Cities 26 (2009) 293–303

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cities

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /c i t ies

City profile

Belgrade, Serbia

Sonia Hirt *

Urban Affairs and Planning Program, 213 Architecture Annex, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg, VA 24061, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 6 January 2009Received in revised form 5 April 2009Accepted 10 April 2009Available online 28 May 2009

0264-2751/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevierdoi:10.1016/j.cities.2009.04.001

* Tel.: +1 540 231 7509.E-mail address: shirt@vt.eduURL: http://www.uap.vt.edu/faculty/hirt.html

Few cities in Europe have a history as dramatic and tumultuous as that of the Serbian capital of Belgrade.The gracious ‘‘White City,” which rises spectacularly along the banks of the Danube and the Sava River,has been the site of wars, conquests and rapidly changing fortunes for much of its thousands-years longhistory. Belgrade suffered heavy destruction under both World Wars, and it has the unfortunate distinc-tion of being the only European capital to be bombed at the end of the 20th century. Its modern history ismarked by abrupt shifts in political status: from a capital of a relatively small nation-state, to a center of alarger and prosperous multi-national federation, to a capital of a nation-state once again. These shifts par-allel the changing geopolitical position of Serbia/Yugoslavia in Europe. In this City Profile, I present theevolution of the built environment of Belgrade in five historic stages: ancient/medieval/Ottoman, earlymodern, communist, transitional, and contemporary. I show how each period left a distinct spatialimprint on Belgrade’s fabric. Finally, I discuss some contemporary challenges and opportunities in plan-ning Belgrade’s future.

Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Introduction

Belgrade (Beograd in Serbian), a vibrant metropolis of 1.6 mil-lion residents that rises spectacularly along the banks of the Dan-ube and the Sava rivers, is located in the northwestern part ofthe Balkan Peninsula. It is the largest city in Serbia and throughoutthe territory of the former Yugoslavia. It is the third largest city onthe Danube (after Vienna and Budapest) and the fourth largest cityin Southeast Europe (after Istanbul, Athens and Bucharest).

Today, strolling through Belgrade’s lovely downtown streets,flanked by impressive Neo-classic, Art Nouveau and Modernistarchitecture and full of people, cafes, shops, clubs, tourist bureausand all the other markings of a bustling European urban center, onecan hardly imagine that only 10 years ago the city was the capitalof a state that the world’s most powerful military alliance consid-ered a pariah and bombed for 79 straight days. The reminders ofwar come quickly in the form of charred and half-ruined buildings,most of which were important architectural landmarks—a sightone can find in no other European capital except perhaps Sarajevo.The physical scars of war are few, however. The more painful leg-acy of the tumultuous 1990s may be the delayed economic andcultural recovery of Belgrade—a city that in the 1970s and 1980swas one of the trendiest and most cosmopolitan centers of Europe,yet lived through poverty and isolation during the 1990s, and isonly now beginning to recover both its confidence and its vibrancy.A common rhetorical question among Serbs is whether Belgrade

Ltd.

would be among the most prosperous metropolises of ‘‘the NewEurope” en par with Prague and Budapest, if only, if only the1990s had never happened.

In this City Profile, I present the evolution of Belgrade in fivehistoric stages: ancient/medieval/Ottoman, early modern (be-tween independence from the Ottoman Empire to World War II),communist (1945–1989), transitional (the tumultuous 1990s, dur-ing which Yugoslavia disintegrated and Serbia underwent a pro-found societal crisis), and contemporary (following Serbia’spolitical and economic stabilization since the election of its firstdemocratic post-communist regime in 2000). I argue that each per-iod left a distinct spatial imprint on the old city. Finally, I focus oncontemporary issues in Belgrade and discuss planning challengesand opportunities in shaping its future.

Ancient, medieval and ottoman history

Archeological excavations show that humans resided on the ter-ritory of today’s Belgrade as far back as 5000 BC, making the cityone of the oldest settlements in Europe. The Celtic tribe Scordiscibuilt upon the foundations of an earlier Thracian and Illyrian set-tlement and gave the town its first known name, Singidunum.The town was conquered by Roman legions in 86 AD. The Romansendowed it with a square castrum (fort), which forms the founda-tion of Belgrade’s landmark Kalemegdan Fortress; a grid streetstructure, which still shapes parts of today’s city center; a forum,a basilica and other civic buildings. Singidunum prospered duringthe Roman period and eventually became part of Rome’s Easternsuccessor, Byzantium. In the sixth and seventh centuries AD, Slavs

Population of Belgrade 1878-2007

0200000400000600000800000

10000001200000140000016000001800000

1878 1905 1914 1931 1941 1948 1953 1961 1971 1981 1991 2002 2007

Year

Popu

latio

n

Fig. 1. Population growth in Belgrade.

1 For a full chronology of Master Plans of Belgrade, see Institute of Urbanism(undated).

2 For the relationship between urban planning in Serbia and the dominant Westernideologies like the French Beaux-Arts and the English Garden Cities, see Nedovic-Budic and Cavric (2006).

3 For select characteristics of traditional Serbian residential architecture and itsinfluence through the 20th and 21st centuries, see, for example, Maric (2006).

294 S. Hirt / Cities 26 (2009) 293–303

moved into the town, renaming it Beligrad (later, Beograd) orWhite City (Norris, 2008; Gligorijevic et al., 2007; Jovanovic, 2007).

For several centuries, Belgrade was site of perpetual rivalry be-tween Byzantines, Bulgarians and Hungarians. In the 13th century,under the reign of King Dragutin Nemanic, Belgrade became part ofthe expanding Serbian Empire. Despot Stefan Lazarevic designatedBelgrade as Serbian capital in 1427. He strengthened its fortifica-tions and built a large castle, parts of which still remain. At thetime, Belgrade’s population is thought to have neared 50,000 peo-ple. The Ottomans first besieged the city in 1440 but were not ableto conquer it until 1521. In that year, Belgrade was razed and mostof its residents were killed or deported. Rebuilt under Islamic prin-ciples, with many mosques, Belgrade eventually became one of thelargest cities in the Ottoman Empire. Austrian forces captured thecity three times but were defeated by the Ottomans, who partiallydemolished it following each recapture. The Ottoman period endedin the early 1800s, when an uprising led by Karadjordje Petrovicdefeated and expelled most Ottomans from Belgrade (Norris,2008; Gligorijevic et al., 2007; Jovanovic, 2007). Over the nextfew decades Serbia operated in all practical matters as an indepen-dent nation-state, although formal international recognition didnot come until 1867.

Belgrade between independence and World War II

Like other Southeast European states liberated from centuries-long Ottoman control, 19th century Serbia embarked quickly ona road toward industrial modernization and cultural Europeaniza-tion. By the mid-1800s, its capital had asserted itself as the nation’sunrivaled administrative, economic and cultural center. The nextcentury was marked by steady urban population growth, whichwas interrupted by the World Wars and eventually leveled offabout 1990 (see Fig. 1).

Serbia’s post-Ottoman Europeanization had powerful implica-tions for its capital. The restructuring of the city was clearly drivenby two complementary goals: to endow the urban built fabric withrich references to Serbian nationhood and reorganize it accordingto European planning principles, thus strengthening Serbian na-tional identity while grounding it within the broader context ofEuropean civilization. In line with these goals, artifacts associatedwith the Islamic period were fairly systematically removed (someOttoman-era landmarks still stand and are now protected by law).Belgrade’s center was re-shaped according to European planningideals, with orderly plazas containing ornamental fountains andthe usual sculptures glorifying national heroes on horseback, aswell as a series of straight tree-lined boulevards (some in the foot-prints of the old Roman grid) flanked by imposing civic buildings—theaters, libraries, galleries, universities, and public officesdesigned in various historicist styles. The 1867 plan authored bySerbia’s first urban planner, Emilijan Josimovic, envisioned

straightening the ‘‘oriental” street network in the city (e.g., Grozd-anic, 2008; Perovic, 1985).1 Belgrade’s gems like Knez Mihajlova(Prince Michael’s) Street, Terazije Square and Republic Square werelaid out about that time in the Neo-classicist and Neo-Baroque spirit,with later additions in the style of the Viennese Secession. Bustlingwith people at all hours of the day, they are landscapes that anyEuropean capital could be proud of see Figs. 2 and 3).

The early 20th century saw the continuous expansion of Bel-grade with the construction and renovation of multiple grand vis-tas and plazas. In the Monumental City design tradition, the masterplans from 1914 and 1923 built on Belgrade’s existing structure,while strengthening its orthogonal street system, creating urbanparks, and envisioning a number of long diagonal vistas, whoseintersections formed spectacular public plazas (e.g. Perovic,1985).2 A novelty on the local architectural scene was the NationalRomantic style, which mixed European classicism with referencesto old Serbian3 and Byzantine aesthetics (e.g. Maric, 2002; Manevicet al., 1990; Manevic, undated).

Belgrade’s early 20th century neighborhoods had morphologypatterns similar to those in other large continental European citiesat the time: their dense fabric was made of medium-scale residen-tial and mixed-use buildings, placed to form continuous and eclec-tic street facades and small interior courtyards. Some outlying,suburban residential districts were also developed at the timeaccording to European fashions. For example, Belgrade’s most pres-tigious neighborhood Dedinje, which first attracted the city’s upperclass in the early 1900s and contains the Royal Palace and manyforeign embassies, was laid out with ample tree-lined sidewalksand spacious green yards as a Belgrade-style garden suburb.

Belgrade endured heavy damage during World War I under Aus-trian and German attacks. In 1918, Serbian troops with French helpexpelled the foreign armies. In the same year Serbia, emerging vic-torious from the war, formed a union with its neighbors called theKingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (renamed Yugoslavia in1929). Belgrade now became the capital of a much larger new state.The city also expanded territorially toward the north to include theZemun area, which had a largely Slavic population yet had been ru-led by the Hapsburgs (the border between Serbia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire ran through northern Belgrade until 1918).

In the interwar years, Belgrade prospered both economicallyand culturally, becoming one of Central-East Europe’s most vibranturban centers. The sciences, the arts and architecture entered anexceptionally creative period. Serbian architects like M. Zlokovic,

Fig. 2. Belgrade’s historic downtown, which exhibits the traditional morphology patterns and eclectic mix of architectural styles typical of other large cities in continentalEurope.

Fig. 3. Belgrade’s most famous pedestrian street, Knez Mihajlova.

S. Hirt / Cities 26 (2009) 293–303 295

296 S. Hirt / Cities 26 (2009) 293–303

B. Krstic, P. Krstic, N. Dobrovic and D. Brasovan joined the fast-bur-geoning global Modern avant-garde. Many of Belgrade’s streets be-came scenes of brave aesthetic experimentation and includedsome of the best exemplars of interwar Modern architecture inthe region (see Blagojevic, 2003; Maric, 2002).

World War II exerted a heavy toll on Belgrade. The Luftwaffebombed the city in 1941, destroying hundreds of buildings, includ-ing the Royal Palace, many churches and hospitals, and the majorindustrial facilities. The National Library, with its 300,000 medievalmanuscripts, was burned down. The city was under German occu-pation until late October of 1944. About 50,000 citizens died duringthe bombing campaign or were killed in mass executions. InNovember 1945, leading his triumphant partisan troops into Bel-grade, Josip Tito declared the end of Nazi rule and the birth ofthe Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Belgrade during communism

Communism introduced a fundamentally different paradigm incity-building. Despite its famous break with Stalinism in 1948, theYugoslav regime adhered closely to the communist doctrine. Mosturban land and large production means were put under publicownership—a process that took about a dozen years (however,the overwhelming amount of agricultural resources, about 90%, re-mained in private hands). The state took the role of primary urbandeveloper. New legislation delineated a strictly hierarchical systemof planning—from federal through republican to municipal level.Thus, local plans strictly followed the orders provided in the five-year national economic plans; in fact, their essential purpose wasto translate national economic goals into spatial terms at the locallevel (Nedovic-Budic and Cavric, 2006).

The first post-war planning goals were to rebuild the war-dam-aged urban fabric, including the heavily scarred downtown streets,provide new housing, restore the operation of the vital civic ser-vices, and restart the economy—tasks which were accomplishedin about a decade or so. From the 1950s on, a new set of statewideideologically driven objectives were put in place related to urbanindustrial expansion, the building of ‘‘classless” cities, and the pro-duction of large new residential districts utilizing industrializedconstruction technologies (Nedovic-Budic and Cavric, 2006; Nedo-vic-Budic and Vujosevic, 2004).

For the Yugoslav capital, this meant the construction of a num-ber of massive chemical, metallurgical, and machine-building fac-tories (e.g., the Tito Shipyard), as well as an explosive populationgrowth (population nearly doubled in the late 1940s; see Fig. 1).This growth was fed by natural increase, by in-migration followingthe building of the new urban industries, and by the steady territo-rial expansion of the metropolis. By the mid-1950s, Belgrade’s ter-ritory comprised 2090 sq km. Aggressive annexation continuedthrough the 1960s and in 1971 the capital metropolis reached itspresent administrative borders, which enclose 3222 sq km of land(Gligorijevic et al., 2007).

Intensive post-war growth mandated the urgent building ofmass housing. The pioneering project was Novi Beograd (New Bel-grade). The idea of creating a vast new district across the Sava Riverand opposite the historic center dated back to the 1923 MasterPlan of Belgrade. In fact, the site was used in the 1930s as a statefairground showcasing early industrial progress in Yugoslavia.Construction of self-sufficient neighborhoods comprising not onlylarge residential buildings but also a complex range of servicesand vast civic spaces as prescribed in the Athens Charter4 started

4 I refer to the Athens Charter which was adopted by the International Congress ofModern Architecture in 1934. The Charter outlined the main principles of Modernisturban design, including standardized construction methods, large green and publicspaces, segregated land uses, modernized transportation networks, etc.

in 1948 and intensified after the 1950 Master Plan endorsed urban-ization on the Sava’s left bank (Grozdanic, 2008; Gligorijevic, 2006;Gajic and Dimitrijevic-Markovic, 2006; Lazar and Djokic, 2006). To-day, Novi Beograd houses 220,000 people; it is the most populatedadministrative unit of the capital city. Similar districts, such as Bano-vo Brdo and Banjica, were built throughout the communist eraalongside other parts of old Belgrade (see Fig. 4 for the administra-tive units of the city and Fig. 5 for Novi Beograd’s Modernarchitecture).

In morphological terms, Belgrade’s Modernist districts marked aclear break with pre-World-War-II built patterns. In line withModernist ideals of industrial efficiency and progress, the new dis-tricts included large flat-roofed residential buildings made of pre-fabricated panels. Instead of aesthetic eclecticism, these buildingsoffered a sense of discipline and egalitarianism. Rather than fram-ing semi-private interior courtyards, as was typical of the early20th century neighborhoods, the new buildings were placed farand apart from each other. They formed vast open public greenspaces, thus conveying a clear message for the dominance of thecommunist public realm over private (i.e., ‘‘bourgeois”) interests.Although the new districts complied with the general principlesof Modernism, it is important to note that their architecture devi-ated from orthodox communist examples at least to an extent.First, Belgrade’s districts were better supplied with services thantheir counterparts in other Balkan capitals like Bucharest or Sofia.Second, their design was of superior architectural quality (Hirt,2008; see Fig. 6). The latter may be partially attributed to the high-er level of economic development of Yugoslavia compared to itsEastern neighbors and the higher-quality materials used in con-struction. Access to greater resources alone, however, can hardlyexplain the stark contrast between the dreadful monotony of typ-ical communist housing projects and the more imaginative designlanguage used in places like Novi Beograd. A likely reason for thisrelative success is that Yugoslav architects continued to be an inte-gral part of world’s artistic avant-garde in ways their colleagues inmore doctrinal communist nations were no longer permitted. Anumber of examples support this point: lead Yugoslav architectswere members of the world’s premiere architectural bodies; Yugo-slav post-war planning laws were written after extensive ex-changes with Western experts (Nedovic-Budic and Cavric, 2006);the 1956 Congress of International Architecture was held inDubrovnik.

Political reforms initiated in the 1960s shifted some powersfrom the federal to the republican levels and permitted privateownership of small and medium business enterprises (as a result,in the late 1980s about a third of the Yugoslav GDP came fromthe private sector—a share much higher than in other communistnations; Hadzic, 2002). At that time, significant planning responsi-bilities were transferred from the federal authorities to the individ-ual republics.

Progressive trends in planning and architecture only strength-ened through the 1970s parallel to Yugoslavia’s continuing politi-cal decentralization and democratization. This is reflected in thecautious break with severe Modernism visible in Belgrade’s fabricfrom the 1970s on Hirt (2008) and the early call for historic pres-ervation and architectural contextualism issued in Belgrade’s,1972 Master Plan. It is also reflected in the high levels of civicparticipation that characterized planning in the 1970s and 1980s(Nedovic-Budic et al., 2008; Vujosevic and Nedovic-Budic, 2006).

Belgrade in war, turmoil and transition

In 1989, Yugoslavia was in a stronger position than any otherEast European country to implement a short and successful transi-tion toward a democratic, free-market society. The country’s

Fig. 4. Administrative districts (municipalities) in Belgrade and individual neighborhoods mentioned in the paper. The map also shows the City Proper, which incorporatesthe heavily urbanized central areas of the vast metropolis, as well as the territory subject to Belgrade’s latest Master Plan. Reprinted with modifications with the permission ofUrban Geography, Vol. 29, No. 8, pp. 785–810. (c) Bellwether Publishing, Ltd., 8640 Guilford Road, Suite 200, Columbia, MD 21046. All rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Large Modernist structures—like the ones shown in the photo—characterize communist-era districts such as Novi Beograd. Unlike Belgrade’s traditionalneighborhoods, the Modernist districts comprise large free-standing towers sharing vast common green spaces, designed to convey a message of industrial progress andegalitarianism.

S. Hirt / Cities 26 (2009) 293–303 297

Fig. 6. In the 1980s, Novi Beograd’s Modernism ‘softened’ by adopting a more humane scale and incorporating sloped roofs, color, semi-private spaces and even someelements from traditional Serbian residential architecture. Such architectural innovations are largely absent in other capital cities in the region during the same period.

298 S. Hirt / Cities 26 (2009) 293–303

decentralized political structure, thriving cultural contacts withthe West, and decades-long experimentation with quasi-capitalistreforms all seemed to point in this direction. Of course, what hap-pened in the 1990s was precisely the opposite, as the governmentsof all six Yugoslav republics became dominated by nationalistelites, which led the country to brutal wars.5

In Serbia, some attempts to move in a democratic directionwere made in the early 1990s. A number of privatization reformswere in fact carried out; by 1994, nearly all public housing (95–98%) was privatized throughout the republic and in its capital city(Petrovic, 2001). However, the bloody 1991–1995 war with Croatiaand Bosnia and the hyperinflation of 1993–1994 devastated theSerbian economy, and GDP fell by 60% in four years. In the mid-1990s, reforms ceased. The autocratic regime of Slobodan Milos-evic overturned many earlier initiatives and centralized power atthe expense of local autonomy.

As a result of the economic crisis, the decline of municipal pow-ers, and the overall chaos that engulfed Serbia as a nation in warand international isolation, local planning regimes nearly collapsedand the planning profession entered a major legitimacy crisis(Vujosevic and Nedovic-Budic, 2006). Simultaneously, since thepublic sector cut funds for housing maintenance and largely with-drew from housing production, the existing stock began to visiblydeteriorate and the number of dwellings built per year dramati-cally declined, leading to near-crisis conditions in large cities like

5 This article, of course, cannot dissect the complex causes of the disintegration ofYugoslavia. To place Belgrade’s transition in context, however, it is useful to keep thebasic chronology in mind. In short, Slovenia declared independence in 1991. Croatiaand Bosnia followed suit soon thereafter. Their declarations of independence led toseveral years of war, which ended in 1995 with the enactment of the Dayton PeaceAccord. The Kosovo conflict took place in 1999—the year in which Serbia was bombedby NATO and Kosovo was declared an international protectorate. Montenegro becamean independent state in 2007. Kosovo seceded in 2008; at the time of writing about 50countries have recognized its sovereignty. Serbia disputes this status.

Belgrade. Even in 2003, after the stabilization of Serbia’s economy,Belgrade’s housing output comprised just a quarter of its housingoutput in 1990 (Vujovic and Petrovic, 2007). The problem was se-verely aggravated by the influx of ethnic Serbs expelled from otherparts of former Yugoslavia: 600,000 in Serbia and over 100,000 inBelgrade alone. The cumulative effect of these traumatic circum-stances was an explosion in the number of illegally built dwellings.Some unauthorized housing construction, comprising mostly mod-est huts on the periphery of Belgrade, had in fact slipped under theradar of communist authorities as part of Belgrade’s intense post-1945 industrialization and urbanization (Zegarac, 1999). However,in the 1990s, such construction became so widespread that it ren-dered the original meaning of the term ‘‘illegal” obsolete. In 1997,for instance, the estimated number of units erected without a legalbuilding permit matched the number of those erected with a per-mit (Vujovic and Petrovic, 2007; Petrovic, 2001). Of course, theerection of nominally unsanctioned homes could be a necessarylast-resort strategy employed by poor residents, refugees included,to access urban jobs and services when state agencies otherwisefail to provide them. In Belgrade, however, building illegal homesalso became a strategy of the upper classes, including elites inthe Milosevic regime, who did so to prey on public space and infra-structure. The city’s most desirable areas, Dedinje and Senjak, be-came ridden with such illegal villas; in fact, entire newneighborhoods, like Padina, were created in this fashion. Erectedin violation of basic building norms and often located on publicspace, the new residences used extremely lavish and kitschy styles(e.g., some are adorned by statues of Aphrodite!; Hirt, 2008). Suchstyles have prompted one critic to refer to them as turbo-architec-ture (after turbo-folk, a somewhat misguided but flamboyantmusical genre that mixes Western pop with Balkan folk; Weiss,2007), and another as the Karic-style (Prodanovic, 2004; The Karicfamily is one the wealthiest in Serbia). Coupled with the ruins ofpublic buildings destroyed by NATO bombs in 1999 (some of these

Fig. 7. Crowned by a cupola and surrounded by ornate but secure gating, this new home in Zemun overlooks the Danube and is one of the relatively tasteful examples oflavish new architecture.

Table 1Belgrade: Area and population by administrative district (municipality) according tothe 2002 census. Source: Institute for Informatics and Statistics, 2006.

Area(ha)

Area within cityproper (ha)

Population2002

Population density(per ha)

Urban districts1. Cukarica 15,650 5560 168,508 10.772. Novi Beograd 4074 4074 217,773 53.453. Palilula 44,661 4536 155,902 3.494. Rakovica 3036 3036 99,000 32.615. Savsi Venac 1400 1400 42,505 30.366. Stari grad 698 698 55,543 79.577. Vozdovac 14,864 3242 151,768 10.218. Vracar 292 292 58,386 199.959. Zemun 15,058 9992 191,645 12.7310. Zvezdara 3165 3165 132,621 41.90

Suburban districts11. Barajevo 21,312 24,641 1.1612. Grocka 28,923 75,466 2.6113. Lazarevac 38,351 58,511 1.5314. Mladenovac 33,900 52,490 1.5515. Obrenovac 40,995 70,975 1.7316. Sopot 27,075 20,390 0.7517. Surcin 28,814 n/a

Total 322,268 35,995 1,576,124 4.89

S. Hirt / Cities 26 (2009) 293–303 299

buildings were premier examples of Belgrade’s historic and mod-ern architecture; Perovic and Zegarac, 2000) these pompous man-sions may be the true architectural ‘‘legacy” of the disastrousMilosevic years (also Curcic, 2006; see Fig. 7).

Belgrade after 2000

Current economic, political and administrative structure

In 2000, Serbia elected its first post-communist democratic gov-ernment. Since then, the country has made a series of importantsteps toward democratization and integration into the EuropeanUnion. The Serbian economy has rebounded: GDP has beenincreasing by 6–8% per annum, although unemployment remainshigh at 18.6% in Serbia and 14% in the capital city. In 2005, Bel-grade’s GDP was 4,800 billion Euros or about 3000 Euros per capita.Although this is a vast improvement since 2000, it remains 23%lower in GDP and 27% lower in GDP per capita than it was in theyear 1989, when Belgrade was at its economic peak (Gligorijevicet al., 2007). The current economic profile of the metropolis is asfollows: 66% of the employed urban population works in the ter-tiary sector (as compared to 60% in 1989), 31% is employed inthe secondary sector (as compared to 39% in 1989), and less than2% is employed in the primary sector (no change since in 1989;Institute for Informatics and Statistics, 2006). These figures clearlyreflect the de-industrialization trend typical of other post-com-munist nations.

In administrative terms, the metropolis with its 1,576,000inhabitants is divided into 17 districts or municipalities (seeFig. 4). The metropolitan area is very large (3222 sq km, as ear-lier noted) and includes the so-called City Proper—the central ur-ban area—along with vast agricultural regions with very low

population densities (see Table 1). The City Proper occupies only11% of the metropolitan area. Ten of the municipalities areregarded as urban and seven as suburban (in fact, four urbanmunicipalities are partially suburban; they include lands outsidethe City Proper; see Table 1 and Fig. 4). Predictably, districtswithin the City Proper, especially in or near the city center,have much higher population densities. Also, the City Proper is

300 S. Hirt / Cities 26 (2009) 293–303

characterized by a stronger tertiary sector (at 72%) and higher-income residents.

Current processes of urban change

The processes of spatial restructuring in Belgrade since 2000 arebroadly reminiscent of those that have occurred in the capital citiesof other East European states since the end of communism andespecially since the stabilization of their respective economies inthe mid- to late-1990s (e.g., see Hirt, 2006 on Sofia; Sykora,1999a,b on Prague). Construction activity has boomed (e.g., the va-lue of construction works per year increased nearly seven timesbetween 2000 and 2005). As elsewhere in Eastern Europe, land-use changes reflect the processes of de-industrialization and tert-iarization of the urban economy. The signs of de-industrializationare evident in a series of communist-era brownfield sites through-out the city. Some relatively large industries are located in themost attractive central parts of the city (e.g., in Novi Beograd) asa result of the communist policy of prioritizing industry over otherland uses. How to restructure these sites presents a substantialplanning challenge, as all recent planning documents indicate.Regardless of relative de-industrialization, Belgrade remains thelargest industrial zone in Serbia: it employs over 20% of the coun-try’s industrial labor-force. A third of business space in Belgrade istaken by industry. The large heavy chemical and surface miningcomplexes in Belgrade’s periphery are still in operation, providingimportant employment opportunities but also producing majorpollution.

In contrast to declining industry, commercial uses have in-creased steadily since 1989 regardless of the economic downturnof the 1990s. Belgrade may have been better provided with ser-vices than other communist capitals as a result of its higher livingstandards and the relatively liberal economic leanings of the Yugo-slav government. Still, the year 1989 marked a threshold in thecommercialization of the urban fabric: the number of commercialoutlets about quadrupled between 1989 and 2005 in the condi-tions of no population growth (see Fig. 8). Between 2000 and2005 alone, business space used for retail purposes increased bynearly a million square meters—a growth increment larger by farthan that recorded for any other purpose (City of Belgrade, 2008).

As in other post-communist cities, there has been a notable shiftin the type of retail over time. During the early post-communistyears, new retail came primarily in the form of small, local, oftenfamily owned spaces constructed on an ad hoc basis (e.g., remod-eled apartments, garages and kiosks, many of which were locatedon public green space without building permits). The last fewyears, however, have been marked by the entry of malls and hyper-markets sponsored by a combination of Western and Serbian cap-ital. For good or ill, retail consolidation in Belgrade has been slowerthan in other capital cities in the region, due to Serbia’s depressed

Total number of retail s

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

1960

1970

1980

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

Tota

l ret

ail

Fig. 8. Growth of retail

economy and the lack of foreign investment during most of the1990s. The first foreign-owned hypermarket entered Belgrade in1998; as of 2007, there were 18 big-box commercial facilities inthe city, and several more are under construction. Space in suchfacilities reached 115,000 sq. m—a more than fourfold increasesince 2004 (Colliers International Serbia, 2008a). The largest newcommercial superstore, and perhaps the first to truly qualify asan upscale Western-type mall, is Delta 67 in Novi Beograd; its floorarea is 87,000 sq m and it includes a number of well-known Euro-pean chains, from Adidas to Zara, as well as movie theatres, sportsfacilities and fifteen restaurants. As in other cities, the aggressivespread of such vast retail establishments may enhance consumers’choices; yet, as also elsewhere, their impact on small business, traf-fic and the aesthetic environment of the city has hardly beenbeneficial.

Parallel to the shift in type of retail, there has been a shift in re-tail location. The small retail businesses of the 1990s were com-monly situated in remodeled existing buildings—especially in theneighborhoods in and around the city center. This trend causeddepopulation in parts of central Belgrade, as residents began sell-ing their properties to commercial bidders (e.g., the district of StariGrad or Old Town, for example, lost 18% of its residents in about10 years). Because of their need for vast open plots, however, thelarge retailers of the post-2000 period generally build green-fielddevelopments at the periphery of the central urbanized areas. Inthis respect, Novi Beograd is the exception that proves the rule. Lo-cated right across from Old Town, yet developed during the com-munist-era with solid infrastructure, wide boulevards, convenientmass transit access, relatively good modern architecture, and am-ple green spaces, the district has become both an extension ofand an alternative to the historic core. It has attracted the largestamount of commercial and office development of any district inthe metropolis, and today holds about a fifth of the city’s total com-mercial space, including the biggest malls and hypermarkets (e.g.,Delta 67), and the local headquarters of various multi-nationalbanks and other businesses. It has further remained one of themost desirable places to live, as evidenced by its high residentialvalues, which are competitive with rents in downtown and themost prestigious urban neighborhoods (e.g., rents average 10 Eurosper sq m in Novi Beograd, and 11 Euros per sq m in Stari Grad andDedinje; Serbian Investment and Export Promotion Agency, 2007;also Colliers International Serbia, 2008b). In this sense, the districtrepresents a near-anomaly in post-communist urban change,showing that prime location and quality of development may beatthe grim predictions of some scholars issued during the 1990s thatthe communist districts would inevitably become ghettoes of de-cay (e.g., see Andrusz et al., 1996).

As the previous paragraphs have already hinted, changes in res-idential patterns have also been an integral part of Belgrade’s con-temporary development. Like other post-communist cities, the

tores in Belgrade 1960-2005

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Year

outlets in Belgrade.

S. Hirt / Cities 26 (2009) 293–303 301

Serbian capital has experienced notable socio-spatial stratificationwith the formation of very expensive districts, mostly in andaround the historic core (e.g., in traditionally wealthy neighbor-hoods like Dedinje) and very poor districts, mostly near the largeindustries in the far-out outskirts. An estimated 25,000 people inBelgrade live in 29 slums and 64 other slum-like settlements,which do not meet basic health and sanitary conditions (Tsenkova,2005a).

As noted earlier, some neighborhoods in the city center haveexperienced depopulation, and there are some signs of upper-and middle-class decentralization (e.g., posh new residences withviews of the Danube are built in Zemun, whereas middle-classhomes are spreading in parts of Surcin and Obrenovac). However,it seems premature to say that Belgrade is experiencing the full-fledged suburbanization typical of many other large East Europeancities. In new housing, Belgrade’s highest-growth districts over thelast few years have been Cukarica and Novi Beograd, followed byZvezdara and Vracar (Colliers International Serbia, 2008a; Institutefor Informatics and Statistics, 2006; see Fig. 4 for the location of thedistricts). All are adjacent the center. The Serbian capital thus farpresents an exception to the general suburbanization trend in East-ern Europe, likely because of the outstanding appeal of its center(which commands the highest residential prices not only in Serbiabut throughout Southeastern Europe; Tsenkova, 2005b) and be-cause attractive areas in the vicinity of the center continue to haveland available for residential development.

Even though in terms of the location of new housing, Belgrademay represent an exception among East European capitals, interms of character, new housing has followed general trends inthe region. Instead of the individually constructed homes, whichwere typical of the 1990s, the majority of new dwellings in Bel-grade—especially those which serve the upper-class market—nowcome as part of larger housing communities, some comprising sin-gle-family homes and some comprising medium-scale multi-storyapartment and mixed-use buildings. The new developments, manyof which neighbor the large Modernist districts of Novi Beograd,

Fig. 9. New housing in Belgrade. As compared to the Modernist districts with their largemuch greater variety of scales, styles and colors. They also embrace the traditional morphinterior yard. Photo by Town Planning Institute, Belgrade.

exhibit a revived interest in traditional neighborhood morphology.They are more reminiscent in scale and character of Belgrade’searly 20th-century fabric than of the fabric constructed duringcommunism (see Fig. 9). In lieu of Modernist discipline, standard-ization and vast open spaces, Belgrade’s new housing offers brightcolors, subtle eclecticism of styles and scales, and a return to thetraditional street corridor and the semi-private interior yard.

The entry of global capital, including Western developmentfirms, is underlying another residential trend, which may becomemore prominent in the future: the trend toward building large, fla-shy and often gated communities, targeting expatriates, employeesof foreign firms and embassies, and Belgrade’s top business eche-lon. Such developments include: Belville, the largest residentialproject in Serbia with 1788 units located nearby Delta 67 in NoviBeograd, which will be completed in 2009; and Marina in StariGrad, a mixed-used project with 500 dwellings which is the firstmajor waterfront re-development in Belgrade and is scheduled toopen in 2011.

Current planning challenges

Despite the many appealing qualities of Belgrade’s built envi-ronment, the city faces a number of severe planning challenges.Some of these challenges are typical, in various degrees, of citiesthroughout East-Central Europe. These include brownfield re-development, pollution caused by the large industrial facilitiesconstructed before 1989, stark socio-spatial stratification, anddeteriorating housing stock in some of the communist-era housingdistricts.

Other problems are specific to the large cities of former Yugo-slavia, including Sarajevo, Skopje and Pristina, as well as the Alba-nian capital of Tirana. One such issue is the very large number (anestimated 146,000 in Belgrade) of illegally erected buildings,mostly from the 1990s (Tsenkova, 2005a). Although such buildingsprovide an affordable alternative for many urban dwellers, theyalso put a serious strain on the existing urban infrastructure, which

and grey residential towers and vast public spaces, the new developments exhibit aological patterns of old Belgrade, including the corridor street and the semi-private

302 S. Hirt / Cities 26 (2009) 293–303

was never designed to accommodate them. In Belgrade, of course,the problem has been exacerbated by the entry of thousands of ref-ugees. In 2002, Serbia adopted a National Strategy for Resolving theProblems of Refugees and Internally Displaced People. This docu-ment recommends a number of housing strategies, such as thedevelopment of public rental units. The refugee issue featuresprominently in local planning debates. However, due to the scar-city of public funds, little has been done to assist them. The over-whelming majority of refugees have learned to resolve their lifestruggles privately, by relying on themselves and their relatives,and by settling either in self-built dwellings or in overcrowdedexisting residential structures (see Tsenkova, 2005a).

Another issue facing Belgrade’s municipal authorities is resolv-ing the status of urban land. Unlike most other post-communistcountries in East-Central Europe, Serbia has yet to fully denational-ize developable urban land. In Belgrade, vast chunks of vacant landzoned for construction are under public ownership and can beleased for up to 99 years under conditions prescribed by the cityauthorities (Serbia Investment and Export Promotion Industry,2007; Tsenkova, 2005b). Such public controls may be saving Bel-grade from the unbridled sprawl and other abuses that commonlyfollowed the quick privatization of land, parks and other greenspaces in cities such as Sofia (see Hirt and Kovachev, 2006); how-ever, they have clearly not saved it from illegal construction. Fur-thermore, the murky ownership situation deters local and foreigninvestments crucial to revitalizing the city. It may be true thatsome foreign investments, such as those that produced the seriesof vast suburban business parks and residential subdivisions inother East European cities, have hardly been beneficial (again, Sofiais a negative example to keep in mind here). Still, it is hard to imag-ine good reasons for sticking to a strategy that reduces foreigninvestment in the challenging economic situation Belgrade stillfaces.

Finally, it must be noted that it not clear for how long Belgrade’scenter will succeed in out-competing ex-urban locations in attract-ing residents and businesses. The opening of Airport City Belgrade,a complex of 12 glittering glass buildings with offices and retailamidst a sea of asphalt, signals that preserving Belgrade’s centermay become a new challenge for planners. Although Airport Cityis technically in the district of Novi Beograd, it is an ex-urban busi-ness park, whose owners proudly boast having more parking thanany other business node in the city.

Conclusions: Planning the future of belgrade

After a decade of steep decline, Serbia and its capital have final-ly embarked on the road to recovery. Serbia is becoming a high-growth spot in Eastern Europe; in 2006 it attracted 4400 billionEuros of Foreign Direct Investment—three times more than in theprevious year (Serbia Investment and Export Promotion Agency,2008). Classified as a ‘‘potential candidate country,” it is expectedto enter the European Union between 2012 and 2015. Belgrade’slocation at the junction of two pan-European transport corridorsmakes it a regional node of primary significance (these corridorsare Corridor VII from Romania to Germany, and Corridor X fromGreece to Austria and Germany). Belgrade’s highly educated popu-lation and strengthening economy will likely further ensure itsgrowing importance in Southeast Europe and beyond.

In 2006–2007, Belgrade was voted ‘Southern European City ofthe Future’.6 Because of its strong historic and architectural heritageand its vibrant civic life, it is also likely to more fully realize its

6 This was a competition organized by the Financial Times, which selects ‘Cities ofthe Future’ in 13 regions of Europe. The region of Southern Europe includes Slovenia,Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece,Turkey, Cyprus and Malta.

potential as a cultural capital of Europe. Over the last few years,the city has adopted three key planning documents: the Master Plan(City of Belgrade, 2003), the Regional Physical Plan (City of Belgrade,2004), and the Development Strategy (City of Belgrade, 2008). Thesedocuments set a number of goals and strategies around the themesof improving environmental sustainability, economic competitive-ness, social cohesion and territorial polycentrism, and strengtheningcultural identity.

Whether these goals will be achieved will largely depend onhow Belgrade’s policy-makers will position the city in the contextof European integration. It will also depend on how quickly theunfortunate legacy of the 1990s can be overcome, and on whetherplanning can reassert itself as a vital tool that can fight problemssuch as rampant sprawl, loss of public space, and traffic conges-tion—problems that plague many East European capital cities, yetBelgrade has thus far avoided.

Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank the journal editors and refereesfor their extremely helpful recommendations on earlier drafts. Sheis also deeply grateful to her colleagues Dr. Z. Nedovic-Budic, Dr. M.Petrovic and Dr. Z. Gligorijevic for sharing their insights on Bel-grade, Dr. J. Steiff for her editorial recommendations and herfriends B. and V. Vukomanovic for making her stay in Belgrade sopleasant. Research in Belgrade was funded by the National Councilof Eurasian and East European Studies, the Woodrow Wilson Cen-ter for International Scholars, the Graham Foundation for Ad-vanced Studies in the Fine Arts, and the Humanities Stipend atVirginia Tech. The author expresses her deep gratitude to theseinstitutions.

References

Andrusz, G, Harloe, M and Szelenyi, I (1996) Cities after Socialism: Urban andRegional Change and Conflict in Post-Socialist Societies. Blackwell, Malden andOxford.

Blagojevic, L (2003) Modernism in Serbia: The Elusive Margins of BelgradeArchitecture 1919–1941. MIT Press, Cambridge.

City of Belgrade (2003) Sluzbeni List Grada Beograda. City of Belgrade, Belgrade (inSerbian).

City of Belgrade (2004) Regionalni Prostorni Plan Administrativnog PodrucjaBeograda. City of Belgrade, Belgrade (in Serbian).

City of Belgrade (2008) City of Belgrade Development Strategy: Goals, Concept andStrategic Priorities of Sustainable Development (Draft). Unpublished documentmade available to the author from Mr. Dusan Damjanovic, Project Director,PALGO Center.

Colliers International Serbia (2008a) Market Overview Belgrade: Residential MarketSecond Half of 2008. <http://www.colliers.com/Content/Repositories/Base/Markets/Serbia/English/Market_Report/PDFs/BelgradeResidential2ndHalf2008.pdf>(accessed 1.12.08).

Colliers International Serbia (2008b) Market Overview Belgrade: Retail Market SecondHalf of 2008. <http://www.colliers.com/Content/Repositories/Base/Markets/Serbia/English/Market_Report/PDFs/BelgradeRetail2ndHalf2008.pdf> (accessed1.12.08).

Curcic, B (2006) Almost Architecture: Srdan Jovanovic Weiss wrote a book on Serbian‘‘Turbo Architecture.” <http://kuda.org/?q=en/node/712> (accessed 28.11.08).

Gajic, R and Dimitrijevic-Markovic, S (2006) Managing integration anddisintegration processes in modern urbanism settlements—the case of NewBelgrade. In Paper Presented at the 42nd Congress of the International Society ofCity and Regional Planners, Istanbul, September 14–18.

Gligorijevic, Z (2006) Can new developments and city identity grow in harmony?The quest for a successful public space design for New Belgrade. In PaperPresented at the 42nd Congress of the International Society of City and RegionalPlanners, Istanbul, September 14–18.

Gligorijevic, Z, Ferencak, M, Savic, D and Velovic, V (2007). Financing MetropolitanGovernments in Transitional Countries: Case Study Belgrade. Unpublisheddocument made available by the Town Planning Institute of Belgrade.

Grozdanic, M (2008). Belgrade—European Metropolis, Transformations throughSpace and Time. <http://www.isocarp.net/Data/case_studies/1125.pdf>(accessed 25.11.08).

Hadzic, M (2002) Rethinking privatization in Serbia. Eastern European Economics40(6), 6–23.

Hirt, S (2006) Post-socialist urban forms: notes from Sofia. Urban Geography 27(5),464–488.

S. Hirt / Cities 26 (2009) 293–303 303

Hirt, S (2008) Landscapes of post-modernity: changes in the built fabric of Belgradeand Sofia since the end of socialism. Urban Geography 29(8), 785–809.

Hirt, S and Kovachev, A (2006) The changing spatial structure of post-socialist Sofia.In The Urban Mosaic of Post-socialist Europe: Space* Institutions and Policy, STsenkova and Z Nedovic-Budic (eds.), pp. 113–130. Springer and Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg and New York.

Institute for Informatics and Statistics (2006). Statistical Yearbook of Belgrade.Institute for Informatics and Statistics, Belgrade.

Institute of Urbanism, (undated) Urban Face of Modern Belgrade. <http://www.urbel.com/default.aspx?ID=uzb_BG_planoviLN=ENG> (accessed 5.1.08).

Jovanovic, G (ed.) (2007) Belgrade. Intersistem, Belgrade.Lazar, M and Djokic, J (2006). Complex history as a source of planning problems: old

Belgrade fairgrounds. In Paper Presented at the 42nd Congress of the InternationalSociety of City and Regional Planners, Istanbul, September 14–18.

Manevic, Z, Davison, R and Davison, D (1990) Art deco and national tendencies inserbian architecture. Journal of Decorative and Propaganda Arts 17(Autumn), 71–75.

Manevic, Z (undated) Beograd—Architecture and Building. <http://www.web.mit.edu/most/www/ser/Belgrade/zoran_manevic.html> (accessed 25.11.08).

Maric, D (2002) Vodic Kroz Modernu Arhitekturu Beograda. Association of BelgradeArchitects, Belgrade (in Serbian).

Maric, I (2006) Tradicionalno Graditeljstvo Pomoravlja i Savremena Arhitektura.Institute of Architecture and Urbanism, Belgrade (in Serbian).

Nedovic-Budic, Z and Cavric, B (2006) Waves of planning: a framework for studyingthe evolution of planning systems and empirical insights from Serbia andMontenegro. Planning Perspectives 21(October), 393–425.

Nedovic-Budic, Z and Vujosevic, M (2004) Interplay between political governance,socio-economic and planning systems: case study of former yugoslavia andpresent Serbia and Montenegro. In Paper presented at the InternationalConference Winds of Societal Change: Remaking Post-communist Cities,University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, June 18–19. <http://www.reec.uiuc.edu/events/FisherForum/FisherForum2004/Nedovic%20&%20Vujosevic.pdf>(accessed 26.11.08).

Nedovic-Budic, Z, Djordjevic, D and Dabovic, T (2008) Serbian planning legislationin the context of socialism and post-socialism. In Paper presented at the

International Academic Forum on Planning, Law and Property Rights, Warsaw,February 14–15.

Norris, D (2008) Belgrade: A Cultural History. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Perovic, M (1985) Iskustva Proslosti. Belgrade’s Urban Planning Institute, Belgrade

(in Serbian).Perovic, M and Zegarac, Z (2000) The destruction of an architectural culture: the

1999 bombing of Belgrade. Cities 17(6), 395–408.Petrovic, M (2001) Post-socialist housing policy transformation on Yugoslavia and

Belgrade. European Journal of Housing Policy 1(2), 211–231.Prodanovic, M (2004) Stariji Ilepsi Beograd. 3rd ed.. Stubovi Kulture, Belgrade (in

Serbian).Serbian Investment and Export Promotion Agency (2007) Real Estate Industry in

Serbia. <http://www.siepa.gov.rs/site/en/home/2/publications/sector_brochures/RealEstateIndustryinSerbia.pdf> (accessed 1.12.08).

Sykora, L (1999a) Changes in the internal structure of post-communist Prague.Geojournal 49(1), 79–89.

Sykora, L (1999b) Processes of socio-spatial differentiation in post-communistPrague. Housing Studies 14(5), 679–701.

Tsenkova, S (2005a) Country Profiles on the Housing Sector: Serbia and Montenegro.Economic Commission for Europe, United Nations, New York and Geneva.

Tsenkova, S (2005b) Trends and Progress in Housing Reforms in South Eastern Europe.Council of Europe, Paris.

Vujosevic, M and Nedovic-Budic, Z (2006) Planning and societal context—the case ofBelgrade, Serbia. In The Urban Mosaic of Post-socialist Europe: Space, S Tsenkovaand Z Nedovic-Budic (eds.), pp. 275–294. Institutions and Policy, Physica-Verlagand Springer, Heidelberg.

Vujovic, S and Petrovic, M (2007) Belgrade’s post-socialist urban evolution:reflections by the actors in the development process. In The Post-socialist City:Urban Form and Space Transformations in Central and Eastern Europe afterSocialism, K Stanilov (ed.), pp. 361–384. Springer, Dordrecht.

Weiss, S (2007) Almost Architecture. Akademie Schloss Solitude, Stuttgart.Zegarac, Z (1999) Illegal construction in Belgrade and the prospects for urban

development planning. Cities 16(5), 365–370.