Historical Enquiry as a Critical Method in Urban Riverscape Revisions: The Case of Belgrade’s Confluence

Abstract

This article aims to underline the necessity of including historical enquiry in reaching the complex goals of sustainable development of urban riverscapes. Its proposed method is a survey conducted through selection, interpretation and systematization of the relevant historical data that consider the Belgrade cityscape, and specifically, the New Belgrade public spaces at the river confluence. The theoretical framework, which relies on the concepts of ‘landscape urbanism’ and ‘critical practice of landscape architecture’, has affected the selection and interpretation of dense historical layers of modernization, formed in diverse socio-economic and political conditions. We have distinguished five historical strata that contribute significantly to comprehension of the present state. By looking at the traces of the formative period of Belgrade urban landscape, the moments of New Belgrade’s inception, inerasable impacts of war, vigorous post WWII socialist transformation and, finally, the series of Danube riverscape revisions, we intend to depict the complexity of the modern city legacy and thus stress the interconnectedness of past and future endeavours. As a counterpoint to globalizing tendencies in re-designing city riverfronts, this work is conceived as a lateral contribution to a broader investigation that informs, supports and constitutes more ecologically viable practices.

Full text

sustainability
Article
Historical Enquiry as a Critical Method
in Urban Riverscape Revisions: The Case
of Belgrade’s Confluence †
Marija Milinkovi´c 1, * , Dragana ´
Corovi´c 2and Zlata Vuksanovi´c-Macura 3
1University of Belgrade—Faculty of Architecture, Bulevar kralja Aleksandra 73/II, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
2University of Belgrade—Faculty of Forestry, Kneza Višeslava 1, 11030 Belgrade, Serbia;
dragana.corovic@sfb.bg.ac.rs
3
Geographical Institute “Jovan Cviji´c” SASA, Djure Jakši´ca 9, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia; z.macura@gi.sanu.ac.rs
*Correspondence: marija.milinkovic@arh.bg.ac.rs; Tel.: +318-11-3218-751; Fax: +381-11-3370-193
† This is an expanded version of the paper presented at the conference Landscape Futures UNISCAPE
Conference 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark, June 19–21 2017. The abstract of the paper was published within the
Book of Abstracts (p. 53; https://ign.ku.dk/landscape-futures/pdf/LandscapeFutures_BookofAbstracts.pdf).
Received: 21 January 2019; Accepted: 18 February 2019; Published: 22 February 2019


Abstract:
This article aims to underline the necessity of including historical enquiry in reaching
the complex goals of sustainable development of urban riverscapes. Its proposed method is a
survey conducted through selection, interpretation and systematization of the relevant historical
data that consider the Belgrade cityscape, and specifically, the New Belgrade public spaces at the
river confluence. The theoretical framework, which relies on the concepts of ‘landscape urbanism’
and ‘critical practice of landscape architecture’, has affected the selection and interpretation of
dense historical layers of modernization, formed in diverse socio-economic and political conditions.
We have distinguished five historical strata that contribute significantly to comprehension of the
present state. By looking at the traces of the formative period of Belgrade urban landscape, the moments
of New Belgrade’s inception, inerasable impacts of war, vigorous post WWII socialist transformation
and, finally, the series of Danube riverscape revisions, we intend to depict the complexity of the modern
city legacy and thus stress the interconnectedness of past and future endeavours. As a counterpoint to
globalizing tendencies in re-designing city riverfronts, this work is conceived as a lateral contribution
to a broader investigation that informs, supports and constitutes more ecologically viable practices.
Keywords:
New Belgrade riverscape; Danube; urban landscape; urban open spaces; historical
enquiry; landscape urbanism; critical practice
1. Introduction
The creation of urban landscapes is considered in this study from the perspective of the synthesis
of nature and culture under specific historical circumstances. The transformation of an urban landscape
is the transformation of a space which, in turn, is in any given historical period bound up with the
history of the space. It is not only, as Henri Lefebvre writes, ‘geographical descriptions of natural
space’, but the study of ‘natural rhythms’ and of change in the ‘spatio-temporal rhythms of nature’,
which reflect the social practices inscribed into the space [
1
] (p. 117). A river, as both a flexible
and a firm element of urban landscape has potential as a mediator to express the complexity of its
ever-changing images [
2
]. Though the term ‘riverscape’ designates the landscape around a river,
even a view of a river, its more profound meaning points to its complex structure comprising organic
and inorganic elements and their interconnectedness across change. As S. M. Haslam pointed out:
Sustainability 2019,11, 1177; doi:10.3390/su11041177 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019,11, 1177 2 of 18
“The river continuum is of time as well as space, as is that of the riverscape, changed, slowly or
dramatically, over the years. The land form continues, the rest changes” [3] (p. 149).
The historical data that document these changes thus reveal the main phases of urban landscape
transformation. In this article, we emphasise the importance of (historical) study of the riverscape
of Belgrade, given that the city is situated “[...] on the largest water junction of Europe” [
4
]
(p. 319)—the confluence of the Sava river into the Danube. Positioned on the Balkan Peninsula,
Belgrade is geographically situated between the Pannonian Plain and the mountainous area of
Šumadija. The historical core of the city is located between the two slopes above the rivers,
which also give it its strategic importance. Being wedged between geographical oppositions is
also reflected in its multi-layered history: “In geopolitical terms, ever since the split of the Roman
Empire and into modern history, the two rivers formed borders between often conflicting empires
(i.e., between Eastern and Western Roman Empires, Franks and Byzantine Empire, and Ottoman and
Austrian/Austro-Hungarian Empires)” [
5
] (p. 53). Today, Belgrade is the capital and the largest city in
the Republic of Serbia, which it also was in former Yugoslavia, 1918–2006. The metropolitan area of
Belgrade covers more than 320,000 hectares, with 17 municipalities and nearly 1.7 million people.
Facing a moment of profound change in Belgrade riverscape, our study is focused on the city’s
central green core and the large open public space on the right bank of the Danube. Following
Christophe Girot’s notion that “[e]ach time a landscape project begins there should follow an extended
period in which one may simply discover what already exists” [
6
] (p. 65), we have undertaken a
historical survey in attempt to grasp both perceptible and ‘not so obvious’ layers of modernisation,
inscribed into the peculiar site of the urban park Uš´ce (confluence in Serbian). Even though historical
enquiry is considered a standard methodological procedure and supposedly forms a common part
within the practice of landscape architecture and urban design, under pressure from time-saving and
profit-based demands of the capitalist economy, this step is often neglected or severely reduced. Being
aware of these reductions and their consequences, the survey starts from a general question: how to
acquire profound knowledge and experience, as proper introduction to a site project? Knowing that
the dominant paradigm of contemporary city development has already been framed for decades by
the universal idea of sustainability [
7
], we intend to explore ways to approach interventions in the
modern city, and furthermore, how to relate to a modern city that was conceptualised and realised
within a socialist society—to wit, the capital of former Yugoslavia.
In this endeavour, we refer to the theoretical framework constructed around the concept of
‘landscape urbanism’, that was initially articulated through the Landscape Urbanism academic
program at the University of Illinois, the Landscape Urbanism conference, 1997, and the Landscape
Urbanism traveling exhibition curated by Charles Waldheim, 1997–1998 [
8
]. The discipline progressed
particularly through the work of, besides Waldheim, James Corner and Mohsen Mostafavi, and many
other educators, theorists and practitioners, such as Sébastian Marot, Kelly Shannon, Julia Czerniak,
Richard Weller, Anita Berrizbeitia, Christophe Girot, etc. This hybrid field of work cuts across
numerous disciplines, in “an attempt to re-emphasise the importance of particular sites and the
ecological/artificial processes they encompass” [
9
] (p. 626). Emphasizing that the very concept of
landscape contains both a spatial milieu and cultural image, Corner notices that landscape ideas are
not universally shared: “it is crucial to understand how cultural ideas condition construction and how
construction, in turn, conditions the play of landscape ideas in a larger cultural imagination” [
6
] (p. 8).
In this respect, we stand with many scholars in assuming that proper introduction to a site
project should include ‘a closer look’ [
6
,
9
–
14
], implemented through very well-known methodologies
of landscape site analysis [
14
], and improved by the contemporary approach of landscape urbanism.
Starting from the premise that the concept of urban landscape offers a generic approach for revealing and
re-imagining the unique features of the particular site, as well as the tools to actively resist the globalizing
and homogenizing tendencies in contemporary practices [
11
], our intention is to distinguish layers of
historical, natural, social, environmental, cultural and political specificities of the New Belgrade landscape
(Figure 1). For reading the material and immaterial traces of the past, and detecting ‘not so obvious’

Sustainability 2019,11, 1177 3 of 18
features of the present condition, we shall rely particularly on the peculiar notions of ‘critical practices in
modernism’, recently proposed by Anita Berrizbeitia and Karen M’Closkey [15].
Sustainability 2019, 11, x 3 of 18
distinguish layers of historical, natural, social, environmental, cultural and political specificities of
the New Belgrade landscape (Figure 1). For reading the material and immaterial traces of the past,
and detecting ‘not so obvious’ features of the present condition, we shall rely particularly on the
peculiar notions of ‘critical practices in modernism’, recently proposed by Anita Berrizbeitia and
Karen M’Closkey [15].
Figure 1. The confluence of the Sava into the Danube at Belgrade. Photo source: Tourist Organization
of Belgrade, public domain.
Concerned primarily with serious ecological threats, the discourse of sustainability itself is, for
many reasons, strongly influenced and supported by the contemporary wealth of scientific
knowledge, technological innovations and unforeseeable technical inventions. However, the aim of
this paper is to stress the necessity of including a historical and cultural perspective in reaching
progressively more complex goals of sustainability. Formation of public green spaces in the city may
be a process of critical change and enrichment of cultural conventions. The landscape that is being
acted upon becomes the tool for establishing the ensemble that will, through its usage, fulfil a certain
planned spatial strategy. Besides dealing with contemporary environmental issues, the restoration of
green areas of the city, together with studying the memory they hold, can contribute significantly to
a reduction of current “cultural amnesia” [6] (p. 59), and thus the materialization of cultural diversity.
Therefore, the significance of this paper may be found in its lateral contribution to contemporary
debates on sustainable urban growth and achieving urban resilience: in pointing out the
shortcomings of the prevalent ad-hoc approach to site survey, i.e., superficial analysis of the current
state of affairs, and in proposing an alternative, critical mode of spatial and historical enquiry. Finally,
we would argue that urban riverscape revisions of the post-socialist society should act as a trigger
for the community, along with variously profiled experts, to cope with broad environmental and
social challenges.
2. Theoretical Framework
There are numerous definitions of a landscape. According to one of them, it is: “a portion of the
earth’s surface that can be comprehended at a glance” [16] (p. 8). Another writer states: “The meaning
Figure 1.
The confluence of the Sava into the Danube at Belgrade. Photo source: Tourist Organization
of Belgrade, public domain.
Concerned primarily with serious ecological threats, the discourse of sustainability itself is,
for many reasons, strongly influenced and supported by the contemporary wealth of scientific
knowledge, technological innovations and unforeseeable technical inventions. However, the aim
of this paper is to stress the necessity of including a historical and cultural perspective in reaching
progressively more complex goals of sustainability. Formation of public green spaces in the city may
be a process of critical change and enrichment of cultural conventions. The landscape that is being
acted upon becomes the tool for establishing the ensemble that will, through its usage, fulfil a certain
planned spatial strategy. Besides dealing with contemporary environmental issues, the restoration of
green areas of the city, together with studying the memory they hold, can contribute significantly to a
reduction of current “cultural amnesia” [
6
] (p. 59), and thus the materialization of cultural diversity.
Therefore, the significance of this paper may be found in its lateral contribution to contemporary
debates on sustainable urban growth and achieving urban resilience: in pointing out the shortcomings
of the prevalent ad-hoc approach to site survey, i.e., superficial analysis of the current state of affairs,
and in proposing an alternative, critical mode of spatial and historical enquiry. Finally, we would argue
that urban riverscape revisions of the post-socialist society should act as a trigger for the community,
along with variously profiled experts, to cope with broad environmental and social challenges.
2. Theoretical Framework
There are numerous definitions of a landscape. According to one of them, it is: “a portion of the
earth’s surface that can be comprehended at a glance” [
16
] (p. 8). Another writer states: “The meaning
of ‘landscape’ shifts by the context and by the background of the users” [
17
] (p. 13). The human role in
landscapes is dissimilar to that of other species, precisely due to the imprint of cultural patterns that

Sustainability 2019,11, 1177 4 of 18
characterise human activity. A new cultural landscape emerges through the activity of cultural groups
in a natural setting [
18
]. Dealing with the study of theory and practice in relation to the concept of
landscape in the 20th century, John Wylie starts his book with the following statement: ‘Landscape
is tension’ [
19
] (p. 1). Dialectical pairs of terms: ‘proximity-distance’, ‘observation-inhabitation’,
‘eye-land’ and ‘culture-nature’ are the contrasts that create tension and define the critical view of a
landscape. Within the same theoretical discourse, the concept of landscape is explained by studying
the dialectic pair of terms: ‘production-representation’, accentuating the existence of the mutual
dependency between the manner in which a certain landscape is presented and production of the
social, spatial and aesthetic values that can be perceived in that landscape [
20
,
21
]. In the past decades
in particular, landscape was established as a means of mediation, on the basis of which the position
and role of all social levels of a society can be recognised.
The theoretical concept of urban landscape, with its extended field of spatial agencies, brought
new modes of thinking and acting within the field of landscape architecture [
9
]. In keeping with the
ideas of contemporary practice of landscape urbanism, we would contend that with some thoughtful
projects in this domain, such as Freshkills Park, New York (James Corner Field Operations), The BIG
U, New York (BIG TEAM), Resilience + The Beach, New Jersey (Sasaki, Rutgers, Arup), new modes of
critical landscape practice have emerged. If, following Berrizbeitia and M’Closkey, we understand
the term ‘critical practice’ as the activity that is, in Max Horkheimer’s words, “explanatory, practical
and normative” [
15
] (p. 207), the critical projects of landscape architecture might be detected in
various historical, cultural and socio-political contexts. As Berrizbeitia and M’Closkey have shown,
criticality in the formative period of American landscape architecture was les manifested in formal
than in methodological terms. The texts and projects that have rejected or resisted colonial and
post-independence modes of land tenure have operated within the existing institutional and political
framework of nineteenth century “laissez-faire capitalism, broadly institutionalized since colonialism;
accelerated urbanization; and, as a result of these, an environmental crisis not unlike the one we
face today” [
15
] (p. 208). The authors of this insightful study found the predecessors of critical
practice within landscape architecture in enterprises that produced formal, material and programmatic
ruptures in the existing empirical realities, while offering innovative technical and material proposals,
“satisfying the goals of both capitalism and environmentalism” [15] (p. 222).
This particular mode of immanent critique, which operates within imposed real-world conditions,
and differs from radical, transcendental, that is, avant-garde critique, is labelled experimental by
architectural theorist Manfredo Tafuri [
22
,
23
]. By the same token, some of the early projects for
Belgrade landscape and riverscape revisions could also be distinguished as exemplary of the immanent
critique. In this context, we shall underline the insightful plan made by the prominent architect
Dimitrije T. Leko (1863–1914), for the regulation of the Danube bank in the old part of Belgrade, at the
very beginning of the twentieth century. Leko was also known for his polemical articles dedicated to
various problems in the urban development of Belgrade. In his writing, Leko pointed to the difficulty
of urbanisation in conditions determined by ‘big capital’. He advocated for revisions to the urban
regulation plan of the time, as well as construction laws. In an article from 1901 [
24
], Leko discusses the
issue of the Danube quay and expansion of the Danube neighbourhood, and addresses the question
of the regulation of the riverbank. After the Second World War, renowned modernist architect and
town planner Nikola Dobrovi´c (1897–1967), just like Leko several decades earlier, proposed city plans
with a strong critical attitude. Space as an unbroken whole was at the core of Dobrovi´c’s idea of city
landscape, explicitly conceptualised in 1954. The term city landscape, in German Stadtlandschaft, belongs
to the history of German urban planning and emerges as a doctrine for the creation of large-scale
urban settlements shortly after the Second World War [
25
] (p. 141). In Yugoslavia, Nikola Dobrovi´c
was among the first to consider the concept of city landscape [
26
], writing of it as a term still being
defined, describing its versatile nature as: “a new type of spaciousness of buildings and their plasticity,
the hollow plasticity of the in-between spaces, architecture of the ground, greenery and the vistas in one
organically designed composition whole” [
27
] (p. 1). Dobrovi´c explicitly connects the equality in space

Sustainability 2019,11, 1177 5 of 18
quality with given social values. He wrote that only an urbanism “comprehended and experienced as
an organic assembly of city landscapes, can represent the reflection of social aspirations and spirituality
of modern” [27] (p. 3).
3. Methodological Framework
Each time a critical project emerges, it relates to what already exists. Yet, historical surveys are
particularly underestimated and circumvented, often regarded as an obstacle to pursuing both the
designer’s artistic freedom and goals of capitalist growth. Thus, surveys of the present state of affairs
and its historical background often do not take enough space and time in preparing for future spatial
interventions. In this study, we shall focus on the benefits of profound historical research, given
that a preliminary survey of specific urban conditions should rely mostly on the proper collection,
systematization and interpretation of heterogeneous data. Therefore, our research is not based on
well-established disciplinary methods, such as historical-interpretative research. Instead, having in
mind the specific context of this study, we have combined the analytical method of identification of
relevant historical data with the synthetic method of superposition of identified historical layers [12].
The process of detecting important historical data that refer to a certain area of research, along
with the identification and evaluation of the landscape layers, are probably the most intriguing and
most sensitive aspects of spatial revision inspection. The mutual relations of urban historical layers and
various factors involved in contemporary urban transformation also reflect the inhabitants’ relationship
to past values, as well as the relationship between the past, the present and the future of landscapes.
The contemporary transformation of the New Belgrade riverbank, that is, the park that extends along
the right bank of the Danube, at the Sava river confluence, has prompted our examination of the key
concepts of urban planning—specifically, periods of rapid revision that took place at the beginning
of the twentieth century, as well as after the Second World War. By comparing and analysing these
revisions, we have tried to show the lost layers that reveal valuable traces of modernisation and
modernity in the metamorphosis of riverine landscapes.
The view can never be directed towards the landscape in general, but spontaneously steers
and unmistakably stops at the stable, conspicuous points that ‘capture’ the attention of the observer.
Instantly afterwards, the mind of the observer tries to understand the limits of the landscape and to
comprehend the whole [
28
]. We use these insights in an effort to find the most appropriate methods and
techniques to highlight important cross sections of the meaningful layers and complex transformations
of the Belgrade and New Belgrade riverscape.
The bulk of material for this study originates from the relevant primary and secondary sources,
related to proposed methods. It contains material from historical archives, such as: maps, documents,
plans, photographs, publications and written sources from the analysed periods. Also, it relies
profoundly on previous investigations by prominent researchers and scholars, our own previous
research into the urban landscape and urban history of Belgrade, as well as research regarding critical
practices of modern architecture in Yugoslavia. This study is based on our findings in the search for
more profound knowledge of mutual relations of the urban historical layers and the various factors
involved in the contemporary urban transformation of the city. Finally, the research is informed by the
material from public and private photo archives.
4. The Historical and Cultural Layers of Collective Memory
Serbia was under Ottoman rule in the period from 1459 to 1878. In the course of the Ottoman
expansion in the 14th and 15th centuries, the Balkans, or the “fortified peninsula” [
29
] (p. 511), became
part of a territory ruled by the Ottoman Sultan, and Belgrade became part of the Ottoman empire in
1521. We trace here the ‘dynamics of cityscape revisions’ far back in time, to 1717, when the Austrians
took the Belgrade fortress from the Ottomans and started reconstruction of the city. The Sava and
Danube rivers were the state border, established during the great Turkish war 1683–1699. The border
existed until 1918, with a short exception from 1717 to 1739 and from 1788 to 1791. The waterline, as a

Sustainability 2019,11, 1177 6 of 18
natural boundary and state border for almost two centuries, brought about the expansion of Belgrade
east and south of the rivers (Figure 2a,b).
Sustainability 2019, 11, x 6 of 18
(a)
(b)
Figure 2. (a) A map/diagram of Belgrade in 1918 (design by Slobodan Radosavljević); (b) The Danube
opposite the Belgrade Fortress: the view from the Zsófia Herczegnő luxury steamer. Photo from 1916.
Source: http://www.fortepan.hu/_photo/display/132360.jpg; image 23/170; image ID: 132360.
Original: Magyar Műszaki És Közlekedési Múzeum/Archívum/Negatívtár/Özv Venczel Jánosné
Gyűjteménye; inventory reference: MMKM TFGY 2017.10.111.
4.1. Layers of Belgrade Landscape of Modernisation: The Formative Period (1867–1914)
The 19th century Western technological developments in spatial transformation were applied
considerably less in Serbia. The most radical period of communal modernization of Belgrade
occurred only at the end of the century. It was also the moment of the most radical transformation of
Belgrade urban landscape: from an Ottoman to a European city. Unfolding through the conversion
of the natural setting, the space surrounding the city core was turned into a new urban environment.
Belgrade’s urban landscape transformation accelerated after the newly formed Principality of Serbia
(which lasted from 1815 until 1882 when it became a Kingdom) acquired a sufficient level of
autonomy from the Ottoman Empire, that is, after 1829. The protagonists of this transformation were
the bearers of political and economic power that followed the patterns of capitalist development of
state and social structure. This process intensified considerably following the Congress of Berlin and
full Serbian independence, in 1878. It was driven by the opposition between the Balkan and Ottoman
heritage on the one hand, and the declaratively embraced European model on the other. The major
metamorphosis of the urban landscape of Belgrade is characterized by the decades of implementation
of the regulation plan, authored and published in 1867 by the engineer Emilijan Josimović [30]. He
devoted considerable attention in his plan to the regulation of river flow and construction of quays
and harbours. This period also saw the building of modern infrastructure systems, directly exercising
a qualitative change in everyday life: the construction of railways in 1884, a modern water supply
system in 1892, installation of public lighting and electricity in 1893, establishment of public
transportation in 1892 and modern sewerage in 1905.
1904: Leko’s Project for the Danube Riverbank
In his regulation plan for the historical core of the city, Josimović proposed the forestation of the
Danube riverbank. Several decades later, however, in 1904, Leko suggested a project for the
construction of a Danube quay. This would allow for the expansion of the city to the river, given that
at the time, of the 6 km of riverbank, Belgrade made use of only 300 m. In the Danube quay regulation
plan, Leko included the formation of a park with fishponds along the existing railroad. It was
supposed to create a harmonious whole that would solve the issue of floods and remove
underground waters, all the while providing a large and lush green area adjacent to the Danube
residential neighbourhood (for which he also created a plan in 1904) (Figure 3a).
Figure 2.
(
a
) A map/diagram of Belgrade in 1918 (design by Slobodan Radosavljevi´c); (
b
) The Danube
opposite the Belgrade Fortress: the view from the Zsófia Herczegn˝o luxury steamer. Photo from
1916. Source: http://www.fortepan.hu/_photo/display/132360.jpg; image 23/170; image ID: 132360.
Original: Magyar M ˝uszaki És Közlekedési Múzeum/Archívum/Negatívtár/Özv Venczel Jánosné
Gy˝ujteménye; inventory reference: MMKM TFGY 2017.10.111.
4.1. Layers of Belgrade Landscape of Modernisation: The Formative Period (1867–1914)
The 19th century Western technological developments in spatial transformation were applied
considerably less in Serbia. The most radical period of communal modernization of Belgrade occurred
only at the end of the century. It was also the moment of the most radical transformation of Belgrade
urban landscape: from an Ottoman to a European city. Unfolding through the conversion of the natural
setting, the space surrounding the city core was turned into a new urban environment. Belgrade’s
urban landscape transformation accelerated after the newly formed Principality of Serbia (which lasted
from 1815 until 1882 when it became a Kingdom) acquired a sufficient level of autonomy from the
Ottoman Empire, that is, after 1829. The protagonists of this transformation were the bearers of
political and economic power that followed the patterns of capitalist development of state and social
structure. This process intensified considerably following the Congress of Berlin and full Serbian
independence, in 1878. It was driven by the opposition between the Balkan and Ottoman heritage on
the one hand, and the declaratively embraced European model on the other. The major metamorphosis
of the urban landscape of Belgrade is characterized by the decades of implementation of the regulation
plan, authored and published in 1867 by the engineer Emilijan Josimovi´c [
30
]. He devoted considerable
attention in his plan to the regulation of river flow and construction of quays and harbours. This period
also saw the building of modern infrastructure systems, directly exercising a qualitative change in
everyday life: the construction of railways in 1884, a modern water supply system in 1892, installation
of public lighting and electricity in 1893, establishment of public transportation in 1892 and modern
sewerage in 1905.
1904: Leko’s Project for the Danube Riverbank
In his regulation plan for the historical core of the city, Josimovi´c proposed the forestation of
the Danube riverbank. Several decades later, however, in 1904, Leko suggested a project for the
construction of a Danube quay. This would allow for the expansion of the city to the river, given that
at the time, of the 6 km of riverbank, Belgrade made use of only 300 m. In the Danube quay regulation

Sustainability 2019,11, 1177 7 of 18
plan, Leko included the formation of a park with fishponds along the existing railroad. It was supposed
to create a harmonious whole that would solve the issue of floods and remove underground waters,
all the while providing a large and lush green area adjacent to the Danube residential neighbourhood
(for which he also created a plan in 1904) (Figure 3a).
Sustainability 2019, 11, x 7 of 18
Leko devised the plans for the quay and the neighbourhood in his capacity of municipal
architect, but they were never executed. They were replaced with another plan, developed by the
Sewage Department of the Municipality of Belgrade—although this one was not realised either.
Superimposed versions of these plans (Figure 3b) speak to the constant revisions and alterations in
the plan’s conception, the various relationships towards the riverbank, the uncertainty of effect of the
decisions passed and the hesitation in their realisation. The concept of the neighbourhood ultimately
produced by the Municipality annulled Leko’s ideas, which were devoted to the achievement of the
economy of building, possibility of mixed social housing and experimentation with city quarters [21].
(a)
(b)
Figure 3. (a) Dimitrije T. Leko, Plan for the Danube neighbourhood, 1:2000, 1904. Source: [21] (p. 398);
(b) Superimposed plans for the Danube neighbourhood by Dimitrije T. Leko, and the changes made
by the Sewage Department of the Municipality of Belgrade, 1:5000, 1904. Source: [21] (p. 397).
4.2. Layers of New Belgrade Landscape: The Inception (1918–1940)
With the end of the First World War and the formation of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the Sava
and Danube ceased to be the border. The broad wetlands on their left banks were perceived as an
integral part of the city landscape. The first urban-planning step onto the left bank of the Sava was
made in 1921–1922 with the international competition for the General Plan for the beautification and
enlargement of Belgrade. The competition program envisioned the new main city port with
accompanying facilities on the terrain between Belgrade and Zemun. Competition entrants followed
the program instruction, but they also proposed the construction of new residential and industrial
districts, such as the French authors whose project bore the motto Urbs Magna (Figure 4a).
Furthermore, there were ideas for the formation of an artificial lake on the arm of Danube,
construction of sport complexes, stadiums, and parks. Viennese authors, under the motto Singidunum
Novissima (Singidunum was the Roman name of Belgrade), observed the wetlands on the left bank of
the Sava as the dominant and most favourable space for the future expansion of the city [31]. In 1923,
based on ideas from various competition entries, the first official draught plan for the future New
Belgrade was formulated by George Pavlovich Kovalevsky, an engineer of Russian origin and a
leading urban planner in interwar Belgrade. However, the draft did not become part of the adopted
General Plan from 1923–1924, due to the fact that the territory on the left bank of the Sava did not fall
under Belgrade administrative authority, but belonged to the municipality of Zemun.
Figure 3.
(
a
) Dimitrije T. Leko, Plan for the Danube neighbourhood, 1:2000, 1904. Source: [
21
] (p. 398);
(
b
) Superimposed plans for the Danube neighbourhood by Dimitrije T. Leko, and the changes made by
the Sewage Department of the Municipality of Belgrade, 1:5000, 1904. Source: [21] (p. 397).
Leko devised the plans for the quay and the neighbourhood in his capacity of municipal architect,
but they were never executed. They were replaced with another plan, developed by the Sewage
Department of the Municipality of Belgrade—although this one was not realised either. Superimposed
versions of these plans (Figure 3b) speak to the constant revisions and alterations in the plan’s
conception, the various relationships towards the riverbank, the uncertainty of effect of the decisions
passed and the hesitation in their realisation. The concept of the neighbourhood ultimately produced
by the Municipality annulled Leko’s ideas, which were devoted to the achievement of the economy of
building, possibility of mixed social housing and experimentation with city quarters [21].
4.2. Layers of New Belgrade Landscape: The Inception (1918–1940)
With the end of the First World War and the formation of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the Sava
and Danube ceased to be the border. The broad wetlands on their left banks were perceived as an
integral part of the city landscape. The first urban-planning step onto the left bank of the Sava was
made in 1921–1922 with the international competition for the General Plan for the beautification
and enlargement of Belgrade. The competition program envisioned the new main city port with
accompanying facilities on the terrain between Belgrade and Zemun. Competition entrants followed
the program instruction, but they also proposed the construction of new residential and industrial
districts, such as the French authors whose project bore the motto Urbs Magna (Figure 4a). Furthermore,
there were ideas for the formation of an artificial lake on the arm of Danube, construction of sport
complexes, stadiums, and parks. Viennese authors, under the motto Singidunum Novissima (Singidunum
was the Roman name of Belgrade), observed the wetlands on the left bank of the Sava as the dominant
and most favourable space for the future expansion of the city [
31
]. In 1923, based on ideas from various
competition entries, the first official draught plan for the future New Belgrade was formulated by
George Pavlovich Kovalevsky, an engineer of Russian origin and a leading urban planner in interwar
Belgrade. However, the draft did not become part of the adopted General Plan from 1923–1924, due to
the fact that the territory on the left bank of the Sava did not fall under Belgrade administrative
authority, but belonged to the municipality of Zemun.

Sustainability 2019,11, 1177 8 of 18
Sustainability 2019, 11, x 8 of 18
(a) (b)
Figure 4. The interwar plans for the terrain on the left bank of the Sava River (a) Competition project
Urbs Magna, by the French authors, 1921–1922. Source: [31] (p. 118); (b) Plan of urban regulation for
inundated terrain between Zemun and Belgrade, by George Pavlovich Kovalevsky, 1932–1934.
Source: [32] (p. 208).
A decade after the international competition, in 1932–1934, Kovalevsky developed a new
regulation plan for the area between Zemun and Belgrade [32]. The dominant elements of the plan
were the urban matrix that followed the pattern of old Belgrade and the major axis, that is, the wide
boulevard connecting Belgrade and Zemun (Figure 4b). Although Kovalevsky’s second plan was not
executed either, Zemun did become administratively part of Belgrade. The first real act unifying the
two river banks was the opening of the chain bridge in 1934. This act spurred both spontaneous and
planned construction in the newly acquired space. The first settlement was by Belgrade’s poorest
inhabitants, still standing today. Then, 1937 saw the construction of the exhibition halls of the
Fairgrounds – whose opening was a first-rate social occasion. The city authorities hired the Danish
firm Höjdegard & Schultz to cover the marshy terrain with sand drawn from the Sava, turning the
area into construction real estate. The Danish company deposited sand where the park Ušće stands
today. On the eve of the Second World War, the built landscape of New Belgrade consisted of one
low income settlement and the colourful Fairgrounds complex. The latter included a transit camp,
erected in 1940, for the collection of Bessarabian Germans being relocated to Germany, which would
prove a foretaste of wartime events when the Fairgrounds served as a Nazi concentration camp.
4.3. The War Landscape (1941–1945)
What was built in 1937 as the Belgrade Fairgrounds of the Yugoslav capital, during the war time
became a place of an atrocious crime. After the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia, the Fairgrounds became
a concentration camp for the internment of Jews, Jugendlager Semlin, established by Nazi Germany.
The camp fell within the territory of the newly proclaimed Independent State of Croatia [33]. In May
1942, it was given the status of Anhaltslager Semlin, and its prisoners were transported to different
labour camps in Germany: “a temporary detention camp for political prisoners, captured Partisans
and forced labourers, most of whom were subsequently transported to various labour camps in
Germany. Between May 1942 and July 1944, 32,000 inmates (mainly Serbs) passed through the camp,
of which 10,600 were killed or died of starvation, exposure, or disease. Semlin was the largest
concentration camp in Nazi-occupied Serbia” [34]. During the Allied bombing raids from June to
September of 1944, the former fairground was almost completely demolished. While the fairground’s
adaptation to a concentration camp may be explained as an almost perfect match, pointedly noted by
Ljiljana Blagojević, after the war, this place of horror became, in her words, “an undesirable reminder
of monstrous events“ [26] (p. 262).
Figure 4.
The interwar plans for the terrain on the left bank of the Sava River (
a
) Competition project
Urbs Magna, by the French authors, 1921–1922. Source: [
31
] (p. 118); (
b
) Plan of urban regulation
for inundated terrain between Zemun and Belgrade, by George Pavlovich Kovalevsky, 1932–1934.
Source: [32] (p. 208).
A decade after the international competition, in 1932–1934, Kovalevsky developed a new
regulation plan for the area between Zemun and Belgrade [
32
]. The dominant elements of the
plan were the urban matrix that followed the pattern of old Belgrade and the major axis, that is,
the wide boulevard connecting Belgrade and Zemun (Figure 4b). Although Kovalevsky’s second
plan was not executed either, Zemun did become administratively part of Belgrade. The first real
act unifying the two river banks was the opening of the chain bridge in 1934. This act spurred both
spontaneous and planned construction in the newly acquired space. The first settlement was by
Belgrade’s poorest inhabitants, still standing today. Then, 1937 saw the construction of the exhibition
halls of the Fairgrounds – whose opening was a first-rate social occasion. The city authorities hired the
Danish firm Höjdegard & Schultz to cover the marshy terrain with sand drawn from the Sava, turning
the area into construction real estate. The Danish company deposited sand where the park Uš´ce stands
today. On the eve of the Second World War, the built landscape of New Belgrade consisted of one low
income settlement and the colourful Fairgrounds complex. The latter included a transit camp, erected
in 1940, for the collection of Bessarabian Germans being relocated to Germany, which would prove a
foretaste of wartime events when the Fairgrounds served as a Nazi concentration camp.
4.3. The War Landscape (1941–1945)
What was built in 1937 as the Belgrade Fairgrounds of the Yugoslav capital, during the war time
became a place of an atrocious crime [
33
]. After the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia, the Fairgrounds
became a concentration camp for the internment of Jews, Jugendlager Semlin, established by
Nazi Germany. The camp fell within the territory of the newly proclaimed Independent State of
Croatia. In May 1942, it was given the status of Anhaltslager Semlin, and its prisoners were transported
to different labour camps in Germany: “a temporary detention camp for political prisoners, captured
Partisans and forced labourers, most of whom were subsequently transported to various labour camps
in Germany. Between May 1942 and July 1944, 32,000 inmates (mainly Serbs) passed through the
camp, of which 10,600 were killed or died of starvation, exposure, or disease. Semlin was the largest
concentration camp in Nazi-occupied Serbia” [
34
]. During the Allied bombing raids from June to
September of 1944, the former fairground was almost completely demolished. While the fairground’s
adaptation to a concentration camp may be explained as an almost perfect match, pointedly noted by
Ljiljana Blagojevi´c, after the war, this place of horror became, in her words, “an undesirable reminder
of monstrous events“ [26] (p. 262).

Sustainability 2019,11, 1177 9 of 18
4.4. Post WWII Layers of New Belgrade Landscape: The Transformation (from 1946)
The most profound transformation of the New Belgrade urban landscape started after the Second
World War, with the construction of the new capital of the socialist state, Federal People’s Republic
of Yugoslavia (from 1963, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia). The deserted space on the
left bank of the Sava, between Belgrade and Zemun, went from a sketch well-nigh developed by one
person, through innumerable iterations and revisions of plans, becoming a city of more than 200,000
inhabitants. The initial concept was made in 1946, by Nikola Dobrovi´c and his team from the Institute
of Urban Planning. Although already present in mental and factual maps of the city, and infamously
used during the Second World War for concentration camps, the flat wetland on the left bank of the
Sava entered planning procedures as an ‘empty’ space [26].
4.4.1. 1946: The Draft
After the Second World War, the area of the confluence represented a special locus in the
Communist Party’s vision of the new capital of the Yugoslav Federation. In rising to this exceptional
task, Nikola Dobrovi´c organized the Group for New Belgrade, a new working team at the Institute
for Urban Planning of Serbia. By 1946, in coordination with the Group, he produced the ‘Draft for
the regulation of Belgrade on the left bank of the river Sava’ (Figure 5a). In contrast to Kovalevsky’s
plan from 1934, Dobrovi´c’s adopted radial street matrix challenged the static, academic solutions and
strived for a critical rethinking of classical schemes. The buildings themselves no longer formed the
perimeter block, but stood as solitary objects in the park, and the modern railway station was placed
in the very heart of the new administrative centre.
This pioneering work was preceded by two research studies. In the very first publication of the
Institute, entitled The Railroad Problem of Belgrade, the central issue was the city traffic and its key role
in a contemporary metropolis [
35
]. Following recommendations from the Athens Charter, Dobrovi´c
and the co-author of the text, Vladimir Markovi´c, suggest a radical revision of the railroad system
and the relocation of Belgrade’s main station, as the current one prevented contact between the city
and its rivers. The ‘Conceptual plan of land use for Belgrade’ (Figure 5b) was derived from this study,
and was the first post-war urban proposal of the new, integral city plan. Dobrovi´c particularly insisted
on inventing a new methodology in planning practice, claiming that “it is impossible to apply the
same worn-out working methods, following the usual formalism, as practised before” [
36
]. The main
aspects of this new methodology were “from the individual towards team work, and from specialist to
synthetic expert and socio-political decision-making” [37] (p. 17).
Sustainability 2019, 11, x 9 of 18
4.4. Post WWII Layers of New Belgrade Landscape: The Transformation (from 1946)
The most profound transformation of the New Belgrade urban landscape started after the
Second World War, with the construction of the new capital of the socialist state, Federal People’s
Republic of Yugoslavia (from 1963, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia). The deserted space
on the left bank of the Sava, between Belgrade and Zemun, went from a sketch well-nigh developed
by one person, through innumerable iterations and revisions of plans, becoming a city of more than
200,000 inhabitants. The initial concept was made in 1946, by Nikola Dobrović and his team from the
Institute of Urban Planning. Although already present in mental and factual maps of the city, and
infamously used during the Second World War for concentration camps, the flat wetland on the left
bank of the Sava entered planning procedures as an ‘empty’ space [26].
1946: The Draft
After the Second World War, the area of the confluence represented a special locus in the
Communist Party’s vision of the new capital of the Yugoslav Federation. In rising to this exceptional
task, Nikola Dobrović organized the Group for New Belgrade, a new working team at the Institute
for Urban Planning of Serbia. By 1946, in coordination with the Group, he produced the ‘Draft for the
regulation of Belgrade on the left bank of the river Sava’ (Figure 5a,b). In contrast to Kovalevsky’s
plan from 1934, Dobrović’s adopted radial street matrix challenged the static, academic solutions and
strived for a critical rethinking of classical schemes. The buildings themselves no longer formed the
perimeter block, but stood as solitary objects in the park, and the modern railway station was placed
in the very heart of the new administrative centre.
This pioneering work was preceded by two research studies. In the very first publication of the
Institute, entitled The Railroad Problem of Belgrade, the central issue was the city traffic and its key role
in a contemporary metropolis [35]. Following recommendations from the Athens Charter, Dobrović
and the co-author of the text, Vladimir Marković, suggest a radical revision of the railroad system
and the relocation of Belgrade’s main station, as the current one prevented contact between the city
and its rivers. The ‘Conceptual plan of land use for Belgrade’ (Figure 5b) was derived from this study,
and was the first post-war urban proposal of the new, integral city plan. Dobrović particularly
insisted on inventing a new methodology in planning practice, claiming that “it is impossible to apply
the same worn-out working methods, following the usual formalism, as practised before” [36]. The
main aspects of this new methodology were “from the individual towards team work, and from
specialist to synthetic expert and socio-political decision-making” [37] (p. 17).
(a)
(b)
Figure 5. (a) Draft for the regulation of Belgrade on the left bank of the Sava, 1946. Source: [38] (p.
353); (b) Conceptual plan of land use for Belgrade, 1946. Source: [39] (p. 25).
Figure 5.
(
a
) Draft for the regulation of Belgrade on the left bank of the Sava, 1946. Source: [
38
] (p. 353);
(b) Conceptual plan of land use for Belgrade, 1946. Source: [39] (p. 25).

Sustainability 2019,11, 1177 10 of 18
4.4.2. 1947: The all-Yugoslav Competitions
Soon after the presentation of the Draft, it was decided that the questions of the new Federation
capital should be discussed on a broader, federal level. The Draft was used as an initial announcement
for a set of general all-Yugoslav competitions for a master plan of New Belgrade and three key
buildings of the new administrative centre of the Federation: the building of the Central Committee
of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, the building of the Presidency of the Government and a
representative hotel, later named Hotel Yugoslavia. The dynamics of construction differed in all
three cases, but the initial plan was finally accomplished, and by the mid 1960s all of them became
highly representative buildings of the socialist modernism in architecture. The fan-shape plan was
rejected in most competition proposals and the scope of the solutions offered varied from those that
reflected the Soviet planning methodology to those that conformed to Le Corbusier’s conceptions and
the recommendations of CIAM. The supposed initial hegemony of the Draft was superseded in the
1947 discussions, when the questions of architecture and urbanism of New Belgrade mobilized a large
number of Yugoslav experts: architects, engineers, urban planners, artists and workers in the fields of
cultural and social life [37].
4.4.3. 1948: The Conceptual Plan
In January 1948, the ‘Conceptual Plan of Greater Belgrade’ was presented to the public in a model
scaled 1:10,000, along with the ‘Conceptual Plan of New Belgrade’ in a model scaled 1:5,000 (Figure 6a).
The imposing physical model comprising the area of New Belgrade together with the riverfront of the
right bank of the Sava was a considerable departure from the Draft’s initial setup. The street matrix was
a regular grid and the plan conformed more closely to the propositions of the Athens Charter. The plan
also suggested the construction of a navigable channel between the two rivers with a tripartite artificial
lake in the middle zone that was justified by the savings it would bring in earthworks. The Conceptual
Plan interpreted the modernist paradigm freely and un-dogmatically, and actually offered a novel
approach in modern urban planning, the one that Dobrovi´c later described as the city landscape [
27
].
It relied on the connecting potential of the green areas while insisting on an organic quality of space,
continuity and movement. Dobrovi´c maintained that the unified, continual tissue of the socialist city
should be perceived just like in motion pictures: produced by the cohesive forces of the collective
will, it would provide an unbroken progression of spatial units, perpetually permeated and united.
With the Conceptual Plan, the city landscape of New Belgrade turned from homogeneous space of an
administrative district, into a complex and heterogeneous city matrix, with the large housing blocks in
its very centre [40] (Figure 6b).
Sustainability 2019, 11, x 10 of 18
1947: The all-Yugoslav Competitions
Soon after the presentation of the Draft, it was decided that the questions of the new Federation
capital should be discussed on a broader, federal level. The Draft was used as an initial announcement
for a set of general all-Yugoslav competitions for a master plan of New Belgrade and three key
buildings of the new administrative centre of the Federation: the building of the Central Committee
of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, the building of the Presidency of the Government and a
representative hotel, later named Hotel Yugoslavia. The dynamics of construction differed in all three
cases, but the initial plan was finally accomplished, and by the mid 1960s all of them became highly
representative buildings of the socialist modernism in architecture. The fan-shape plan was rejected
in most competition proposals and the scope of the solutions offered varied from those that reflected
the Soviet planning methodology to those that conformed to Le Corbusier’s conceptions and the
recommendations of CIAM. The supposed initial hegemony of the Draft was superseded in the 1947
discussions, when the questions of architecture and urbanism of New Belgrade mobilized a large
number of Yugoslav experts: architects, engineers, urban planners, artists and workers in the fields
of cultural and social life [37].
1948: The Conceptual Plan
In January 1948, the ‘Conceptual Plan of Greater Belgrade’ was presented to the public in a
model scaled 1:10,000, along with the ‘Conceptual Plan of New Belgrade’ in a model scaled 1:5,000
(Figure 6a). The imposing physical model comprising the area of New Belgrade together with the
riverfront of the right bank of the Sava was a considerable departure from the Draft’s initial setup.
The street matrix was a regular grid and the plan conformed more closely to the propositions of the
Athens Charter. The plan also suggested the construction of a navigable channel between the two
rivers with a tripartite artificial lake in the middle zone that was justified by the savings it would
bring in earthworks. The Conceptual Plan interpreted the modernist paradigm freely and un-
dogmatically, and actually offered a novel approach in modern urban planning, the one that
Dobrović later described as the city landscape [27]. It relied on the connecting potential of the green
areas while insisting on an organic quality of space, continuity and movement. Dobrović maintained
that the unified, continual tissue of the socialist city should be perceived just like in motion pictures:
produced by the cohesive forces of the collective will, it would provide an unbroken progression of
spatial units, perpetually permeated and united. With the Conceptual Plan, the city landscape of New
Belgrade turned from homogeneous space of an administrative district, into a complex and
heterogeneous city matrix, with the large housing blocks in its very centre [40] (Figure 6b).
(a) (b)
Figure 6. (a) Conceptual Plan of New Belgrade. Model. Urban Planning Institute of Belgrade &
architect Nikola Dobrović, 1948. Source: [41] (p. 13); (b) Aerial view of the future green area at the
confluence, 1963. In front: the Central Committee building; left: housing. Belgrade City Museum,
signature: Ur_12495.
Figure 6.
(
a
) Conceptual Plan of New Belgrade. Model. Urban Planning Institute of Belgrade &
architect Nikola Dobrovi´c, 1948. Source: [
41
] (p. 13); (
b
) Aerial view of the future green area at the
confluence, 1963. In front: the Central Committee building; left: housing. Belgrade City Museum,
signature: Ur_12495.

Sustainability 2019,11, 1177 11 of 18
Officially, construction started on April 11th 1948, and the largest part of construction work was
carried out by youth working brigades from all parts of Yugoslavia. Building the river embankments,
earthwork and planting the first trees were all part of the process. The greening began along the Danube,
at the scattered locations that today form the rich and diverse greenery of the urban park Uš´ce [42].
4.5. Layers of New Belgrade Landscape: The Danube Riverfront Revisions (from 1960)
The proposal for the Master plan for New Belgrade from 1960—after years of political and
economic crises caused by the Yugoslav-Soviet split—although quite different from the initial plans,
managed to build (at least formally) on Dobrovi´c’s conception of city landscape. Thus, the Danube
riverbank, a space that linked three key buildings in the previous plan, was earmarked as a new,
open public space—a great representational park. Beginning in the 1960s, there were several design
competitions for key cultural and political state institutions situated in this area, as well as for the
special part of the green zone at confluence: the Park of Friendship.
4.5.1. 1960: The Park of Culture, Science and Politics
The 1960 plan provided for a large promenade along the axis that connected the Central Committee
building with the most exposed part of the riverbank, which was to end at the Museum of the
Revolution (Figure 7a,b). Both sides of the axis were projected to have buildings for culture, science and
politics. Yet, the only part of this plan that was completely realised was the Museum of Contemporary
Art, opened in 1965. It was designed by Ivanka Raspopovi´c and Ivan Anti´c, both prominent architects
at the time, and the building became a paragon of post-war modernism in Yugoslavia. The winning
project of the 1961 competition for the Museum of the Revolution, by architects Vjenceslav Richter
and Boris Antunovi´c, also garnered a lot of public and expert attention. However, after a period of
reworking the preliminary draft, it was decided that the Museum should be moved to a new site,
because, “due to its dimensions and rigid geometry, it has an aggressive effect in one of the most serene
city landscapes, at the junction of the two large rivers”, and “its height (
. . .
) would cause disharmony
with the recently opened Museum of Contemporary Art” [
44
] (p. 1). A new site was found between
the building of the Central Committee and the building of the Presidency. In addition, yet, shortly
after construction began in 1978, the whole enterprise was interrupted and finally abandoned in 1980.
Subsequent studies showed that the reasons were not only in the domain of aesthetics, nor in the
financial shortages as officially claimed, but in its vestigial ideological and political content [23,26].
Sustainability 2019, 11, x 11 of 18
Officially, construction started on April 11th 1948, and the largest part of construction work was
carried out by youth working brigades from all parts of Yugoslavia. Building the river embankments,
earthwork and planting the first trees were all part of the process. The greening began along the
Danube, at the scattered locations that today form the rich and diverse greenery of the urban park
Ušće [42].
4.5. Layers of New Belgrade Landscape: The Danube Riverfront Revisions (from 1960)
The proposal for the Master plan for New Belgrade from 1960—after years of political and
economic crises caused by the Yugoslav-Soviet split—although quite different from the initial plans,
managed to build (at least formally) on Dobrović’s conception of city landscape. Thus, the Danube
riverbank, a space that linked three key buildings in the previous plan, was earmarked as a new,
open public space—a great representational park. Beginning in the 1960s, there were several design
competitions for key cultural and political state institutions situated in this area, as well as for the
special part of the green zone at confluence: the Park of Friendship.
1960: The Park of Culture, Science and Politics
The 1960 plan provided for a large promenade along the axis that connected the Central
Committee building with the most exposed part of the riverbank, which was to end at the Museum
of the Revolution (Figure 7a,b). Both sides of the axis were projected to have buildings for culture,
science and politics. Yet, the only part of this plan that was completely realised was the Museum of
Contemporary Art, opened in 1965. It was designed by Ivanka Raspopović and Ivan Antić, both
prominent architects at the time, and the building became a paragon of post-war modernism in
Yugoslavia. The winning project of the 1961 competition for the Museum of the Revolution, by
architects Vjenceslav Richter and Boris Antunović, also garnered a lot of public and expert attention.
However, after a period of reworking the preliminary draft, it was decided that the Museum should
be moved to a new site, because, “due to its dimensions and rigid geometry, it has an aggressive
effect in one of the most serene city landscapes, at the junction of the two large rivers”, and “its height
(…) would cause disharmony with the recently opened Museum of Contemporary Art” [44] (p. 1). A
new site was found between the building of the Central Committee and the building of the
Presidency. In addition, yet, shortly after construction began in 1978, the whole enterprise was
interrupted and finally abandoned in 1980. Subsequent studies showed that the reasons were not
only in the domain of aesthetics, nor in the financial shortages as officially claimed, but in its vestigial
ideological and political content [23,26].
(a)
(b)
Figure 7. (a) Site plan of the complex of museums and government buildings at the confluence, in
New Belgrade, 1960. Source: [43] (p. 33); (b) Location of the Museum of the Revolution and the
Museum of Contemporary Art, New Belgrade. Master plan of New Belgrade with the elements of
Regulation plan, 1961. Source: [23] (p. 254).
Figure 7.
(
a
) Site plan of the complex of museums and government buildings at the confluence, in New
Belgrade, 1960. Source: [
43
] (p. 33); (
b
) Location of the Museum of the Revolution and the Museum of
Contemporary Art, New Belgrade. Master plan of New Belgrade with the elements of Regulation plan,
1961. Source: [23] (p. 254).

Sustainability 2019,11, 1177 12 of 18
4.5.2. 1961: The Park of Friendship and the Confluence
Following the first premise of the Draft, the visionary conception of the city landscape, and the
numerous procedures coordinated by the Urban Planning Institute, the green space of New Belgrade
was conceived, planted and maintained as a whole. It consisted of a series of modern parks such as the
Park of Friendship, the Park of Art, the Sava park and two city parks planned to be set laterally in
relation to the building of Presidency. The Park of Friendship was conceived by Vladeta Đorđevi´c and
opened in 1961, on the occasion of the First Conference of the Nonaligned Movement. It was formed
as a representational space for which 26 participating countries at the Conference planted a tree each
in the Alley of Peace, a symbol of commitment to peace and friendship among nations. The park is
immersed in the large green space of the Confluence, and the boundaries, in terms of meaning and
space, between the two blur [45].
In 1965, Milan Pališaški’s entry won the first prize at the all-Yugoslav competition, and its
geometric layout remains the most definite space in this riverscape (Figure 8a). Its triangular
composition became the basis for further development of this space, though it has never been fully
realised. Among other elements of the Park, its central motif (an abstract sculpture on an elevated
platform) remained on paper only. Instead, in 2000, the central spot of the Park of Friendship was taken
by the monument of the Eternal Flame (Figure 8b). It is dedicated to the victims of the 1999 NATO
bombing of Serbia (when the Central Committee building and the Hotel Yugoslavia were also severely
damaged).
Sustainability 2019, 11, x 12 of 18
1961: The Park of Friendship and the Confluence
Following the first premise of the Draft, the visionary conception of the city landscape, and the
numerous procedures coordinated by the Urban Planning Institute, the green space of New Belgrade
was conceived, planted and maintained as a whole. It consisted of a series of modern parks such as
the Park of Friendship, the Park of Art, the Sava park and two city parks planned to be set laterally
in relation to the building of Presidency. The Park of Friendship was conceived by Vladeta Đorđević
and opened in 1961, on the occasion of the First Conference of the Nonaligned Movement. It was
formed as a representational space for which 26 participating countries at the Conference planted a
tree each in the Alley of Peace, a symbol of commitment to peace and friendship among nations. The
park is immersed in the large green space of the Confluence, and the boundaries, in terms of meaning
and space, between the two blur [45].
In 1965, Milan Pališaški’s entry won the first prize at the all-Yugoslav competition, and its
geometric layout remains the most definite space in this riverscape (Figure 8a). Its triangular
composition became the basis for further development of this space, though it has never been fully
realised. Among other elements of the Park, its central motif (an abstract sculpture on an elevated
platform) remained on paper only. Instead, in 2000, the central spot of the Park of Friendship was
taken by the monument of the Eternal Flame (Figure 8b). It is dedicated to the victims of the 1999
NATO bombing of Serbia (when the Central Committee building and the Hotel Yugoslavia were also
severely damaged).
(a)
(b)
Figure 8. (a) Milan Pališaški, the competition project for the Park of Friendship at the Confluence,
1965. Source: [45] (p. 206); (b) The Park of Friendship with the monument of the Eternal Flame by
Svetomir Radović. Photo by Marija Milinković, 2011.
1972–2003: The Natural Core of Belgrade
A significant change to the function of the area around the confluence was made in the General
Urban Plan of 1972. It removed the idea of turning the arm of the Danube into a lake, preserving the
existing form and function of the Great War Island [46]. Although this conception of the space
remained in place for the next two decades, after 1991, this area was neglected. The Socialist Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia entered the last stadium of a comprehensive social crisis, which resulted in
its own dissolution, disintegration of the existing political and economic system and beginning of the
transition to capitalism. The post-socialist period started in 2000, with the coming of democratic
political opposition to power.
The 2003 General Plan further developed aspects of preservation and enrichment of the natural
structures surrounding the confluence, including Kalemegdan park in old Belgrade, Park of
Friendship, the continuous strip of green along Sava’s left bank, as well as the Čaplja Island and area
Figure 8.
(
a
) Milan Pališaški, the competition project for the Park of Friendship at the Confluence, 1965.
Source: [
45
] (p. 206); (
b
) The Park of Friendship with the monument of the Eternal Flame by Svetomir
Radovi´c. Photo by Marija Milinkovi´c, 2011.
4.5.3. 1972–2003: The Natural Core of Belgrade
A significant change to the function of the area around the confluence was made in the General
Urban Plan of 1972. It removed the idea of turning the arm of the Danube into a lake, preserving
the existing form and function of the Great War Island [
46
]. Although this conception of the space
remained in place for the next two decades, after 1991, this area was neglected. The Socialist Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia entered the last stadium of a comprehensive social crisis, which resulted in
its own dissolution, disintegration of the existing political and economic system and beginning of
the transition to capitalism. The post-socialist period started in 2000, with the coming of democratic
political opposition to power.
The 2003 General Plan further developed aspects of preservation and enrichment of the natural
structures surrounding the confluence, including Kalemegdan park in old Belgrade, Park of Friendship,
the continuous strip of green along Sava’s left bank, as well as the ˇ
Caplja Island and area on the left

Sustainability 2019,11, 1177 13 of 18
bank of the Danube [47]. The plan thus included the formation of green riverbanks entitled “Natural
Core of Belgrade”, with the Great War Island at its centre [47,48].
4.5.4. Epilogue
On January 24th 2017, the Danish urban design firm Gehl Architects submitted their strategic
re-design of the New Belgrade urban park Uš´ce [
49
,
50
]. This preliminary landscape project of the site
became the blueprint for ambitious plans of the city government for this area. From the perspective of
the ongoing transformation of this open public space, our study was conceived as an investigation of
the intrinsic pre-existing qualities of the space (Figure 9). The Gehl Architects’ plan for the Confluence
was announced after the adoption of the new General Urban Plan of Belgrade, in March 2016 [
51
]. This
document also made possible and legitimate the realisation of the Belgrade Waterfront Project, on the
right bank of the Sava, whose ongoing development has provoked many controversies [52].
Sustainability 2019, 11, x 13 of 18
on the left bank of the Danube [47]. The plan thus included the formation of green riverbanks entitled
“Natural Core of Belgrade”, with the Great War Island at its centre [47,48].
Epilogue
On January 24th 2017, the Danish urban design firm Gehl Architects submitted their strategic
re-design of the New Belgrade urban park Ušće [49,50]. This preliminary landscape project of the site
became the blueprint for ambitious plans of the city government for this area. From the perspective
of the ongoing transformation of this open public space, our study was conceived as an investigation
of the intrinsic pre-existing qualities of the space (Figure 9). The Gehl Architects’ plan for the
Confluence was announced after the adoption of the new General Urban Plan of Belgrade, in March
2016 [51]. This document also made possible and legitimate the realisation of the Belgrade Waterfront
Project, on the right bank of the Sava, whose ongoing development has provoked many controversies
[52].
Figure 9. Synoptic map: Spatio-temporal superimposition of historical layers of New Belgrade
riverscape (design by Zlata Vuksanović-Macura).
5. Discussion of the Case of Confluence
Figure 9.
Synoptic map: Spatio-temporal superimposition of historical layers of New Belgrade
riverscape (design by Zlata Vuksanovi´c-Macura).

Sustainability 2019,11, 1177 14 of 18
5. Discussion of the Case of Confluence
The analysis implemented in our enquiry is conceived as a contribution to a more comprehensive
research procedure that examines the present condition of the New Belgrade urban landscape, more
precisely the open public space at the rivers’ confluence. Our systematization of historical data was
guided by the notion that for this particular mode of historical survey it is less important to extend
the scope of existing knowledge than to set up methodological guidelines for this type of research.
Namely, this analytical probe was centred on establishing the relationship between the critical practice
of landscape architecture and urban planning, at one side, and the critical method of historical enquiry,
at the other. The latter is discussed in broader terms in Tafuri’s Theories and History of Architecture, under
the term of the ‘critical history’ (storia critica) [
22
,
23
]. Yet, the relationship between historical survey
and architectural practice has rarely been productive, and even Tafuri insisted on their separated
development. Nevertheless, the examples of such productive relationship, even if rare, might be found
in various historical periods. For example, the renowned architect Philippe Rahm, in the elaboration
of his theoretical concept of ’meteorological architecture’, calls for a critical understanding of historical
examples of cities, that is campi di Venezia [
53
]—‘an ingeniously conceptualized rainwater filtering and
collecting system’ that also represents ‘spatio-social and cultural network’ of the city [
54
] (p. 27). In our
study, profound historical enquiry of the New Belgrade riverscape revisions, covering the spectrum
of environmental and societal conditions, intervened in the complex network of historical layers that
depict critical moments in formation of the physical structure.
The assay started with the proposition of theoretical and methodological framework and led
towards an interpretation of the assimilated knowledge. The results of the research are presented
through the synoptic map, and are additionally sublimated in a complementary synoptic diagram
(Figure 10).
Sustainability 2019, 11, x 14 of 18
The analysis implemented in our enquiry is conceived as a contribution to a more
comprehensive research procedure that examines the present condition of the New Belgrade urban
landscape, more precisely the open public space at the rivers’ confluence. Our systematization of
historical data was guided by the notion that for this particular mode of historical survey it is less
important to extend the scope of existing knowledge than to set up methodological guidelines for
this type of research. Namely, this analytical probe was centred on establishing the relationship
between the critical practice of landscape architecture and urban planning, at one side, and the critical
method of historical enquiry, at the other. The latter is discussed in broader terms in Tafuri’s Theories
and History of Architecture, under the term of the ‘critical history’ (storia critica) [22,23]. Yet, the
relationship between historical survey and architectural practice has rarely been productive, and
even Tafuri insisted on their separated development. Nevertheless, the examples of such productive
relationship, even if rare, might be found in various historical periods. For example, the renowned
architect Philippe Rahm, in the elaboration of his theoretical concept of ’meteorological architecture’,
calls for a critical understanding of historical examples of cities, that is campi di Venezia [53]—‘an
ingeniously conceptualized rainwater filtering and collecting system’ that also represents ‘spatio-
social and cultural network’ of the city [54] (p. 27). In our study, profound historical enquiry of the
New Belgrade riverscape revisions, covering the spectrum of environmental and societal conditions,
intervened in the complex network of historical layers that depict critical moments in formation of
the physical structure.
The assay started with the proposition of theoretical and methodological framework and led
towards an interpretation of the assimilated knowledge. The results of the research are presented
through the synoptic map, and are additionally sublimated in a complementary synoptic diagram
(Figure 10).
Figure 10. Synoptic diagram: spatial superposition of historical strata distinguished through critical
analysis of historical data (design by Zlata Vuksanović-Macura).
The synoptic map (from Ancient Greek συνοπτικός, sunoptikós, ‘seeing the whole together or at
a glance’) indicates that the distinguished layers are not only historically superposed one onto
another, but that they intervene with one another more profoundly, forming a complex state of
circumstances that we have addressed with the conceptualization of urban landscape. In the synoptic
diagram we have distinguished five historical strata (a set of layers) that contribute significantly to
Figure 10.
Synoptic diagram: spatial superposition of historical strata distinguished through critical
analysis of historical data (design by Zlata Vuksanovi´c-Macura).
The synoptic map (from Ancient Greek
συν
o
πτ ικ
ó
ς
, sunoptikós, ‘seeing the whole together or at a
glance’) indicates that the distinguished layers are not only historically superposed one onto another,

Sustainability 2019,11, 1177 15 of 18
but that they intervene with one another more profoundly, forming a complex state of circumstances
that we have addressed with the conceptualization of urban landscape. In the synoptic diagram we have
distinguished five historical strata (a set of layers) that contribute significantly to comprehension of the
present state. By looking at the traces of the formative period of Belgrade urban landscape, the moments
of New Belgrade’s inception, inerasable impacts of war, vigorous post WWII socialist transformation and,
finally, the series of Danube riverscape revisions, we intend to depict the complexity of the modern city
legacy and thus stress the interconnectedness of past and future endeavours. Their spatial distribution
also reveals the relationships between the initial subject matter, represented by the historical stratum,
labelled in the diagram as Revision, and the broader spatial and historical context. Depending on how
seriously the site survey is taken, the number of historical layers that are taken into account enhances,
and the distinction of the historical strata becomes more precise.
Our research shows the lessons of socialist city planning in conceptualising and building an
urban environment that in many aspects advanced the conditions of living in a metropolis. These
advantages become conspicuous in comparison to pre-modern and post-modern social and spatial
practices: by connecting the private domain of high-quality mass housing and a novel kind of public
open spaces within continuous greenery, the modern city offered an alternative to traditional forms
of city dwelling. Paradoxically, rigorous planning strategies proved to be rather adaptive to new
and constantly changing conditions of the contemporary urban environment and of the world at
large. Its solid infrastructure and incompleteness thus provided good conditions for the post-socialist
market-driven urban development. Regarding today’s complex global situation with regard to the
making of urban sustainability and resilience in cities, contemporary research in Serbia is identifying
problems in the spatial distribution of green spaces within the Belgrade administrative area, finding
they are caused by lack of instruments in “legal adoption and implementation at the local level of
planning and managing” in green infrastructure delivery [
55
] (p. 492). Through the accumulation of
ideas and conceptions, New Belgrade long ago stopped being a no-man’s wetland. In this respect,
the results of our investigation can be considered a point of departure for pursuing new, contemporary
critical practices of rethinking and reimagining of (New) Belgrade urban riverscapes.
Likewise, in the projects of the riverscape planning we have acknowledged the impact of both
immanent and transcendent critique, exemplary in the work of Leko and Dobrovi´c. Without an
enabling social mechanism, critical projects are often rejected, and the redrawing of Leko’s plan
testifies to that. Yet, the way it was conceived and argumented may still give us a clue about how
to conceptualize immanent but severe critique by way of a landscape project. Compared to Leko’s
plan from 1904, the criticality in Dobrovi´c’s work operated in a transcendental mode, as an avant-garde
critique that fundamentally altered the heritage of pre-war urban practice. Although the impact of
Dobrovi´c’s criticism was huge, it was nevertheless limited—resulting in New Belgrade becoming a
complex and heterogeneous modern city. By comparing these profoundly differing practices regarding
the socio-economic context in which they occurred, we would assume that even today, in fundamentally
altered social and political conditions and almost without any enabling mechanism, new modes of
criticality may be invented.
Finally, we would argue that the major pitfall of modern (and contemporary) city planning,
in both socialist and capitalist economic systems, seems to be the old Faustian trap of considering
unbuilt space as emptiness, ready to be filled. As shown in many previous cases, such insensitivity
towards local histories and cultural geographies, have made too many projects go astray. Thus,
we would like to underline the necessity of assimilating our particular, contemporary moment in
history, always defined in critical relation to the complex cultural layers of the past, and directed
towards the more heterogeneous, that is, resilient and sustainable, visions of future. In an era when
cities are progressively built in an “ad-hoc project modus” [
9
] (p. 625), the aim of this paper was
to challenge the globalizing tendencies of built environments by contributing affirmatively to the
critical projects of the urban landscape. Prompted by ongoing processes of re-programming and

Sustainability 2019,11, 1177 16 of 18
‘thematisation’ of the extremely important and large part of the New Belgrade riverfront, this study
suggests closer examination of the material and immaterial layers of the existing space.
A closer look into the specific history of planning, constructing and inhabiting of the modern
city of New Belgrade, and in particular its riverfronts, might prevent such shortcomings and open
different and unique perspectives for re-conceptualizing its urban landscape. It can bring not only
a better understanding and comprehension of the specificities of the place, but it might be the very
source of imagination [
10
]. These notions may be inapplicable in present conditions, since the detailed
plan for the Uš´ce park has been adopted by the city authorities. Nevertheless, our study’s significance
is not only didactic, since the Case of Confluence exceeds the re-modelling of one city park, and might
prove edifying in the face of new long-term challenges to sustainability of modern cities.
Author Contributions:
In preparing of this manuscript, the original paper presented at the conference has been
significantly expanded. To include the valuable comments and general insights from the conference, M.M. and
D. ´
C.; extended the original paper by structuring the theoretical framework and enhancing the scopes of the
initial historical enquiry. Z.V.-M. wrote some new parts of the paper, offered proposals and comments, and drew
Figures 9and 10 (Synoptic map and Synoptic diagram). The Discussion of the research manuscript also aroused
from the new set of findings.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments:
The translation of quoted works not published in English are by Edward Djordjevic, and the
authors are grateful to him for detailed English proofreading of the first version of the manuscript. The authors
are also grateful to two anonymous reviewers for the close reading of the previous version of this article and
the most constructive comments. This paper was realized as a part of the project “Studying climate change and
its influence on the environment: impacts, adaptation and mitigation” (III 43007) and the project “Geography
of Serbia” (III 47007) supported by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Serbia, within the
framework of integrated and interdisciplinary research.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Lefebvre, H. Social Space. In The Production of Space, 2nd ed.; Blackwell Publishing: Malden, MA, USA, 2008;
pp. 68–168.
2.
Wang, Y.; Dong, W.; Boelens, L. The Interaction of City and Water in the Yangtze River Delta,
a Natural/Artificial Comparison with Euro Delta. Sustainability 2018,10, 109. [CrossRef]
3. Haslam, S.M. The Riverscape and the River; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2008.
4.
Petriˇci´c, B. Ambijenti i prostorne vrednosti Beograda [Ambient and spatial values of Belgrade]. Godišnjak
grada Beograda 1977,24, 319–330.
5.
´
Corovi´c, D.; Blagojevi´c, L. Water, Society and Urbanization in the 19th Century Belgrade: Lessons for
Adaptation to the Climate Change. SPATIUM Int. Rev. 2012,28, 53–59. [CrossRef]
6.
Girot, C.H. Four Trace Concepts in Landscape Architecture. In Recovering Landscape, Essays in Landscape
Architecture; Corner, J., Ed.; Princeton Architectural Press: New York, NY, USA, 1999; pp. 59–67.
7.
Djalali, A.; Vollaard, P. The Complex History of Sustainability: An index of Trends, Authors, Projects and
Fiction. 2008. Available online: https://rasmusbroennum.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/the-complex-
history-of-sustainability-timeline.pdf (accessed on 21 December 2018).
8. Waldheim, C. The Landscape Urbanism Reader; Princeton Architectural Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006.
9.
Shennon, K. Landscapes. In The SAGE Handbook of Architectural Theory; Greig Crysler, C., Cairns, S.,
Heynen, H., Eds.; SAGE Publishing Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2012; pp. 625–638.
10.
Corner, J. Introduction: Recovering Landscape as a Critical Cultural Practice. In Recovering Landscape, Essays
in Landscape Architecture; Corner, J., Ed.; Princeton Architectural Press: New York, NY, USA, 1999; pp. 1–28.
11.
Frampton, K. Toward an Urban Landscape. In Columbia Documents; Columbia University:
New York, NY, USA, 1995; pp. 83–93.
12.
Berrizbeitia, A. Re-Placing Process. In Large Parks; Czerniak, J., Hargreaves, G., Eds.; Princeton Architectural
Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 174–197.
13.
Antrop, M. Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landsc. Urban Plan.
2005
,1–2, 21–34.
[CrossRef]

Sustainability 2019,11, 1177 17 of 18
14.
McHarg, I. Design with Nature; Published for the American Museum of Natural History; Natural History
Press: Garden City, NY, USA, 1969.
15.
Berrizbeitia, A.; M’Closkey, K. Critical Practices in Modernism: Origins in Nineteenth-Century
American Landscape Architecture. In Modernism and Landscape Architecture, 1890–1940; O’Malley, T.,
Wolschke-Bulmahn, J., Eds.; The National Gallery of Art, Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts:
Washington, DC, USA, 2015; pp. 205–224.
16.
Jackson, J.B. The Word Itself. In Discovering the Vernacular Landscape; Yale University Press:
New Haven, CT, USA, 1984; pp. 1–8.
17.
Antrop, M. A brief History of Landscape Research. In Landscape Reader; Howard, P., Thompson, I.,
Waterton, E., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2013; pp. 12–22.
18. Sauer, C.O. The Morphology of Landscape. Univ. Calif. Public. Geogr. 1925,2, 19–53.
19. Wylie, J. Introduction. In Landscape (Key Ideas in Geography); Routledge: London, UK, 2007; pp. 1–16.
20.
Deriu, D.; Kamvasinou, K. Critical perspectives on landscape: Introduction. J. Arch.
2012
,1, 659896.
[CrossRef]
21.
´
Corovi´c, D. Beograd kao evropski grad u devetnaestom veku: transformacija urbanog pejzaža [Belgrade as a
European City in the Nineteenth Century: Urban Landscape Transformation]. Ph.D. Dissertation, Faculty of
Architecture, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia, 2015.
22. Tafuri, M. Theories and History of Architecture; Granada: London, UK, 1980.
23.
Milinkovi´c, M. Arhitektonska kritiˇcka praksa: teorijski modeli [Architectural Critical Practice: Theoretical
Models]. Ph.D. Dissertation, Faculty of Architecture, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia, 2013.
24.
Leko, D.T. Revizija regulacionog plana prestonice i njenog građevinskog zakona III [The revision of the
regulation plan of the capital and related law on construction]. Tehniˇcki Glasnik [Tech. J.] 1901,10, 1–2.
25.
Sohn, E. Hans Bernhard Reichow and the concept of Stadtlandschaft in German planning. Plan. Perspect.
2003,2, 119–146. [CrossRef]
26.
Blagojevi´c, L.J. Novi Beograd: osporeni modernizam [New Belgrade: Contested Modernism]; Zavod za udžbenike,
Arhitektonski fakultet Univerziteta, Zavod za zaštitu spomenika: Belgrade, Serbia, 2007.
27.
Dobrovi´c, N. Što je gradski pejzaž—Njegova uloga i prednost u savremenom urbanizmu [What is the City
Landscape—Its Role and the Advantage in Contemporary Urban Planning]. ˇ
Covjek i Prostor [Man Space]
1954,20, 1–3.
28.
Tuan, Y.-F. Space and Place, The Perspective of Experience; University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MN, USA,
2001.
29.
´
Curˇci´c, S. Period of Turmoil, circa 1250–Circa 1450. In Architecture in the Balkans: From Diocletian to Süleyman
the Magnificent; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 2010; pp. 507–702.
30.
Josimovi´c, E. Objasnenje predloga za regulisanje onoga dela varoši Beograda, što leži u Šancu: sa jednim litografisanim
planom u razmeri 1/3000 [Providing the Explanations of the Proposals Meant for Regulating the Part of Belgrade that
Is Situated in the Moat, by a Lithographic Plan Scaled 1/3000]; E. Josimovi´c: Belgrade, Serbia, 1867.
31.
Vuksanovi´c-Macura, Z. San o gradu: međunarodni konkurs za urbanistiˇcko uređenje Beograda 1921–1922 [Vision of
the City: International Urban Planning Competition for Belgrade 1921–1922]; Orion Art: Belgrade, Serbia, 2015.
32.
Vuksanovi´c-Macura, Z. Generalni plan Beograda 1923: komparacija planiranog i ostvarenog [Belgrade’s
General Plan 1923: A Comparison of Planned to Completed]. Ph.D. Dissertation, Faculty of Architecture,
University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia, 2014.
33.
Blagojevi´c, L.J. Realpolitik of Space: Sustenance of the Belgrade Fairground. In Stockholm-Belgrade, Proceedings
of the 4th Swedish-Serbian Symposium: Sustainable Development and the Role of Humanistic Disciplines, Belgrade,
Serbia, 2–4 October 2008; Palavestra, P., Ed.; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts: Belgrade, Serbia, 2009;
pp. 129–137.
34.
The Open University. Centre for Citizenship, Identities and Governance. Available online: http://www.open.
ac.uk/ccig/research/projects/semlin-judenlager-in-serbian-public-memory (accessed on 26 May 2017).
35.
Dobrovi´c, N.; Markovi´c, V. Železniˇcki problem Beograda [The Railroad Problem of Belgrade]; Urbanistiˇcki institut
NRS: Belgrade, Serbia, 1946.
36.
Obrazloženje [Explication]; document of the Ministry of Construction of Serbia, the Institute of Urban Planning,
the Fund of the Ministry of Construction of FNRJ, F 94; Archive of Yugoslavia: Belgrade, Serbia, not dated.
37.
Stojanovi´c, B.; Martinovi´c, U. Beograd 1945–1975. Urbanizam. Arhitektura [Belgrade 1945–1975. Urbanism.
Architecture]; Niro Tehniˇcka Knjiga: Belgrade, Serbia, 1978.

Sustainability 2019,11, 1177 18 of 18
38. Anonymous. Uslovi konkursa [Conditions of the Competition]. Tehnika [Technology] 1946,11–12, 339–342.
39. Dobrovi´c, N. Obnova i Izgradnja Beograda. Konture budu´ceg Grada [Reconstruction and Construction of Belgrade.
Contours of the Future City]; Urbanistiˇcki Institut NRS: Belgrade, Serbia, 1946.
40.
Blagojevi´c, L.J. The residence as a decisive factor: Modern housing in the central zone of New Belgrade.
Architektúra & Urbanizmus [Architecture and Urbanism] 2012,3–4, 228–249.
41.
Ili´c, L. Uz izgradnju Novog Beograda [On the Construction of New Belgrade]. Arhitektura [Architecture]
1948
,
8–10, 9–13.
42.
Miši´c, B. Palata Saveznog izvršnog ve´ca u Novom Beogradu [The Building of the Federal Executive Council
in New Belgrade]. Nasleđe [Heritage] 2007,8, 129–150.
43.
Mini´c, O. Moderna galerija u Beogradu [A modern gallery in Belgrade]. Arhitektura urbanizam [Arch. Urban.]
1962,16, 33.
44.
Perovi´c, M.; Tomi´c, V. Elaborat o lokaciji i urbanistiˇcko-tehniˇckim uslovima za Muzej revolucije u bloku 13 na
Novom Beogradu [Study on Location and Urbanistic-Technical Conditions for (the Construction of) the Museum of
the Revolution in Block 13 in New Belgrade]; Zavod za planiranje razvoja grada Beograda [The Institute for the
Developmental Planning of the City of Belgrade]: Belgrade, Serbia, 1977.
45.
Veskovi´c, I. Park prijateljstva u Novom Beogradu [The Park of Friendship in Novi Beograd (New Belgrade)].
Nasleđe [Heritage] 2011,12, 203–216.
46.
Generalni urbanistiˇcki plan Beograda do 2000 [General Urban Plan of Belgrade to 2000]; Urban Planning Institute
of Belgrade: Belgrade, Serbia, 1972.
47.
Generalni plan Beograda do 2010 [General Plan of Belgrade to 2010]. Službeni list grada Beograda [Official
Gazette of the City of Belgrade] 2003,27, 901–1080.
48.
Simi´c, I.; Stupar, A.; Djoki´c, V. Building the Green Infrastructure of Belgrade: The Importance of Community
Greening. Sustainability 2017,9, 1183. [CrossRef]
49. Gehl, J. Cities for People; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
50.
Anonymous. Usce Park to Have Seven Zones—We Present Conceptual Design of Belgrade‘s Green Oasis.
eKapija. 16 March 2017. Available online: https://www.ekapija.com/en/real-estate/1699074/KZIN-BUP/
usce-park-to-have-seven-zones-we-present-conceptual-design-of-belgrades (accessed on 25 March 2017).
51.
Generalni urbanistiˇcki plan Beograda [General Urban Plan for Belgrade]. Službeni list grada Beograda [Official
Gazette of the City of Belgrade] 2016,60, 1–106.
52.
Grubbauer, M.; ˇ
Camprag, N. Urban Megaprojects, Nation-State Politics and Regulatory Capitalism in Central
and Eastern Europe: The Belgrade Waterfront Project. Urban Stud. 2019, 649–671. [CrossRef]
53.
Rahm, P. In Architecture, Precisely. In Precisions: Architecture between Sciences and the Arts; Moravánszky, A.,
Fischer, O.W., Eds.; Jovis: Berlin, Germany, 2008; pp. 166–195.
54.
Blagojevi´c, L.J.; ´
Corovi´c, D. Klimatske promene i estetika savremene arhitekture [Climate change and
contemporary architecture aesthetics]. In Uticaj klimatskih promena na planiranje i projektovanje [The Impact of
Climate Change on Planning and Design]; Djoki´c, V., Lazovi´c, Z., Eds.; Univerzitet u Beogradu–Arhitektonski
fakultet: Belgrade, Serbia, 2011; pp. 19–33.
55.
Vasiljevi´c, N.; Radi´c, B.; Šljuki´c, B.; Gavrilovi ´c, S.; Medarevi´c, M.; Risti´c, R. The concept of green infrastructure
and urban landscape planning: A challenge for urban forestry planning in Belgrade, Serbia. iForest-Biogeosci.
For. 2018,4, 491–498. [CrossRef]
©
2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).