
MESTO
DEJINY
a
71
narrative on Slovenian investments in Kosovo, including the Ljubljanska Banka – both
as an investment opportunity and as a building.
The headquarters of the Kosovo Energetic Corporation (KEK building; Fig. 6c)
represents the opposite case. Symbolic representations attached to the building
are directly linked to the context of the late 1980s. The building was nicknamed
“Lepa Brena”, after the most popular pop-folk singer of the decade. The exact reason
why the KEK building was named after her is unknown, but there are a few possible
reasons that speak of a sarcastic attitude among Albanians in the context of ethnic
tensions in Kosovo. They relate to the imposition of Serbian “folk Estrada” through
television, which broadcast controlled content following the suppression of the Kosovo
broadcaster, as well as Serbia’s interest in Kosovo’s electric power production and
lignite reserves (the fi fth largest reserve in the world). In 1989, a time associated
with rising ethnic nationalism in ex-Yugoslavia, and precisely the year when Serbia
abolished Kosovo’s autonomy, Lepa Brena released the song “Jugoslovenka” which
promoted Yugoslav identity.
75
Despite the fact that she declared herself as a true
Yugoslav and was portrayed as such, the patriotic content of her songs directly referred
to Serbia (Sumadia),76 making Lepa Brena – and the KEK building – symbols of Serbian
nationalism in the eyes of Kosovo Albanians. Besides that, she was attractive on stage,
a dimension that was also attributed to the architecture of the KEK building, while KEK
itself symbolized the mining sector in Kosovo, another side of “attractiveness” often
mentioned as one of causes of the Kosovo confl ict.
Conclusion
This paper aimed to contribute to empirical studies on urban development
approaches in the building of modern cities in socialist Yugoslav ia through the example
of Prishtina, the capital city of Kosovo. It argues that the theoretical model of the
socialist city was pursued in Prishtina, off ering evidence that the intentions of modern
urbanism and architecture in the city were similar to those in other cities with a socialist
past. However, the political, cultural, and ideological contexts infl uencing the re-
making of socialist Prishtina are slightly specifi c. The regime engaged in the selective
destruction of architectural inheritance from the Ottoman era, based on the justifi cation
that it represented primitive culture and the backwardness of the city and its people.
The act of destroying existing structures in the city was not exclusive to Prishtina, but
the targeting of symbolic places that had shaped the city’s identity in pre-modern
times indicates that the regime intended to erase the cultural constructs of the city.
The second aspect of modernization – new developments – was more specifi c. As
in other socialist cities, urbanization and new architecture in Prishtina was realized
in fragments, thus visually competing with the pre-socialist pattern of the city. The
specifi city consists of the fact that the new developments were rather symbolic when
compared to the mass construction carried out in other socialist capital cities. This
approach ensured that Prishtina maintained a provincial character where the unfi nished
urban projects would transmit the so-called backwardness of the city, framing
Prishtina’s urban identity in the modern context. Today, many vistas showing the
75 MALCOLM, N. Kosovo..., p. 344.
76 The songs Mile voli disko (“Mile likes disco”) and Čačak were often recognized as nationalistic. See:
HOFMAN, Ana. Lepa Brena : Repolitization of Musical Memories on Yugoslavia. In: Glasnik Etnografskog Instituta
SANU, 2011, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 21-32.
MESTO
DEJINY
a
72
mismatch of spatial qualities document the unfi nished mode of socialist urbanizat ion in
Prishtina. This ar ticle mainly tries to argue that the variation in development types in the
case of Prishtina suggests that the production of the city’s image through fragmented
urban interventions rather than genuine urban development was either politically
and ethnically motivated, or was simply a result of Serbia’s – and, thus, the Yugoslav
regime’s – neglect towards modernizing the capital of Kosovo. It is only through its
architectural landmarks that the attributes of the capital city are shaped: a legacy which
remains the most prolifi c part of the socialist modernization of Prishtina, despite the
perceived intentions behind the city’s modernist re-creation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Arsim Canolli and the two anonymous reviewers for their
comments and editing of the text.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Municipality of Prishtina (1988). Urban Plan of Prishtina 2000.
Municipality of Prishtina Archive: Spisak Detaljnih Planova na Teritoriji Grada Pristine [List
of Detailed Plans on the Territory of the City of Pristina], by Pecanin, S.: Archival document
retrieved in May 2011.
Municipality of Prishtina Archive: Urbane aktivnosti u Pristini – Izvestaj, June 1965 [Urban
activities in Pristina – Report, June 1965], by Jovanovic, B. Archival document retrieved in
May 2011.
Municipality of Prishtina Digital Archive. (accessed October 27, 2018) https://kk-arkiva.rks-
gov.net/prishtina/Galeria-(1)/Prishtina-e-vjeter.aspx
BIEBER, Florian – DASKALOVSKI, Zidas. (Eds.). Understanding the war in Kosovo. London :
Frank Cass Publishers, 2003, 368 p.
CASCIATO, Maristella. Modern Architecture is Durable : Using Change to Preserve. In:
HEUVEL, Dirk van den et al. Proc. of the 10th Int. DOCOMOMO Conf. : The Challenge of
Change: Dealing with the Legacy of the Modern Movement. Netherlands : IOS Press, 2008,
pp. xiii-xiv.
DAMLJANOVIĆ CONLEY, Tanja – GUNZBURGER MAKAŠ, Emily. Shaping Central and
Southeastern European Capital Cities in the Age of Nationalism. In: GUNZBURGER
MAKAŠ, Emily – DAMLJANOVIĆ CONLEY, Tanja (Eds.). Capital Cities in the Aftermath
of Empires : Planning in Central and Southeastern Europe. London; New York : Routledge,
2009, pp. 1-27.
DIMOVA, Rozita. Elusive centres of a Balkan city : Skopje between undesirable and reluctant
heritage. In: International Journal of Heritage Studies [online]. 2018. [cit. 28. 6. 2018].
Available on the Internet: <https://doi.org/10. 1080/13527258. 2018.1482473>
DOLI, Flamur. Traditional popular architecture of Kosovo. Prishtina : Catalog of Heritage
Exhibition, 2001, 139 p.
Ekskluzive: Lista e të vrarëve nga komunistët në Prishtinë, që më dekada ishte top-sekret
[Exclusive: List of the killed by communists in Pristina, which for decades was top-secret].
[online]. [cit. 27. 10. 2018]. Available on the Internet: <https://telegrafi .com/ekskluzive-lista-
e-te-vrareve-nga-komunistet-ne-prishtine-qe-me-dekada-ishte-top-sekret/>
FISHER, Jack C. Planning the City of Socialist Man. In: Journal of the American Institute of
Planners, 1962. vol. 28, no. 4, s. 251-265. DOI: 10. 1080/01944366208979451
FRENCH, Richard Anthony – HAMILTON, Frederick Edwin Ian (Eds.). The Socialist City :
Spatial Structure and Urban Policy. Chichester; New York : Wiley, 1979, 541 p.
FRUCHT, Richard. Eastern Europe : An introduction to the people, lands, and culture. Santa
Barbara : ABC-CLIO, 2005, 928 p.
MESTO
DEJINY
a
73
GJINOLLI, Ilir – KABASHI, Lulzim (Eds.). Kosovo modern : An architectural primer. Kosovo :
National Gallery of Kosovo, 2015.
GRAHAM Brian – HOWARD, Peter. The Contestation of Heritage. In: GRAHAM Brian –
HOWARD, Peter (Eds.). The Ashgate Research Companion to Heritage and Identity.
Abingdon : Routledge, 2008, pp. 19-72.
GUNZBURGER MAKAŠ, Emily – DAMLJANOVIĆ CONLEY, Tanja (Eds.). Capital Cities
in the Aftermath of Empires : Planning in Central and Southeastern Europe. London; New
York : Routledge, 2009, 296 p.
HAMILTON, Frederick Edwin Ian. Spatial structure in East European Cities. In: FRENCH,
Richard Anthony – HAMILTON, Frederick Edwin Ian (Eds.). The Socialist city : Spatial
structure and urban policy. Chichester; New York : Wiley, 1979, pp. 195-262.
HEPPNER, Harald. Capital city as national vision at the Serbs, Bulgarians and Romanians.
In: DOYTCHINOV, Grigor – ĐUKIĆ, Aleksandra – CĂTĂLINA, Ionită (Eds.). Planning
Capital Cities : Belgrade, Bucharest, Sofi a. Graz : Verlag der Technischen Universität Graz,
2015, pp. 10-18.
HERSCHER, Andrew. Is it true that Albanians are responsible for an orchestrated campaign
to destroy Kosova’s cultural heritage in modern times? In: DI LELLIO, Anna (Ed.). The Case
for Kosova : Passage to Independence. London; New York : Anthem Press, 2006, p. 37-42.
HERSCHER, Andrew. Modernity, Heritage and Counter-Heritage. In: Future Anterior
[online], 2006 (Winter), vol. III, no. 2. [cit. 5. 10. 2018]. Available on the Internet: <https://
courseworks2.columbia.edu/courses/10532/fi les/579068/preview?verifi er>
HEUVEL, Dirk van den. Buildings and Ideologies. In: HEUVEL, Dirk van den et al. Proc. of
the 10th Int. DOCOMOMO Conf. : The Challenge of Change : Dealing with the Legacy of the
Modern Movement. Netherlands : IOS Press, 2008, p. 35.
HIRT, Sonia. Iron curtains : Gates, suburbs and Privatization of Space in the Post-Socialist
City. Chichester : John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2012, 239 p.
HIRT, Sonia. Whatever happened to the (post)socialist city? In: Cities, 2013, vol. 32, pp. 29-38.
HIRT, Sonia – STANILOV, Kiril. Twenty Years of Transition : The Evolution of Urban
Planning in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, 1989 – 2009. Nairobi : UN-
Habitat, 2009, 146 p.
Historiku i Pallatit të Rinisë [History of the Youth Palace] [online]. [cit. 15. 7. 2018].
Available on the Internet: <http://www.pallatirinise.com/indexcde7.html?option=com_
content&view=article&id=1&Itemid=68>
HOFMAN, Ana. Lepa Brena : Repolitization of Musical Memories on Yugoslavia. In: Glasnik
Etnografskog Instituta SANU, 2011, vol. 60, no.1, pp. 21-32.
HOXHA, Eliza. Qyteti dhe Dashuria : Ditar Urban [City and Love : Urban Diary]. Prishtina :
Center for Humanistic Studies “Gani Bobi”, 2012, 306 p.
KRSTIKJ, Aleksandra – KOURA, Hisako. Transformation of the position of historic center
in modernization – Case study : Skopje’s Old Bazaar, R. Macedonia. Proceedings of the 20th
International Conference on Urban Form. Brisbane : ISUF, 2013, pp. 39-51.
KULIĆ, Vladimir. “East? West? Or Both?” Foreign perceptions of architecture in Socialist
Yugoslavia. In: The Journal of Architecture, 2009, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 129-147.
KULIĆ, Vladimir. An Avant-Garde Architecture for an Avant-Garde Socialism : Yugoslavia at
EXPO ’58. In: Journal of Contemporary History, 2012, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 161-184.
KUROKAWA, Kisho. New Tanu National Headquarters, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, 1972
[online]. [cit. 15. 07. 2018]. Available on the Internet: <http://archiveofaffi nities.tumblr.com/
post/4265467730/kisho-kurokawa-new-tanu-national-headquarters>
LE NORMAND, Brigitte. Designing Tito’s Capital : Urban Planning, Modernism, and
Socialism. Pittsburgh : University of Pittsburgh Press, 2014, 320 p.
MALCOLM, Noel. Kosovo : A short History. London : Macmillan Publishers, 1998, 492 p.
MARCIŃCZAK, Szymon – GENTILE, Michael – RUFAT, Samuel – CHELCEA, Liviu. Urban
Geographies of Hesitant Transition : Tracing Socioeconomic Segregation in PostCeauşescu
Bucharest. In: International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2014, vol. 38, no. 4,
pp. 1399-1417.
MESTO
DEJINY
a
74
McDOWELL, Sara. Heritage, Memory and Identity. In: GRAHAM Brian – HOWARD, Peter
(Eds.). The Ashgate Research Companion to Heritage and Identity. Abingdon : Routledge,
2008, pp. 37-53.
MEDER, Iris. New Literature on the Architecture of Socialist Modernity in Yugoslavia. In:
Südosteuropa, 2016, vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 396-418.
MITROVIC, Mihajlo. Gradovi i Naselja u Srbiji [Cities and Villages in Serbia]. Beograd :
Urbanistički Zavod Narodne Republike Srbije, 1953, 253 p.
NAEF, Patrick – PLONER, Josef. Tourism, confl ict and contested heritage in former
Yugoslavia. In: Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 2016, vol.14, no. 3, pp. 181-188.
DOI:10. 1080/14766825. 2016.1180802
PAVKOVIĆ, Aleksandar. From Yugoslavism to Serbism : the Serb national idea 1986 – 1996.
In: Nations and Nationalism, 1998, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 511-528.
PULA, Besnik. The Emergence of the Kosovo “Parallel State”, 1988 – 1992. In: Nationalities
Papers, 2004, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 797-826.
SHUKRIU, A. Zhvillimi Ekonomik [Economic Development]. In: Kosovo and Metohija 1943 –
1963. Beogradski Grafi cki zavod : Belgrade, 1963.
SMITH, David M. The Socialist City. In: ANDRUSZ, Gregory – HARLOE, Michael –
SZELENYI, Ivan (Eds.). Cities After Socialism : Urban and Regional Change and Confl ict in
PostSocialist Societies [online]. 2008, pp. 70-99. doi.org/10. 1002/9780470712733.ch3
STIERLI, Martino – KULIĆ, Vladimir et al. Toward a Concrete Utopia : Architecture in
Yugoslavia, 1948 – 1980. Exhibition [online]. 2018. [cit. 20. 7. 2018]. Available on the
Internet: <www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/3931>
SYLEJMANI, Sherafedin. Prishtina ime [My Prishtina]. Prishtina : Java Multimedia
Production, 2010, 132 p.
SZELENYI, Ivan. Urban Inequalities under State Socialism. Oxford : Oxford University Press,
1983, 158 p.
THALER, Wolfgang – MRDULJAS, Maroje – KULIĆ, Vladimir. Modernism In-Between : The
Mediatory Architectures of Socialist Yugoslavia. Berlin : Jovis, 2012, 272 p.
TSENKOVA, Sasha. Housing Policy Reforms in Post-Socialist Europe : Lost in Transition.
Heilderbeg : Physica-Verlag, 2009, 262 p.
UDOVIČ, Boštjan. The Problem of Hard-currency Savings in Ljubljanska Banka d. d.,
Ljubljana : Between Politics and (International) Law. In: Studia Historica Slovenica, 2011,
vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 185-213.
VICKERS, Miranda. Between Serb and Albanian : A history of Kosovo. New York : Columbia
University Press, 1998, 280 p.
VICKERS, Miranda. The Albanians : A Modern History. Third Edition. New York : I. B. Tauris
Publishers, 2001, 304 p.
ZARECOR, Kimberly Elman. Manufacturing a socialist modernity : Housing in
Czechoslovakia, 1945 – 1960. Pittsburgh : University of Pittsburgh Press, 2011, 383 p.
