A review of housing policy in post-war Yugoslavia and Kosovo A review of housing policy in post-war Yugoslavia and Kosovo

Abstract

This study examines the literature on social housing in Yugoslavia and Kosovo, and covers different topics and approaches. By combining findings spanning the periods of development, construction techniques, Yugoslavian particularities, social approaches, standardization, finance, and investment, it takes a comprehensive approach, hitherto missing. The literature review is conducted at two levels: the central level in Yugoslavia and the local level in Kosovo. While there is a massive gap in the local context, the aim is not to fill this gap but to demonstrate how one can begin to address and gain insights into social housing in 1970s Kosovo. The urban planning and design principles that influenced social housing in Yugoslavia were also present in Kosovo, as in other Yugoslav cities, but to varying extents and on a smaller scale.

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rppe20
Planning Perspectives
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rppe20
A review of housing policy in post-war Yugoslavia
and Kosovo
Gazmend Uka
To cite this article: Gazmend Uka (26 Oct 2023): A review of housing policy in post-war
Yugoslavia and Kosovo, Planning Perspectives, DOI: 10.1080/02665433.2023.2271885
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02665433.2023.2271885
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group
Published online: 26 Oct 2023.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data

A review of housing policy in post-war Yugoslavia and Kosovo
Gazmend Uka
Faculty of Architecture and Planning, Institute of Urban Design and Landscape Architecture, TU Wien, Austria
ABSTRACT
This study examines the literature on social housing in Yugoslavia and Kosovo,
and covers different topics and approaches. By combining findings spanning
the periods of development, construction techniques, Yugoslavian
particularities, social approaches, standardization, finance, and investment, it
takes a comprehensive approach, hitherto missing. The literature review is
conducted at two levels: the central level in Yugoslavia and the local level in
Kosovo. While there is a massive gap in the local context, the aim is not to
fill this gap but to demonstrate how one can begin to address and gain
insights into social housing in 1970s Kosovo. The urban planning and design
principles that influenced social housing in Yugoslavia were also present in
Kosovo, as in other Yugoslav cities, but to varying extents and on a smaller
scale.
KEYWORDS
Social housing; Yugoslavia;
Kosovo; 1970s
Introduction
Social housing in Yugoslavia which existed from 1946 to 1992, was rooted in the country’s socialist
principles and its commitment to providing equitable living conditions for all citizens. Naturally, it
was characterized by state ownership, social equality, affordable rents, and modernist architecture.
The construction of social housing was also integrated into broader urban planning initiatives.
The literature on social housing in Yugoslavia has not yet been the subject of a comprehensive
review; the present study therefore combines deductive and inductive approaches and findings on
the social architecture in Yugoslavia. Specifically, the following question is posed: What were the
urban planning and design principles that influenced social housing in Yugoslavia and were
they also present in the Kosovan urban planning and construction context?
To start this review keywords relevant to Kosovo’s local context were searched for in Google
Scholar
1
and Scopus;
2
however, this yielded zero results. These steps were repeated to obtain
articles that address social housing in Yugoslavia during the 1970s. After the selection process,
the articles were integrated on Scite,
3
a tool that visualizes both citations as well as whether an
article’s conclusions were challenged or reaffirmed.
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the
Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
CONTACT Gazmend Uka gazmend.uka@student.tuwien.ac.at
1
https://scholar.google.com/.
2
https://www.scopus.com/home.uri.
3
https://scite.ai/.
PLANNING PERSPECTIVES
https://doi.org/10.1080/02665433.2023.2271885

To answer the research question, a review was conducted at two levels: the central level in Yugosla-
viaandthelocallevelinKosovo.Thedeductiveapproachthusstartsfroma‘general’scale and narrows
to a ‘local’one. While a massive gap was observed in local context, the aim is not to fill this gap but to
demonstrate
4
how research in this field might be conducted and how social housing in 1970s Kosovo
could be addressed. This central-local comprehensive approach is novel, with no precursor to the best
of the author’s knowledge on online database or in libraries, particularly in Kosovo. This work could be
further developed to contribute to the overall discussion on housing socialist architecture.
Yugoslavia
Socialist Yugoslavia, the Land of the South Slavs, was a complicated and complex creation. It was
one country with six constituent republics, two alphabets, three official languages, four religions,
five different nations, and seven neighbours.
5
It was also the most loyal Soviet ally at the end of
World War II, but only three years later, it shocked the world by exiting the communist bloc.
Prior to being one of the founders of the Non-Aligned Movement, it had briefly allied with the wes-
tern capitalist liberal democracies. Yugoslavia was governed by a single party but strove toward rad-
ical democratization. Despite its planned economy, it was characterized by market elements. It thus
promoted collective welfare and had a well-developed consumer culture. It nurtured unique
national cultures while remaining connected by a single state. Yugoslavia strove for a bright future,
but its utopian horizon always included perspectives from the past.
6
Yugoslavia’s endeavours to
establish a distinct kind of socialism were pursued with the objective of self-management and
decentralization. The system of political administration transformed from a model based on Soviet
state socialism to a form of governance known as ‘socialist democracy’. This new system was dis-
tinguished by the decentralization of authority to both enterprises and local entities.
7
The Yugoslav Partisans, the largest anti-fascist resistance group in occupied Europe, were led to
victory by the Communist Party of Yugoslavia at the end of World War II. Yugoslavia’swarwas
both a struggle against foreign occupation and a fratricidal civil war that pitted the country’s diverse
ethnicities against one another. The Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia was formally declared in
November 1945. It consisted of six federated republics that were under the complete authority of the
Communist Party of Yugoslavia and its leader, Marshall Josip Broz Tito (1892–1980).
8
Yugoslavia
had significant dissimilarities from its neighbouring countries, mostly due to its distinctive multi-eth-
nic composition, as well as its unique vision of socialism, which was endorsed by Tito and further
refined by party ideologues throughout the period of 1949–1950. The Marxist-Leninist notion of
the ‘withering away of the state’was understood by these individuals as a recommendation for the
progressive decentralization of society towards increasingly intricate participatory systems.
9
Yugoslavia experienced oscillations among the three geopolitical spheres commonly referred to
as the First, Second, and Third Worlds, until ultimately attaining a state of equilibrium in which it
maintained connections with all three, without being fully aligned with any one of them. Because of
Yugoslavia’s political standing in the Non-Aligned Movement, it was able to establish diplomatic
connections with several countries in the Middle East, Africa, South America, and beyond.
10
4
Sandberg and Alvesson, “Ways of Constructing Research Questions,”24.
5
Kulićand Thaler, Modernism In-between, 23.
6
Kulićand Thaler, 34.
7
Hegedüs, Tosics, and Turner, “Reformism in Yugoslavia,”243.
8
Kulićand Thaler, Modernism In-between, 27.
9
Glendinning, Mass Housing, 342–381.
10
Lozanovska and Martek. “Skopje Resurgent,”497–513.
2G. UKA

However, the Cominform accused Yugoslav Communist leaders of deviating from the ‘correct
path’of Marxism-Leninism on June 28, 1948, and eventually broke all ties with the country.
From a prodigy of the communist world, overnight Yugoslavia became a pariah, isolated both
from its previous allies and from its ideological enemies in the West. The communist leadership
was forced to reconsider its orientation and alliances and to initiate a series of reforms. As a result,
socialist realism was quickly abolished; only a handful of buildings around the country were built
deserving such designation, none of them measuring up to the overblown monumentality of Soviet
models: A case in point is the Trade Unions Building in Belgrade.
11
Following the ideological diver-
gence from Joseph Stalin’s Russia in 1948, Yugoslavia opted to disengage from centralized socialist
planning, a prominent feature of the Soviet Union’s economic system. Instead, the country pursued
economic reforms, decentralization, and liberalization.
12
During the mid-1950s, Yugoslavia under-
went a reevaluation and subsequent redefinition of its political trajectory. Following the demise of J
Stalin, diplomatic ties with the communist bloc were amicably restored; nevertheless, Yugoslavia
did not regain its membership within this alliance.
13
By the end of 1991, Yugoslavia had collapsed.
The destruction of its most prodigious urban creations was just a trace of the lives that perished.
14
Socialist city planning
The institutionalization of planning was a common practice in all socialist nations, rooted in the
theoretical framework of social ownership of the means of production and the predominant role
of the state in economic activities. Active planning in socialist nations refers to the deliberate pro-
jection and organization of economic activity, including the allocation of resources and distribution
of wealth. This approach stands in contrast to passive forecasting, which relies on the assumption of
spontaneous development.
15
According to socialist philosophy, the city is regarded as the primary
hub of an ideal communist community, characterized by a centralized, standardized, and homo-
geneous form of social organization. National city planning, as an essential component of regional
planning, focuses on the strategic positioning and equitable allocation of economic productive
forces, including industry, power, and transportation, within the framework of a socialist system.
16
During the 1960s, the validation of communist governments relied heavily on the establishment of
solidarity with the postcolonial world. The involvement of eastern European architects in foreign
countries was portrayed as a significant component of the global fight against imperialism.
17
While the impact of Marxist thought on the current urban landscape in eastern Europe may not
be readily apparent, its influence on practical planning goals is evident. Socialist urban planning is
characterized by four key characteristics of a generic nature: standardization, stipulated town size,
city centre design, and the concept of a neighbourhood unit.
18
The development of standards for
the uniformity of housing or ‘living space’was turned into an operational component of socialist
city planning. To establish urban uniformity and, perhaps more importantly, to maximize the
efficiency of limited expenditures, it was necessary to socially regulate the level of housing require-
ment satisfaction.
19
Another planned characteristic was that city development and size would be
11
Kulićand Thaler, Modernism In-between, 35.
12
Alfirevićand SimonovićAlfirević,“Urban Housing Experiments in Yugoslavia 1948–1970,”1.
13
Dragutinovic, et al., “Modernism in Belgrade,”3.
14
Kulićand Thaler, Modernism In-between, 229.
15
Fisher, “Planning the City of Socialist Man,”251.
16
Ibid., 251.
17
Stanek, Architecture in Global Socialism, 16.
18
Fisher, “Planning the City of Socialist Man”, 252.
PLANNING PERSPECTIVES 3

strictly limited. The fundamental factor in establishing the bounds of any specific urban agglom-
eration is ‘the size of the productive substance’of the work force included inside it. Consequently,
the proportion of individuals employed in relation to the whole population served as a determining
factor for the size of a city.
20
It was important to maintain an appropriate balance between the size
of a city’s creative organizations, service groups, and total population. The future growth and devel-
opment of the town had to be commensurate with the increase in its productive capacity.
21
The
socialist perspective on the city’s core was characterized by its role as a political, cultural, and
administrative centre, rather than a mere retail concentration zone. The only commercial features
planned for the socialist centre were a tourist hotel, a single department store, and perhaps a res-
taurant and café.
22
The primary instrument employed by socialist planners in their endeavour to
establish ‘urban uniformity’was the segmentation and development of cities through the
implementation of neighbourhood units. Over time, the various characteristics of socialist planning
have progressively converged to facilitate the establishment of a complex segmentation of the urban
area into self-contained entities.
23
A typical east European socialist city comprised several distinctive zones that may be portrayed
in model form.
24
These zones are clearly evident in townscapes throughout the region, irrespective
of city size or location. The relative scale and importance of each zone does vary by city. When ven-
turing beyond the urban core, one may encounter the subsequent zones: (1) the historic zone; (2)
the urban districts characterized by commercial, residential, and industrial development through-
out the capitalist period; (3) the zone characterized by socialist transition or revitalization, wherein
contemporary urban development is gradually supplanting traditional urban or rural elements; (4)
the housing developments characterized by socialist principles throughout the 1950s; (5) the inte-
grated socialist neighbourhoods and residential areas that emerged during the 1960s and 1970s; (6)
the concept of ‘buffer zones,’whether open or planted; (7) industrial zones; and (8) open country-
side, forest, or hills, including tourism complexes.
25
As a basic conceptual tool for the purpose of observation and analysis, there are three types of urban
patterns in Eastern Europe today. Each of them corresponds to the aims of socialist urban planning
theory to varying degrees: (1) the urban structure that appears to conform in broad terms to socialist
theory; (2) the complex that has retained the urban pattern or format established during the capitalist
era, but has altered one of the urban components by substituting a few institutions; and (3) the city
where the layout of the complex and the structure of each component have remained unchanged.
26
Cities are commonly constructed with the intention of fulfilling a certain function, such as
accommodating employees of a significant steel complex or mine, mitigating congestion in a neigh-
bouring industrial district, or functioning as a regional hub for administrative activities. However,
Yugoslavia is home to a city model that conforms, in general, to the principles of socialist plan-
ning.
27
Most towns in Eastern Europe were not built during the socialist era but have a long history
of development. These cities posed the most difficulties for planners’socialist goals.
28
During the
19
Ibid.
20
Ibid.
21
Ibid.
22
Ibid.
23
Ibid.
24
French and Hamilton. “The Socialist City,”227.
25
Stanilov, The Post-socialist City, 227.
26
Fisher, “Planning the City of Socialist Man”, 255.
27
Ibid., 256.
28
Ibid., 257.
4G. UKA

1960s and 1970s, Yugoslav towns were characterized by the building of reinforced-concrete towers
with unique and distinctive styles. This trend emerged considerably earlier than the monolithic
Soviet obsession, as shown in Vilnius’s sculptural monolith towers. However, both types of struc-
tures served a similar purpose as prominent landmarks.
29
Several different types of land-use plans
were produced during the 1970s, including long-term societal plans that included components
dealing with questions of infrastructure and demography, long-term spatial plans produced for
the republic and groups of communes, long- and medium-term urban plans for city areas, and
short-term site plans for particular development initiatives, and urbanistic order plans for more
rural settlements.
30
The contemporary Yugoslav town planning system provided a fascinating
example of decentralized planning.
31
The Master Plan for New Belgrade underwent many revisions; following the failure of the ‘capi-
tal city’concept, New Belgrade was constructed as a housing city in the 1960s and 1970s. At least
the orthogonal grid of infrastructure and the block as the main urban unit were realized from its
initial urban plan.
32
The process of rapid industrialization, accompanied by the creation of wholly
new urban centres, resulted in notable sociological consequences. It seems that urban planners may
have misjudged the extent of social and psychological challenges arising from the rapid migration
of inhabitants into urban areas. However, there is evidence that during the early stages of ‘socialist
construction,’the overall effect of maladjustment was used to achieve a political goal. The rural
immigrant, living in temporary housing with minimal privacy, unintentionally helped build the
socialist future. Their confusion gave a chance for a new set of attitudes to be implanted in their
thinking, where the apparent strength of the Party was the only element of stability within their
unstable world.
33
The concept of alienation was popular in sociology from Marxist theory (namely,
the ‘alienation of labor’) to early studies of urban life by sociologists (Georg Simmel in the early
twentieth century) to neo-Marxist reinterpretations (Henri Lefebvre’s‘right to the city’and praxis
activity). During the latter half of the twentieth century, within the realm of Western European
sociological discourse, a concept about collective housing complexes as sites that are notably
influenced by alienation came to the forefront.
34
Socialism could be seen as an authentic manifes-
tation of modernism, since it embraced and incorporated all of its fundamental principles.
35
Housing in Yugoslavia
Following the conclusion of the war, Yugoslavia experienced an approximately 35-year period
characterized by a notable degree of stability and economic well-being, punctuated by crises and
impoverishment. The initial post-war crisis in Yugoslavia was exacerbated by Tito’s rupture with
Stalin in 1948, leading to the expulsion of Yugoslavia from the Soviet bloc and the subsequent
loss of financial support from the U.S.S.R. This situation resulted in a more severe crisis compared
to other socialist nations during the same period. Only after the Soviet blockade was lifted, thanks
in part to U.S. assistance, could the heyday years begin.
36
In 1947, influenced by the Soviet model,
the Five-Year Plan (1947–1952) furthered the establishment of rapid modernization in the country.
29
Glendinning, “Mass Housing and Extensive Urbanism,”6.
30
Simmie, “Self-Management and Town Planning in Yugoslavia,”16.
31
Ibid.
32
Jovanovic, “Lessons of Yugoslav Housing Economy,”5.
33
Fisher, “Planning the City of Socialist Man,”256.
34
Horvat, “A CRISIS on PAPER,”82.
35
Stanilov, The Post-socialist City,8.
36
Glendinning, “Mass Housing and Extensive Urbanism,”6.
PLANNING PERSPECTIVES 5

During the first years after the war, Yugoslavia, then aligned with the Soviet Union, witnessed a
notable impact on its architectural character from Soviet colossal monuments and the artistic
style of socialist realism.
37
Yugoslav modernist architecture embraced the advent of socialism as
a chance to rectify the shortcomings of capitalism. The housing policy underwent modification,
resulting in the elimination of the institutional presence of ‘investors’. The First Yugoslav
Forum on Housing and Construction in 1956 concluded by defining the ‘Right to Residence’as
a fundamental legal concept that grants the working individual one of the utmost essential prere-
quisites for a dignified life. The state assumed the role of the principal investor in housing devel-
opment, while young Yugoslav ‘brigadiers’assisted with the building of high-density housing
projects on a large scale.
38
During the period from 1948 to 1970, urban dwelling design in Yugoslavia was discernibly
experimental, as it diligently engaged in research and establishment of novel architectural patterns
and ideals that would define the nation’s era of economic expansion.
39
A crucial thing to emphasize
is that, despite the circumstances described above, there was a considerable readiness and tendency
in communist Yugoslavia to experiment with new and varied residential arrangements, even if it
meant breaking from official ideology. These experiments aimed to identify alternative approaches
that were both more economically viable and humane solutions. Housing complexes embodied the
fundamental principles of socialist ideology by redefining the notion of a ‘neighborhood’and ser-
ving as a manifestation of the utopian concept of a ‘happy community.’This concept lay at the heart
of communist society, where individuals coexist and engage in harmonious, equal, and orderly liv-
ing and creative endeavours.
40
The architects primarily concentrated their housing interests in
three areas: (a) the development and implementation of innovative prefabrication systems, (b)
the utilization of contemporary patterns in the aesthetic enhancement of architectural design
through creative applications and (c) conducting experiments with spatial units to facilitate
enhanced privacy within densely populated dwelling environments.
41
The housing history of Yugoslavia in the post-war era may be delineated into three distinct eras
characterized by a progressive degeneration and complexity. During its initial phase up to 1952, the
system exhibited a strong alignment with the Soviet satellite bloc nations. This period was marked
by the country’s struggle against the economic embargo imposed by the Soviet Union, resulting in a
relatively low average housing output of around 5,000 units per year. However, following a 1950
law on worker self-management, the first steps toward decentralization were already underway.
Municipalities played an important role in the second post-war phase from 1953 to 1944. They
gained access to ‘communal housing funds,’which they could use to build themselves or promote
other organizations’developments. During the period spanning from 1955 to 1957, there was a gra-
dual discontinuation of centralized budget allocation. In its place, municipal social funds were
introduced, which were primarily funded by compulsory 4% payments from labour groups.
These funds were specifically designated for the purpose of creating rental housing. The third
phase of Yugoslav mass housing, which took place from 1963 to 1972, exhibited an increased incli-
nation towards market socialism and decentralization. This phase involved the gradual reduction of
communal housing authorities and the transfer of housing responsibilities to self-managed enter-
prises. These enterprises relied predominantly on commercial funding, including cooperative
37
Dragutinovic et al., “Modernism in Belgrade,”5.
38
Dragutinovic et al., 6.
39
Alfirevićand SimonovićAlfirević,“Urban Housing Experiments in Yugoslavia,”5.
40
Ibid.
41
Ibid., 1.
6G. UKA

initiatives and housing provided by the employees of various enterprises.
42
Prior to 1953, the man-
agement of housing was under the control of the central state, which was responsible for the pro-
vision and allocation of new urban housing on a large scale. In the year 1953, a new housing reform
resulted in the transfer of the duty for housing provision from the central government to state
agencies at the republic and local levels. Following the implementation of subsequent economic
and housing reforms in 1965, there was a notable shift in responsibility towards self-managing
enterprises.
43
The allocation of social housing entitlements is manifested in the spatial distribution
of housing, the variety of tenure arrangements, and the disparity in housing conditions across var-
ious socioeconomic groups. Consequently, the allocation of publicly owned residential units mir-
rored the prevailing power relations inside socialist nations. In the context of Yugoslavia, it can be
observed that those holding positions in politics, bureaucracy, intellectual circles, and the better
educated segments of the working class were granted a disproportionate allocation of social
housing.
44
Until 1971, the basic principles underlying the housing system were laid down in federal and
republican legislation, but the provinces and communes also played an important part. The juris-
diction in the housing sector was transferred to the republics and provinces under the June 1971
amendments to the Federal Constitution, which regulated the fundamental principles concerning
the private use of dwellings through their own legislation.
45
According to the 1971 population cen-
sus, the first since the war to include residential buildings, Yugoslavia had 5,043 thousand dwell-
ings, a 22% increase over the 1961 figure. The socialist sector had 923,000 dwellings or 17.4% of
the total dwellings in Yugoslavia.
46
Better housing standards resulted from an increase in the num-
ber of dwellings and improvements in their structure. The average square footage per person
increased from 9.9 sq. m. in 1961 to 12.2 sq. m. In 1971, the average number of individuals per
residence had a decline from 4.5 to 4.1. Individual republics and provinces, however, deviated
from these average figures.
47
Novi Beograd (New Belgrade), the Yugoslavian counterpart to Brasilia, had a powerful repu-
tation that cast a shadow over the Yugoslav planning and housing domain. Novi Beograd was con-
ceived by Tito as a significant undertaking, with its initial planning dating back to 1948. The chief
ministry architect, Nikola Dobrovi, developed a preliminary design in 1944. However, due to the
Soviet schism, the project faced delays and was not realized until 1956. Tito viewed Novi Beograd
as a representation of Yugoslavia’s distinctive socialist approach, encompassing both its organiz-
ational principles, such as the equilibrium between centralism and self-management, and its archi-
tectural features, characterized by daring and diverse solutions.
48
The vibrant variety of Novi
Beograd vividly represented the pride and spectacle that characterized Tito’s Yugoslavia. Yet, the
ultimate deterioration and collapse of the entirety of the ‘Yugoslav experiment’may be attributed
to several factors, including the significant inflation seen throughout the 1980s, which reached its
height at 132% in 1986. This inflationary period resulted in the depletion of lending capital from
enterprises’housing reserves, so serving as a precursor to the subsequent disintegration and civil
conflict saw during the 1990s. The consequences of these events were particularly catastrophic.
49
42
Glendinning, Mass Housing, 368.
43
Hegedüs, Tosics, and Turner, “Reformism in Yugoslavia,”236.
44
Sinunie, “Housing and Inequality under State Socialism,”8.
45
Milojević,“HOUSING (IN YUGOSLAVIA),”2.
46
Ibid., 14.
47
Ibid., 16.
48
Glendinning, Mass Housing, 372.
49
Ibid., 135.
PLANNING PERSPECTIVES 7

Kosovan development under Yugoslavia
While several cities in Kosovo have inherited historical urban traditions and cultural practices, it is
important to note that the process of urbanization and the establishment of urban life in Kosovo are
new developments. Kosovo had significant underdevelopment primarily as a result of delayed inte-
gration of capitalist economic mechanisms, its colonial status, limited economic expansion, and a
predominant emphasis on agricultural activities. However, a transformation in Kosovo’s economic
landscape commenced during the latter half of the twentieth century.
50
Kosovo was a part of the
Yugoslav federation at the time, and it contained mostly low-rise buildings.
51
The process of urban-
ization in Kosovo commenced around the 1970s, when smaller urban centres started to appear
alongside the existing larger urban cities. These smaller urban centres were originally rural regions
with a central position, but gradually transformed into municipal centres.
52
Kosovo’s urban popu-
lation comprised 15.5% of the total population in 1953, 32.4% in 1981, and approximately 36% in
1991 (estimate). The urban population was approximately 71,000 in 1948 and increased to approxi-
mately 730,000 in 1991. Between 1953 and 1981, the urban population increased by 388,300 people,
or 306.9%, while between 1953 and 1991, the population increased by around 600,000 people, or
480%.
53
The process of transforming Ottoman towns into modern urban centres was a prevalent
phenomenon throughout southeast Europe, encompassing the region of Yugoslavia. The process
of de-Ottomanization in Pristina, once the focal point of the Kosovo Vilayet during the period
from 1878 to 1888, encompassed not only the adoption of European and contemporary values,
but also the incorporation of a Yugoslavian identity. This identity was subject to dispute by the
Albanian population of Kosovo in the aftermath of World War II.
54
The construction of collective
housing blocks in Pristina, as in other former Yugoslav cities, marked the beginning of modernist
urbanization. Within Pristina’s traditional residential quarters, a three-story apartment block
typology was introduced as early as 1947.
55
However, the primary factor behind the cessation of
new housing developments subsequent to the establishment of these prototype urban apartment
complexes was the regime’s emphasis on infrastructure and industry, a pattern observed in
other regions of Yugoslavia. This occurred despite the stated objective of prioritizing housing pro-
vision. Consequently, the advancement of living conditions via the implementation of new residen-
tial infrastructure has been postponed to a subsequent timeframe.
56
During the 1960s, urban regeneration efforts had a notable impact on the fragmentation of the
ancient city, particularly upon urban and social dynamics. This was primarily achieved by the
alteration of the traditional quarter’s perimetric area, involving the expansion of streets and the
random construction of apartment buildings. During the 1970s, the urban transition dynamic
was overwhelming.
57
Even though few projects approached the utopian character of Kenzo Tange’s
linear, inner-city concept for post-1963 earthquake Skopje as a mega-structural city wall, the Split 3
formula of picturesquely agglomerative urban image-making was gaining wider popularity in Slo-
venian and Yugoslav urban architecture. In 1963, the Polish government deployed a substantial
50
Gollopeni, “Socio-Urban Developments in Kosovo,”5.
51
Veliu Rexhepi, Careva, and Čerina. “Review of Housing Policies in Kosovo from 1947 to 2021,”8.
52
Ibid., 5.
53
Islami, Demographic Studies, 386.
54
Jerliu and Navakazi. “Socialist Modernization of Prishtina,”2.
55
Ibid., 8
56
Ibid., 9.
57
Ibid., 12.
8G. UKA

planning team to Skopje, under the leadership of Adolf Ciborowski. The establishment of the capa-
bility to export architectural knowledge and experience was effectively achieved within the context
of state-directed collective and collaborative enterprises in Poland.
58
The Kurrizi development in
Pristina, Kosovo during the 1970s had a comparable conglomerate design.
59
In a very short span
of time, Pristina was transformed into a city that reflected the characteristics of a socialist urban
centre, as it embraced modernization efforts within the framework of socialist Yugoslavia’s over-
arching national identity. Pristina’s population increased in the last ten years from 69,514 registered
inhabitants in 1971 to 108,083 in 1981.
60
The Municipal Assembly of Pristina established the Department of Building Maintenance in
1946, with the task of preserving and maintaining public property. Officially, the Housing Com-
pany in Pristina, as it was called originally, was established in 1964 after the formation of the hous-
ing fund, which was created from the 3.35% cap on the gross salary of employees at that time. In
1976, the Housing Company was transformed into the Self-Governing Residential and Business
Interest Association (BVI Residential and Business Interest). With the suppression of the autonomy
of Kosovo in 1989, and the collapse of the legal and institutional system by the Serbian regime, the
Self-Governing Community of Interest for Housing and Local Business was transformed by chan-
ging its name to Public Housing Enterprise. After the liberation of Kosovo, the enterprise was regis-
tered in 2000 and re-registered in 2004 in the Ministry of Trade and Industry as a Public Housing
Enterprise.
61
Public Housing Enterprise built the main neighbourhoods of Pristina during the time of Yugo-
slavia: ‘Lakrishte’neighbourhood (Figure 1) and ‘Ulpiana’neighbourhood (Figure 2), 1976 with
120 apartments; ‘Dardania’neighbourhood built piece-by-piece, in 1978–2003, with nearly 3,600
apartments; ‘Kodra e Diellit’neighbourhood in Pristina with about 2,400 apartments, and
‘Kodra e Diellit II’neighbourhood, in Pristina with about 1,300 apartments.
62
Social investment
in housing by Kosovo in 1970 stood at 134 million Dinars.
63
Conclusion
This literature review followed a comprehensive approach to the central level in Yugoslavia and
local context of Kosovo, and in order to answer questions about social housing in Kosovo. Analyz-
ing the existing literature on Yugoslavia that does not cover Kosovo as a specific country offers a
chance to search for and determine the characteristics and understand the similarities and differ-
ences between the two.
While Kosovo was a province of Serbia during the time of Yugoslavia and did not have an archi-
tecture school until 1978, planning and its implementation by local Public Housing Enterprise were
deeply influenced by the centre with respect to standardization, prefabrication Brutalist architec-
ture, high-rise building, and a shift from traditional homes to multistory apartments. The four
elements that characterize socialist urban planning: standardization, stipulated town size, city
centre design and the concept of a neighbourhood unit were all applied in Pristina’s Dardania
neighbourhood, Ulpiana, Bregu i Diellit and other surrounding neighbourhoods of the city centre.
58
Lozanovska and Martek, “Skopje Resurgent,”9.
59
Glendinning, Mass Housing, 381.
60
Navakazi and Jerliu, “The Socialist Modernization of Prishtina,”12.
61
Public Housing Enterprise, “Historiku.”
62
Public Housing Enterprise, “Historiku.”
63
Milojević,“Housing,”7.f.
PLANNING PERSPECTIVES 9

Social housing in Pristina aligned with other Yugoslav cities, but to a varying extent and on a larger
scale compared to other Kosovan cities, often characterized by new neighbourhoods, prefabricated
construction and brick and concrete Brutalist façades.
The novel comprehensive approach taken here makes the current review foundational,
especially for the case of understanding social housing in Kosovo in the 1970s. It is hoped that
Figure 1. Lakrishte neighbourhood. Source: Rinor Ramadani, September 2021. With permission of author.
Figure 2. Ulpiana neighbourhood. Source: Rinor Ramadani, September 2022. With permission of author.
10 G. UKA

this work encourages future lines of enquiry that can contribute to the discussion, discourse, and
discovery of socialist housing architecture.
Acknowledgements
I want to thank Maja Lorbek and Micheal Klein for their support and recommendations during the time while
I was doing this review at the Peer Review Colloquium course; Professor Vladimir Kulićfor giving me a copy
of Modernism in Between, which has helped me in this research; and my family, my wife, and my daughters for
being patient while I work on this study.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This article was supported for publication by OEAD –Austria´s Agency for Education and Internationaliza-
tion, Mobility Programs and Cooperation, HERAS+ scholarships, Reference number MPC-2022-05820.
Notes on contributor
Gazmend Uka is a spatial planning consultant in the Municipality of Vushtrri Kosovo. Gazmend holds a Mas-
ter’s (2018) from the University of Pristina, Faculty of Architecture. Currently, Gazmend is completing a PhD
at TU Wien, Faculty of Architecture, Urban Design research unit about Kosovan cities of today and
tomorrow.
ORCID
Gazmend Uka http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6381-6566
References
Alfirević, Dorde, and Sanja SimonovićAlfirević.“Urban Housing Experiments in Yugoslavia 1948–1970.”
Spatium 1, no. 34 (2015): 1. doi:10.2298/SPAT1534001A.
Dragutinovic, Anica, Uta Pottgiesser, Els De Vos, and Michel Melenhorst. “Modernism in Belgrade:
Classification of Modernist Housing Buildings 1919–1980.”In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science
and Engineering 245, 052075. IOP Publishing, 2017. doi:10.1088/1757-899X/245/5/052075.
Fisher, Jack C. “Planning the City of Socialist Man.”Journal of the American Institute of Planners 28, no. 4
(1962): 251–265. doi:10.1080/01944366208979451.
French, Richard Anthony, and F. E. Hamilton. The Socialist City: Spatial Structure and Urban Policy.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1979. 227.
Glendinning, Miles. “Mass Housing and Extensive Urbanism in the Baltic Countries and Central/Eastern
Europe: A Comparative Overview.”Urban Book Series (2019): 117–136. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-23392-1_6.
Gollopeni, Besim. “Socio-Urban Developments in Kosovo: Study Case Pristina.”Integrated Science Journal 6
(2016): 81–93.
Hegedüs, József, Iván Tosics, and Bengt Turner. “Reformism in Yugoslavia.”In The Reform of Housing in
Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, 296–307, 1992.
Horvat, Lea. “A CRISIS on PAPER? On the Sociological Critique of Collective Housing in Late Socialism
“Život umjetnosti: časopis o modernoj i suvremenoj umjetnosti i arhitekturi”.”Zivot Umjetnosti 107
(2020): 80–93. doi:10.31664/zu.2020.107.05.
PLANNING PERSPECTIVES 11

Islami, Hivzi. Demographic Studies: 100 Years of Demographic Development of Kosovo. 2nd ed. Prishtinë,
Kosovo: Academy of Sciences and Arts of Kosovo, 2008.
Jerliu, Florina, and Vlora Navakazi. “Socialist Modernization of Prishtina: Interrogating Types of Urban and
Architectural Contributions to the City.”Mesto a dejiny 2, no. 7 (2018): 2.
Jovanovic, Jelica. “Lessons of Yugoslav Housing Economy in the Period of the First Five-Year Plan: Permeable
Boundaries between Tradition and Modernity.”Zivot Umjetnosti 107 (2020): 32–59. doi:10.31664/ZU.
2020.107.03.
Kulić, Vladimir, and Wolfgang Thaler. Modernism In-between: The Mediatory Architectures of Socialist
Yugoslavia. Berlin: Jovis, 2012.
Lozanovska, Mirjana, and Igor Martek. “Skopje Resurgent: The International Confusions of Post-Earthquake
Planning, 1963–1967.”Planning Perspectives 34, no. 3 (2019): 497–513. doi:10.1080/02665433.2018.
1423636.
Milojević, Stojanka. “HOUSING (IN YUGOSLAVIA).”Yugoslav Survey. A Record of Facts and Information
14, no. 2 (1973): 89–104.
Prishtina e Vjetër. “Ulpiana Neigbourhood.”Accessed July 22, 2023. https://www.facebook.com/
PrishtinaOLD/photos/pb.100064591756136.−2207520000./1026744357452587/?type=3
Public Housing Enterprise. “Historiku –Ndërmarrja Publike Banesore.”Accessed August 30, 2022. https://
npbanesore.com/per-ne/historiku/
Sandberg, Jörgen, and Mats Alvesson. “Ways of Constructing Research Questions: Gap-Spotting or
Problematization?”Organization 18, no. 1 (2011): 23–44. doi:10.1177/1350508410372151.
Simmie, James. “Self-Management and Town Planning in Yugoslavia.”The Town Planning Review, 1989,
271–286.
Sinunie, James. “Housing and Inequality under State Socialism: An Analysis of Yugoslavia.”Housing Studies
6, no. 3 (1991): 172–181. doi:10.1080/02673039108720705.
Stanek, Łukasz. Architecture in Global Socialism: Eastern Europe, West Africa, and the Middle East in the Cold
war. Princeton University Press, 2020. 16.
Stanilov, Kiril. The Post-Socialist City: Urban Form and Space Transformations in Central and Eastern Europe
after Socialism. Vol. 92. Springer Science & Business Media, 2007. 8–227.
Veliu Rexhepi, Safete, Kristina Careva, and Mia Roth Čerina. “Review of Housing Policies in Kosovo from
1947 to 2021.”Prostor: znanstveni časopis za arhitekturu i urbanizam 30, no. 1(63) (2022): 82–91.
doi:10.31522/p.30.1(63).8.
Wikimapia. “Dardania Neigbourhood.”Accessed July 22, 2023. https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_
citationguide/citation-guide-1.html#cg-social
12 G. UKA