Historical Enquiry As a Critical Method in Urban Riverscape Revisions: the Case of Belgrade’S Conﬂuence †

Home , Great War Island, History of Belgrade, Kalemegdan Park, New Belgrade, Singidunum, Zemun

sustainability

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

Marija Milinković 1,* , Dragana Corović´ 2 and Zlata Vuksanović-Macura 3

1 University of Belgrade—Faculty of Architecture, Bulevar kralja Aleksandra 73/II, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia 2 University of Belgrade—Faculty of Forestry, Kneza Višeslava 1, 11030 Belgrade, Serbia; [email protected] 3 Geographical Institute “Jovan Cviji´c”SASA, Djure Jakši´ca9, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +318-11-3218-751; Fax: +381-11-3370-193 † This is an expanded version of the paper presented at the conference Landscape Futures UNISCAPE Conference 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark, June 19–21 2017. The abstract of the paper was published within the Book of Abstracts (p. 53; https://ign.ku.dk/landscape-futures/pdf/LandscapeFutures_BookofAbstracts.pdf).

Received: 21 January 2019; Accepted: 18 February 2019; Published: 22 February 2019

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

Keywords: New Belgrade riverscape; Danube; urban landscape; urban open spaces; historical enquiry; landscape urbanism; critical practice

1. Introduction The creation of urban landscapes is considered in this study from the perspective of the synthesis of nature and culture under specific historical circumstances. The transformation of an urban landscape is the transformation of a space which, in turn, is in any given historical period bound up with the history of the space. It is not only, as Henri Lefebvre writes, ‘geographical descriptions of natural space’, but the study of ‘natural rhythms’ and of change in the ‘spatio-temporal rhythms of nature’, which reflect the social practices inscribed into the space [1] (p. 117). A river, as both a flexible and a firm element of urban landscape has potential as a mediator to express the complexity of its ever-changing images [2]. Though the term ‘riverscape’ designates the landscape around a river, even a view of a river, its more profound meaning points to its complex structure comprising organic and inorganic elements and their interconnectedness across change. As S. M. Haslam pointed out:

Sustainability 2019, 11, 1177; doi:10.3390/su11041177 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2019, 11, 1177 2 of 18

“The river continuum is of time as well as space, as is that of the riverscape, changed, slowly or dramatically, over the years. The land form continues, the rest changes” [3] (p. 149). The historical data that document these changes thus reveal the main phases of urban landscape transformation. In this article, we emphasise the importance of (historical) study of the riverscape of Belgrade, given that the city is situated “[...] on the largest water junction of Europe” [4] (p. 319)—the confluence of the Sava river into the Danube. Positioned on the Balkan Peninsula, Belgrade is geographically situated between the Pannonian Plain and the mountainous area of Šumadija. The historical core of the city is located between the two slopes above the rivers, which also give it its strategic importance. Being wedged between geographical oppositions is also reflected in its multi-layered history: “In geopolitical terms, ever since the split of the Roman Empire and into modern history, the two rivers formed borders between often conflicting empires (i.e., between Eastern and Western Roman Empires, Franks and Byzantine Empire, and Ottoman and Austrian/Austro-Hungarian Empires)” [5] (p. 53). Today, Belgrade is the capital and the largest city in the Republic of Serbia, which it also was in former Yugoslavia, 1918–2006. The metropolitan area of Belgrade covers more than 320,000 hectares, with 17 municipalities and nearly 1.7 million people. Facing a moment of profound change in Belgrade riverscape, our study is focused on the city’s central green core and the large open public space on the right bank of the Danube. Following Christophe Girot’s notion that “[e]ach time a landscape project begins there should follow an extended period in which one may simply discover what already exists” [6] (p. 65), we have undertaken a historical survey in attempt to grasp both perceptible and ‘not so obvious’ layers of modernisation, inscribed into the peculiar site of the urban park Ušće (confluence in Serbian). Even though historical enquiry is considered a standard methodological procedure and supposedly forms a common part within the practice of landscape architecture and urban design, under pressure from time-saving and profit-based demands of the capitalist economy, this step is often neglected or severely reduced. Being aware of these reductions and their consequences, the survey starts from a general question: how to acquire profound knowledge and experience, as proper introduction to a site project? Knowing that the dominant paradigm of contemporary city development has already been framed for decades by the universal idea of sustainability [7], we intend to explore ways to approach interventions in the modern city, and furthermore, how to relate to a modern city that was conceptualised and realised within a socialist society—to wit, the capital of former Yugoslavia. In this endeavour, we refer to the theoretical framework constructed around the concept of ‘landscape urbanism’, that was initially articulated through the Landscape Urbanism academic program at the University of Illinois, the Landscape Urbanism conference, 1997, and the Landscape Urbanism traveling exhibition curated by Charles Waldheim, 1997–1998 [8]. The discipline progressed particularly through the work of, besides Waldheim, James Corner and Mohsen Mostafavi, and many other educators, theorists and practitioners, such as Sébastian Marot, Kelly Shannon, Julia Czerniak, Richard Weller, Anita Berrizbeitia, Christophe Girot, etc. This hybrid field of work cuts across numerous disciplines, in “an attempt to re-emphasise the importance of particular sites and the ecological/artificial processes they encompass” [9] (p. 626). Emphasizing that the very concept of landscape contains both a spatial milieu and cultural image, Corner notices that landscape ideas are not universally shared: “it is crucial to understand how cultural ideas condition construction and how construction, in turn, conditions the play of landscape ideas in a larger cultural imagination” [6] (p. 8). In this respect, we stand with many scholars in assuming that proper introduction to a site project should include ‘a closer look’ [6,9–14], implemented through very well-known methodologies of landscape site analysis [14], and improved by the contemporary approach of landscape urbanism. Starting from the premise that the concept of urban landscape offers a generic approach for revealing and re-imagining the unique features of the particular site, as well as the tools to actively resist the globalizing and homogenizing tendencies in contemporary practices [11], our intention is to distinguish layers of historical, natural, social, environmental, cultural and political specificities of the New Belgrade landscape (Figure1). For reading the material and immaterial traces of the past, and detecting ‘not so obvious’ Sustainability 2019, 11, x 3 of 18

Sustainabilitydistinguish2019 layers, 11, 1177 of historical, natural, social, environmental, cultural and political specificiti3 ofes 18 of the New Belgrade landscape (Figure 1). For reading the material and immaterial traces of the past, and detecting ‘not so obvious’ features of the present condition, we shall rely particularly on the features of the present condition, we shall rely particularly on the peculiar notions of ‘critical practices in peculiar notions of ‘critical practices in modernism’, recently proposed by Anita Berrizbeitia and modernism’, recently proposed by Anita Berrizbeitia and Karen M’Closkey [15]. Karen M’Closkey [15].

FigureFigure 1. 1.The The conﬂuence confluence of of the the Sava Sava into into the the Danube Danube at at Belgrade. Belgrade. Photo Photo source: source: Tourist Tourist Organization Organization ofof Belgrade, Belgrade, public public domain. domain.

ConcernedConcerned primarilyprimarily withwith serious ecological threats, threats, the the discourse discourse of of sustainability sustainability itself itself is, is,for formany many reasons, reasons, strongly strongly influenced influenced and and supported supported by by the contemporary contemporary wealth wealth of of scientific scientific knowledge,knowledge, technological technological innovationsinnovations andand unforeseeable technical inventions. inventions. However, However, the the aim aim of ofthis this paper paper is is to to stress stress the the necessity of includingincluding a a historical historical and and cultural culturalperspective perspectivein in reaching reaching progressivelyprogressively more more complex complex goals goals of of sustainability. sustainability. Formation Formation of of public public green green spaces spaces in in the the city city may may bebe a a process process of of critical critical change change and and enrichment enrichment of of cultural cultural conventions. conventions. The The landscape landscape that that is is being being actedacted upon upon becomes becomes the the tool tool for for establishing establishing the the ensemble ensemble that that will, will, through through its its usage, usage, fulfil fulfil a a certain certain plannedplanned spatial spatial strategy. strategy. Besides Besides dealing dealing with with contemporary contemporary environmental environmental issues, issues, the the restoration restoration of of greengreen areas areas of of the the city, city, together together with with studying studying the the memory memory they they hold, hold, can can contribute contribute significantly significantly to ato reductiona reduction of currentof current “cultural “cultural amnesia” amnesia” [6 ][6 (p.] (p. 59), 59), and and thus thus the the materialization materialization of of cultural cultural diversity. diversity. Therefore,Therefore, the the significance significance of of this this paper paper may may be be found found in in its its lateral lateral contribution contribution to to contemporary contemporary debatesdebates on on sustainable sustainable urban urban growth growth and achieving and achieving urban resilience: urban inresilience pointing: outin thepointing shortcomings out the ofshortcomings the prevalent of ad-hoc the prevalent approach ad to-hoc site approach survey, i.e., to site superficial survey, analysis i.e., superficial of the current analysis state of the of affairs,current andstate in of proposing affairs, and an alternative,in proposing critical an alternative, mode of spatial critical and mode historical of spatial enquiry. and historical Finally, we enquiry. would Finally, argue thatwe urbanwould riverscape argue that revisions urban riverscape of the post-socialist revisions of society the post should-socialist act as society a trigger should for the act community, as a trigger alongfor the with community, variously profiledalong with experts, variously to cope profiled with broad experts, environmental to cope with and broad social environmental challenges. and social challenges. 2. Theoretical Framework 2. TheoreticalThere are numerous Framework definitions of a landscape. According to one of them, it is: “a portion of the earth’sThere surface are that numerous can be comprehended definitions of a at landscape. a glance” [According16] (p. 8). Anotherto one of writer them, states:it is: “a “The portion meaning of the ofearth’s ‘landscape’ surface shifts that bycan the be context comprehended and by the at backgrounda glance” [16 of] (p. the 8). users” Another [17] writer (p. 13). states The: human “The meaning role in landscapes is dissimilar to that of other species, precisely due to the imprint of cultural patterns that Sustainability 2019, 11, 1177 4 of 18 characterise human activity. A new cultural landscape emerges through the activity of cultural groups in a natural setting [18]. Dealing with the study of theory and practice in relation to the concept of landscape in the 20th century, John Wylie starts his book with the following statement: ‘Landscape is tension’ [19] (p. 1). Dialectical pairs of terms: ‘proximity-distance’, ‘observation-inhabitation’, ‘eye-land’ and ‘culture-nature’ are the contrasts that create tension and define the critical view of a landscape. Within the same theoretical discourse, the concept of landscape is explained by studying the dialectic pair of terms: ‘production-representation’, accentuating the existence of the mutual dependency between the manner in which a certain landscape is presented and production of the social, spatial and aesthetic values that can be perceived in that landscape [20,21]. In the past decades in particular, landscape was established as a means of mediation, on the basis of which the position and role of all social levels of a society can be recognised. The theoretical concept of urban landscape, with its extended field of spatial agencies, brought new modes of thinking and acting within the field of landscape architecture [9]. In keeping with the ideas of contemporary practice of landscape urbanism, we would contend that with some thoughtful projects in this domain, such as Freshkills Park, New York (James Corner Field Operations), The BIG U, New York (BIG TEAM), Resilience + The Beach, New Jersey (Sasaki, Rutgers, Arup), new modes of critical landscape practice have emerged. If, following Berrizbeitia and M’Closkey, we understand the term ‘critical practice’ as the activity that is, in Max Horkheimer’s words, “explanatory, practical and normative” [15] (p. 207), the critical projects of landscape architecture might be detected in various historical, cultural and socio-political contexts. As Berrizbeitia and M’Closkey have shown, criticality in the formative period of American landscape architecture was les manifested in formal than in methodological terms. The texts and projects that have rejected or resisted colonial and post-independence modes of land tenure have operated within the existing institutional and political framework of nineteenth century “laissez-faire capitalism, broadly institutionalized since colonialism; accelerated urbanization; and, as a result of these, an environmental crisis not unlike the one we face today” [15] (p. 208). The authors of this insightful study found the predecessors of critical practice within landscape architecture in enterprises that produced formal, material and programmatic ruptures in the existing empirical realities, while offering innovative technical and material proposals, “satisfying the goals of both capitalism and environmentalism” [15] (p. 222). This particular mode of immanent critique, which operates within imposed real-world conditions, and differs from radical, transcendental, that is, avant-garde critique, is labelled experimental by architectural theorist Manfredo Tafuri [22,23]. By the same token, some of the early projects for Belgrade landscape and riverscape revisions could also be distinguished as exemplary of the immanent critique. In this context, we shall underline the insightful plan made by the prominent architect Dimitrije T. Leko (1863–1914), for the regulation of the Danube bank in the old part of Belgrade, at the very beginning of the twentieth century. Leko was also known for his polemical articles dedicated to various problems in the urban development of Belgrade. In his writing, Leko pointed to the difficulty of urbanisation in conditions determined by ‘big capital’. He advocated for revisions to the urban regulation plan of the time, as well as construction laws. In an article from 1901 [24], Leko discusses the issue of the Danube quay and expansion of the Danube neighbourhood, and addresses the question of the regulation of the riverbank. After the Second World War, renowned modernist architect and town planner Nikola Dobrović(1897–1967), just like Leko several decades earlier, proposed city plans with a strong critical attitude. Space as an unbroken whole was at the core of Dobrović’sidea of city landscape, explicitly conceptualised in 1954. The term city landscape, in German Stadtlandschaft, belongs to the history of German urban planning and emerges as a doctrine for the creation of large-scale urban settlements shortly after the Second World War [25] (p. 141). In Yugoslavia, Nikola Dobrović was among the first to consider the concept of city landscape [26], writing of it as a term still being defined, describing its versatile nature as: “a new type of spaciousness of buildings and their plasticity, the hollow plasticity of the in-between spaces, architecture of the ground, greenery and the vistas in one organically designed composition whole” [27] (p. 1). Dobrovićexplicitly connects the equality in space Sustainability 2019, 11, 1177 5 of 18 quality with given social values. He wrote that only an urbanism “comprehended and experienced as an organic assembly of city landscapes, can represent the reflection of social aspirations and spirituality of modern” [27] (p. 3).

3. Methodological Framework Each time a critical project emerges, it relates to what already exists. Yet, historical surveys are particularly underestimated and circumvented, often regarded as an obstacle to pursuing both the designer’s artistic freedom and goals of capitalist growth. Thus, surveys of the present state of affairs and its historical background often do not take enough space and time in preparing for future spatial interventions. In this study, we shall focus on the benefits of profound historical research, given that a preliminary survey of specific urban conditions should rely mostly on the proper collection, systematization and interpretation of heterogeneous data. Therefore, our research is not based on well-established disciplinary methods, such as historical-interpretative research. Instead, having in mind the specific context of this study, we have combined the analytical method of identification of relevant historical data with the synthetic method of superposition of identified historical layers [12]. The process of detecting important historical data that refer to a certain area of research, along with the identification and evaluation of the landscape layers, are probably the most intriguing and most sensitive aspects of spatial revision inspection. The mutual relations of urban historical layers and various factors involved in contemporary urban transformation also reflect the inhabitants’ relationship to past values, as well as the relationship between the past, the present and the future of landscapes. The contemporary transformation of the New Belgrade riverbank, that is, the park that extends along the right bank of the Danube, at the Sava river confluence, has prompted our examination of the key concepts of urban planning—specifically, periods of rapid revision that took place at the beginning of the twentieth century, as well as after the Second World War. By comparing and analysing these revisions, we have tried to show the lost layers that reveal valuable traces of modernisation and modernity in the metamorphosis of riverine landscapes. The view can never be directed towards the landscape in general, but spontaneously steers and unmistakably stops at the stable, conspicuous points that ‘capture’ the attention of the observer. Instantly afterwards, the mind of the observer tries to understand the limits of the landscape and to comprehend the whole [28]. We use these insights in an effort to find the most appropriate methods and techniques to highlight important cross sections of the meaningful layers and complex transformations of the Belgrade and New Belgrade riverscape. The bulk of material for this study originates from the relevant primary and secondary sources, related to proposed methods. It contains material from historical archives, such as: maps, documents, plans, photographs, publications and written sources from the analysed periods. Also, it relies profoundly on previous investigations by prominent researchers and scholars, our own previous research into the urban landscape and urban history of Belgrade, as well as research regarding critical practices of modern architecture in Yugoslavia. This study is based on our findings in the search for more profound knowledge of mutual relations of the urban historical layers and the various factors involved in the contemporary urban transformation of the city. Finally, the research is informed by the material from public and private photo archives.

4. The Historical and Cultural Layers of Collective Memory Serbia was under Ottoman rule in the period from 1459 to 1878. In the course of the Ottoman expansion in the 14th and 15th centuries, the Balkans, or the “fortiﬁed peninsula” [29] (p. 511), became part of a territory ruled by the Ottoman Sultan, and Belgrade became part of the Ottoman empire in 1521. We trace here the ‘dynamics of cityscape revisions’ far back in time, to 1717, when the Austrians took the Belgrade fortress from the Ottomans and started reconstruction of the city. The Sava and Danube rivers were the state border, established during the great Turkish war 1683–1699. The border existed until 1918, with a short exception from 1717 to 1739 and from 1788 to 1791. The waterline, as a Sustainability 2019, 11, 1177 6 of 18 natural boundary and state border for almost two centuries, brought about the expansion of Belgrade

Sustainabilityeast and south 2019, 11 of, thex rivers (Figure2a,b). 6 of 18

(a) (b)

FigureFigure 2 2.. ((aa)) A A map/diagram map/diagram of of Belgrade Belgrade in in 1918 1918 (design (design by by Slobodan Slobodan Radosavljević Radosavljevi´c);(); (bb)) The The Danube Danube oppositeopposite the the Belgrade Belgrade Fortress: Fortress: the the view view from from the theZsófia Zsó Herczegnőﬁa Herczegn˝oluxury luxury steamer. steamer. Photo Photo from 1916. from Source:1916. Source: http://www.fortepan.hu/_photo/display/132360.jpg; http://www.fortepan.hu/_photo/display/132360.jpg image; image 23/170; 23/170; image image ID: ID: 132360. 132360. Original:Original: Magyar Magyar M˝uszakiMűszaki É Éss Közleked Közlekedésiési M Múzeumúzeum/Arch/Archívívum/Negatum/Negatívtárívtár/Özv/Özv Venczel Venczel Jánosné Jánosné Gyűjteménye;Gy˝ujteménye; inventory inventory reference: reference: MMKM MMKM TFGY TFGY 2017.10.111 2017.10.111..

4.1.4.1. Layers Layers of of Belgrade Belgrade L Landscapeandscape of of M Modernisation:odernisation: T Thehe F Formativeormative P Perioderiod (1867 (1867–1914)–1914) TheThe 19th 19th century century Western Western technological developments in in spatial transformation were were applied applied considerablyconsiderably less less in in Serbia. Serbia. The The most most radical radical period period of communal of communal modernization modernization of Belgrade of Belgrade occurred occurredonly at the only end at of the the end century. of the Itcentury. was also It was the moment also the ofmoment the most of the radical mos transformationt radical transformation of Belgrade of Belgradeurban landscape: urban landscape: from an Ottoman from an to Ottoman a European to a city. European Unfolding city. through Unfolding the conversionthrough the of conversion the natural ofsetting, the natural the space setting, surrounding the space surrounding the city core the was city turned core intowas turned a new urbaninto a environment.new urban environment. Belgrade’s Belgrade’surban landscape urban transformationlandscape trans acceleratedformation afteraccelerated the newly after formed the newly Principality formed ofPrincipality Serbia (which of Serbia lasted (whichfrom 1815 lasted until from 1882 1815 when until it became 1882 when a Kingdom) it became acquired a Kingdom) a sufficient acquired level of a autonomy sufficient from level the of autonomyOttoman Empire,from the thatOttoman is, after Empire, 1829. that The is, protagonists after 1829. The of protagonists this transformation of this transformation were the bearers were of thepolitical bearers and of economic political and power economic that followed power thethat patterns followed of the capitalist patterns development of capitalist of development state and social of statestructure. and social This structure. process intensified This process considerably intensified followingconsiderably the following Congress the of BerlinCongress and of full Berlin Serbian and fullindependence, Serbian independence, in 1878. It was in 1878. driven It was by the driven opposition by the betweenopposition the between Balkan andthe Balkan Ottoman and heritage Ottoman on heritagethe one hand,on the and one the hand, declaratively and the declaratively embraced European embraced model European on the other.model The on majorthe other. metamorphosis The major metamorphosisof the urban landscape of the urban of Belgrade landscape is characterized of Belgrade is by characterized the decades of by implementation the decades of implementation of the regulation ofplan, the authoredregulation and plan, published authored in 1867 and bypublished the engineer in 1867 Emilijan by the Josimović[ engineer 30Emilijan]. He devoted Josimović considerable [30]. He devotedattention considerable in his plan to attention the regulation in his of plan river to flow the andregulation construction of river of flow quays and and construction harbours. This of periodquays andalso harbours. saw the building This period of modern also saw infrastructure the building of systems, modern directlyinfrastru exercisingcture systems, a qualitative directly exercising change in aeveryday qualitative life: change the construction in everyday of railwayslife: the construction in 1884, a modern of railways water supplyin 1884, system a modern in 1892, water installation supply systemof public in lighting 1892, installation and electricity of in public 1893, lighting establishment and electricity of public transportation in 1893, establishment in 1892 and of modern public transportationsewerage in 1905. in 1892 and modern sewerage in 1905. 1904: Leko’s Project for the Danube Riverbank 1904: Leko’s Project for the Danube Riverbank In his regulation plan for the historical core of the city, Josimovićproposed the forestation of In his regulation plan for the historical core of the city, Josimović proposed the forestation of the the Danube riverbank. Several decades later, however, in 1904, Leko suggested a project for the Danube riverbank. Several decades later, however, in 1904, Leko suggested a project for the construction of a Danube quay. This would allow for the expansion of the city to the river, given that construction of a Danube quay. This would allow for the expansion of the city to the river, given that at the time, of the 6 km of riverbank, Belgrade made use of only 300 m. In the Danube quay regulation at the time, of the 6 km of riverbank, Belgrade made use of only 300 m. In the Danube quay regulation plan, Leko included the formation of a park with fishponds along the existing railroad. It was supposed to create a harmonious whole that would solve the issue of floods and remove underground waters, all the while providing a large and lush green area adjacent to the Danube residential neighbourhood (for which he also created a plan in 1904) (Figure 3a). Sustainability 2019, 11, x 7 of 18

Leko devised the plans for the quay and the neighbourhood in his capacity of municipal Sustainabilityarchitect, but2019 they, 11, 1177 were never executed. They were replaced with another plan, developed by7 ofthe 18 Sewage Department of the Municipality of Belgrade—although this one was not realised either. Superimposed versions of these plans (Figure 3b) speak to the constant revisions and alterations in plan,the plan’s Leko conception, included the the formation various ofrelationships a park with towards ﬁshponds the along riverbank, the existing the uncertainty railroad. It wasof effect supposed of the todecisions create a passed harmonious and the whole hesitation that would in their solve realisation. the issue The of concept ﬂoods and of the remove neighbourhood underground ultimately waters, allproduced the while by providing the Municipality a large andannulled lush greenLeko’s area ideas adjacent, which to were theDanube devoted residential to the achievement neighbourhood of the (foreconomy which of he building, also created possibility a plan of in mixed 1904) (Figure social housing3a). and experimentation with city quarters [21].

(a) (b)

Figure 3.3. (a) Dimitrije T. Leko, PlanPlan for the Danube neighbourhood, 1:2000, 1904. Source: [21] (p. 398); ((bb)) SuperimposedSuperimposed plansplans for for the the Danube Danube neighbourhood neighbourhood by by Dimitrije Dimitrije T. T. Leko, Leko, and and the the changes changes made made by theby the Sewage Sewage Department Department of the of the Municipality Municipality of Belgrade, of Belgrade, 1:5000, 1:5000, 1904. 1904. Source: Source: [21 ][21 (p.] 397).(p. 397).

4.2. LayersLeko devisedof New Belgrade the plans Landscape: for the quay The andInception the neighbourhood (1918–1940) in his capacity of municipal architect, but they were never executed. They were replaced with another plan, developed by the Sewage With the end of the First World War and the formation of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the Sava Department of the Municipality of Belgrade—although this one was not realised either. Superimposed and Danube ceased to be the border. The broad wetlands on their left banks were perceived as an versions of these plans (Figure3b) speak to the constant revisions and alterations in the plan’s integral part of the city landscape. The first urban-planning step onto the left bank of the Sava was conception, the various relationships towards the riverbank, the uncertainty of effect of the decisions made in 1921–1922 with the international competition for the General Plan for the beautification and passed and the hesitation in their realisation. The concept of the neighbourhood ultimately produced enlargement of Belgrade. The competition program envisioned the new main city port with by the Municipality annulled Leko’s ideas, which were devoted to the achievement of the economy of accompanying facilities on the terrain between Belgrade and Zemun. Competition entrants followed building, possibility of mixed social housing and experimentation with city quarters [21]. the program instruction, but they also proposed the construction of new residential and industrial 4.2.districts, Layers such of New as Belgrade the French Landscape: authors The Inceptionwhose project (1918–1940) bore the motto Urbs Magna (Figure 4a). Furthermore, there were ideas for the formation of an artificial lake on the arm of Danube, With the end of the First World War and the formation of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the Sava construction of sport complexes, stadiums, and parks. Viennese authors, under the motto Singidunum and Danube ceased to be the border. The broad wetlands on their left banks were perceived as an Novissima (Singidunum was the Roman name of Belgrade), observed the wetlands on the left bank of integral part of the city landscape. The first urban-planning step onto the left bank of the Sava was the Sava as the dominant and most favourable space for the future expansion of the city [31]. In 1923, made in 1921–1922 with the international competition for the General Plan for the beautification based on ideas from various competition entries, the first official draught plan for the future New and enlargement of Belgrade. The competition program envisioned the new main city port with Belgrade was formulated by George Pavlovich Kovalevsky, an engineer of Russian origin and a accompanying facilities on the terrain between Belgrade and Zemun. Competition entrants followed leading urban planner in interwar Belgrade. However, the draft did not become part of the adopted the program instruction, but they also proposed the construction of new residential and industrial General Plan from 1923–1924, due to the fact that the territory on the left bank of the Sava did not fall districts, such as the French authors whose project bore the motto Urbs Magna (Figure4a). Furthermore, under Belgrade administrative authority, but belonged to the municipality of Zemun. there were ideas for the formation of an artificial lake on the arm of Danube, construction of sport complexes, stadiums, and parks. Viennese authors, under the motto Singidunum Novissima (Singidunum was the Roman name of Belgrade), observed the wetlands on the left bank of the Sava as the dominant and most favourable space for the future expansion of the city [31]. In 1923, based on ideas from various competition entries, the first official draught plan for the future New Belgrade was formulated by George Pavlovich Kovalevsky, an engineer of Russian origin and a leading urban planner in interwar Belgrade. However, the draft did not become part of the adopted General Plan from 1923–1924, due to the fact that the territory on the left bank of the Sava did not fall under Belgrade administrative authority, but belonged to the municipality of Zemun. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1177 8 of 18 Sustainability 2019, 11, x 8 of 18

(a) (b)

FigureFigure 4. 4The. The interwar interwar plansplans for the terrain on on the the left left bank bank of of the the Sava Sava River River (a) ( aCompetition) Competition project project UrbsUrbs Magna Magna,, by by thethe French authors, authors, 1921 1921–1922.–1922. Source: Source: [31] [ 31(p.] 118) (p.; 118); (b) Plan (b) Planof urban of urban regulation regulation for forinundated inundated terrain terrain between between Zemun Zemun and and Belgrade, Belgrade, by by George George Pavlovich Pavlovich Kovalevsky, Kovalevsky, 1932 1932–1934.–1934. Source:Source: [32 [32]] (p. (p. 208). 208).

AA decade decade after after the the international international competition, in in 1932 1932–1934,–1934, Kovalevsky Kovalevsky developed developed a new a new regulationregulation plan plan forfor the area area between between Zemun Zemun and and Belgrade Belgrade [32]. [ 32The]. dominant The dominant elements elements of the plan of the planwere were the urban the urban matrix matrix that followed that followed the pattern the patternof old Belgrade of old Belgradeand the major and axis, the majorthat is, axis,the wid thate is, boulevard connecting Belgrade and Zemun (Figure 4b). Although Kovalevsky’s second plan was not the wide boulevard connecting Belgrade and Zemun (Figure4b). Although Kovalevsky’s second executed either, Zemun did become administratively part of Belgrade. The first real act unifying the plan was not executed either, Zemun did become administratively part of Belgrade. The first real two river banks was the opening of the chain bridge in 1934. This act spurred both spontaneous and act unifying the two river banks was the opening of the chain bridge in 1934. This act spurred both planned construction in the newly acquired space. The first settlement was by Belgrade’s poorest spontaneous and planned construction in the newly acquired space. The first settlement was by inhabitants, still standing today. Then, 1937 saw the construction of the exhibition halls of the Belgrade’sFairgrounds poorest – whose inhabitants, opening was still standinga first-rate today. social Then,occasion. 1937 The saw city the authorities construction hired of the exhibitionDanish hallsfirm of Höjdegard the Fairgrounds & Schultz – whose to cover opening the marshy was a first-rateterrain with social sand occasion. drawn from The citythe authoritiesSava, turning hired the the Danisharea into firm construction Höjdegard real & Schultz estate. toThe cover Danish the marshycompany terrain deposited with sand sand where drawn the from park the Ušće Sava, stands turning thetoday. area intoOn the construction eve of the realSecond estate. World The War, Danish the companybuilt landscape deposited of New sand Belgrade where the consisted park Ušće of onestands today.low income On the settlement eve of the Secondand the Worldcolourful War, Fair theground built landscapes complex. ofThe New latter Belgrade included consisted a transit of camp, one low incomeerected settlement in 1940, for and the the collec colourfultion of Bessarabian Fairgrounds Germans complex. being The relocated latter included to Germany, a transit which camp, would erected inprove 1940, a for foretaste the collection of wartime of Bessarabian events when Germans the Fairg beingrounds relocated served as to a Germany,Nazi concentration which would camp. prove a foretaste of wartime events when the Fairgrounds served as a Nazi concentration camp. 4.3. The War Landscape (1941–1945) 4.3. The War Landscape (1941–1945) What was built in 1937 as the Belgrade Fairgrounds of the Yugoslav capital, during the war time becameWhat a wasplace built of an in atrocious 1937 as thecrime. Belgrade After the Fairgrounds Axis invasion of the of Yugoslavia, Yugoslav capital, the Fairgrounds during the became war time becamea concentration a place of camp an atrocious for the internment crime [33 of]. Jews, After Jugendlager the Axis invasion Semlin, established of Yugoslavia, by Nazi the Germany. Fairgrounds becameThe camp a concentrationfell within the territory camp for of the the newly internment proclaimed of Jews,IndependentJugendlager State of Semlin Croatia, established[33]. In May by Nazi1942, Germany. it was given The the camp status fell of withinAnhaltslager the territory Semlin, and of the its newlyprisoners proclaimed were transported Independent to different State of Croatia.labour Incamps May in 1942, Germany it was: given“a temporary the status detention of Anhaltslager camp for Semlin political, and prisoners, its prisoners captured were Partisans transported toand different forced labour labourers, camps most in Germany: of whom “awere temporary subsequently detention transported camp for to political various prisoners,labour camps captured in PartisansGermany. and Between forced May labourers, 1942 and most July of 1944, whom 32,000 were inmates subsequently (mainly transported Serbs) passed to variousthrough labour the camp, camps of which 10,600 were killed or died of starvation, exposure, or disease. Semlin was the largest in Germany. Between May 1942 and July 1944, 32,000 inmates (mainly Serbs) passed through the concentration camp in Nazi-occupied Serbia” [34]. During the Allied bombing raids from June to camp, of which 10,600 were killed or died of starvation, exposure, or disease. Semlin was the largest September of 1944, the former fairground was almost completely demolished. While the fairground’s concentration camp in Nazi-occupied Serbia” [34]. During the Allied bombing raids from June to adaptation to a concentration camp may be explained as an almost perfect match, pointedly noted by September of 1944, the former fairground was almost completely demolished. While the fairground’s Ljiljana Blagojević, after the war, this place of horror became, in her words, “an undesirable reminder adaptation to a concentration camp may be explained as an almost perfect match, pointedly noted by of monstrous events“ [26] (p. 262). Ljiljana Blagojević,after the war, this place of horror became, in her words, “an undesirable reminder of monstrous events“ [26] (p. 262). Sustainability 2019, 11, 1177 9 of 18

4.4. Post WWII Layers of New Belgrade Landscape: The Transformation (from 1946)

SustainabilityThe most 2019 profound, 11, x transformation of the New Belgrade urban landscape started after9 the of 18 Second World War, with the construction of the new capital of the socialist state, Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia4.4. Post WWII (from Layers 1963, of New the Belgrade Socialist Landscape: Federal The Republic Transformation of Yugoslavia). (from 1946) The deserted space on the left bankThe of the most Sava, profound between transformation Belgrade and of Zemun, the New went Belgrade from urban a sketch landscape well-nigh started developed after the by one person,Second through World innumerable War, with the iterations construction and of revisions the new capital of plans, of the becoming socialist astate, city Federal of more People than 200,000’s inhabitants.Republic Theof Yugoslavia initial concept (from was1963, madethe Socialist in 1946, Federal by Nikola Republic Dobrovićand of Yugoslavia). his The team deserted from the space Institute of Urbanon the Planning. left bank of Although the Sava, between already Belgrade present inand mental Zemun, and went factual from mapsa sketch of well thecity,nigh anddeveloped infamously usedby during one person, the Second through World innumerable War for iterations concentration and revisions camps, of theplans, flat becoming wetland a oncity the of leftmore bank than of the Sava200,000 entered inhabitants. planning The procedures initial concept as an was ‘empty’ made spacein 1946, [26 by]. Nikola Dobrović and his team from the Institute of Urban Planning. Although already present in mental and factual maps of the city, and 4.4.1.infamously 1946: The used Draft during the Second World War for concentration camps, the flat wetland on the left bank of the Sava entered planning procedures as an ‘empty’ space [26]. After the Second World War, the area of the confluence represented a special locus in the Communist1946: The Party’s Draft vision of the new capital of the Yugoslav Federation. In rising to this exceptional task, NikolaAfter Dobrovićorganized the Second World War, the t Grouphe area for of Newthe conflu Belgrade,ence represented a new working a special team locus at the in theInstitute for UrbanCommunist Planning Party’s of vision Serbia. of the By new 1946, capital in coordination of the Yugoslav with Federation. the Group, In rising he produced to this exceptiona the ‘Draftl for the regulationtask, Nikola of Dobrović Belgrade organized on the left the bankGroup of for the New river Belgrade, Sava’ (Figure a new working5a). In contrast team at the to Kovalevsky’sInstitute planfor from Urban 1934, Planning Dobrović’sadopted of Serbia. By 1946, radial in coordination street matrix with challenged the Group, the he produced static, academic the ‘Draft solutions for the and strivedregulation for a critical of Belgrade rethinking on the ofleft classical bank of schemes.the river Sava’ The (Figure buildings 5a,b). themselves In contrast no to longerKovalevsky’ formeds the perimeterplan from block, 1934, but Dobrović’s stood as adopted solitary radial objects street in thematrix park, challenged and the the modern static, academic railway stationsolutions was and placed strived for a critical rethinking of classical schemes. The buildings themselves no longer formed the in the very heart of the new administrative centre. perimeter block, but stood as solitary objects in the park, and the modern railway station was placed inThis the pioneeringvery heart ofwork the new was administrative preceded by centre. two research studies. In the very first publication of the Institute,This entitled pioneeringThe Railroad work was Problem preceded of Belgrade by two ,research the central studies. issue In wasthe very the cityfirst publication traffic and of its the key role in aInstitute, contemporary entitled metropolis The Railroad [Problem35]. Following of Belgrade recommendations, the central issue was from the thecity Athenstraffic and Charter, its key Dobrovićrole andin the a contemporary co-author of metropolis the text, Vladimir [35]. Following Marković,suggest recommendations a radical from the revision Athens ofCharter, the railroad Dobrović system andand the relocationthe co-author of of Belgrade’s the text, Vladimir main station, Marković, as the suggest current a radical one prevented revision of contactthe railroad between system the city andand its rivers. the relocation The ‘Conceptual of Belgrade’s plan ma ofin landstation, use asfor theBelgrade’ current one (Figure prevented5b)was contact derived between from the this city study, andand was its the rivers. first The post-war ‘Conceptual urban plan proposal of land of use the for new, Belgrade integral’ (Figure city plan.5b) was Dobrovićparticularly derived from this study, insisted on inventingand was the a new first methodology post-war urban in proposal planning of practice, the new, claiming integral city that plan. “it is Dobrović impossible particularly to apply the insisted on inventing a new methodology in planning practice, claiming that “it is impossible to apply same worn-out working methods, following the usual formalism, as practised before” [36]. The main the same worn-out working methods, following the usual formalism, as practised before” [36]. The aspectsmain of aspects this new of methodology this new methodology were “from were the “fro individualm the individual towards towards team work, team and work, from and specialist from to syntheticspecialist expert to synthetic and socio-political expert and socio decision-making”-political decision [37-making] (p. 17).” [37] (p. 17).

(a) (b)

FigureFigure 5. ( a5). Draft(a) Draft for for the the regulation regulation of of Belgrade Belgrade on on the the left left bank bank of of thethe Sava,Sava, 1946.1946. Source: [ [3838] ]( (p.p. 353); (b) Conceptual353); (b) Conceptual plan of plan land of use land for use Belgrade, for Belgrade, 1946. 1946. Source: Source: [39 ][39 (p.] ( 25).p. 25). Sustainability 2019, 11, 1177 10 of 18

4.4.2. 1947: The all-Yugoslav Competitions Soon after the presentation of the Draft, it was decided that the questions of the new Federation Sustainability 2019, 11, x 10 of 18 capital should be discussed on a broader, federal level. The Draft was used as an initial announcement for a1947: set ofThe general all-Yugoslav all-Yugoslav Competitions competitions for a master plan of New Belgrade and three key buildingsSoon of the after new the administrativepresentation of the centre Draft, of it the was Federation: decided that the the buildingquestions ofof the new Central Federation Committee of thecapital Communist should be Partydiscussed of Yugoslavia,on a broader, federal the building level. The of Draft the Presidencywas used as an of initial the Government announcement and a representativefor a set of hotel,general later all-Yugoslav named Hotel competitions Yugoslavia. for a ma Thester dynamics plan of New of construction Belgrade and threediffered key in all threebuildings cases, but of the new initial administrative plan was finally centre accomplished,of the Federation: and the bybuilding the mid of the 1960s Central all ofCommittee them became highlyof representativethe Communist buildingsParty of Yugoslavia, of the socialist the building modernism of the in Presidency architecture. of the The Government fan-shape and plan a was rejectedrepresentative in most competition hotel, later named proposals Hotel andYugoslavia. the scope The of dynamics the solutions of construction offered differed varied fromin all three those that reflectedcases, the but Soviet the initial planning plan was methodology finally accomplished, to those thatand conformedby the mid 1960s to Le all Corbusier’s of them became conceptions highly and representative buildings of the socialist modernism in architecture. The fan-shape plan was rejected the recommendations of CIAM. The supposed initial hegemony of the Draft was superseded in the in most competition proposals and the scope of the solutions offered varied from those that reflected 1947 discussions, when the questions of architecture and urbanism of New Belgrade mobilized a large the Soviet planning methodology to those that conformed to Le Corbusier’s conceptions and the numberrecommendations of Yugoslav experts: of CIAM. architects, The suppo engineers,sed initial hegemony urban planners, of the Draft artists was and superseded workers in in the the 1947 fields of culturaldiscussions, and social when life the [37 questions]. of architecture and urbanism of New Belgrade mobilized a large number of Yugoslav experts: architects, engineers, urban planners, artists and workers in the fields 4.4.3.of 1948: cultural The and Conceptual social life [ Plan37]. In January 1948, the ‘Conceptual Plan of Greater Belgrade’ was presented to the public in a model 1948: The Conceptual Plan scaled 1:10,000, along with the ‘Conceptual Plan of New Belgrade’ in a model scaled 1:5,000 (Figure6a). The imposingIn January physical 1948, model the ‘Conceptual comprising Plan the ofarea Greater of New Belgrade Belgrade’ was together presented with to the the riverfront public in a of the rightmodel bank ofscaled the Sava1:10,000, was along a considerable with the ‘Conceptual departure fromPlan of the New Draft’s Belgrade initial’ in setup. a model The scaled street 1:5,000 matrix was (Figure 6a). The imposing physical model comprising the area of New Belgrade together with the a regular grid and the plan conformed more closely to the propositions of the Athens Charter. The plan riverfront of the right bank of the Sava was a considerable departure from the Draft’s initial setup. also suggested the construction of a navigable channel between the two rivers with a tripartite artificial The street matrix was a regular grid and the plan conformed more closely to the propositions of the lakeAthens in the middle Charter. zone The thatplan wasalso justifiedsuggested by the the construction savings it would of a navigable bring in channel earthworks. between The the Conceptual two Planrivers interpreted with a tripartite the modernist artificial paradigm lake in the freely middle and zone un-dogmatically, that was justified and by the actually savings offered it wou aldnovel approachbring in in modern earthworks. urban The planning, Conceptual the Plan one interpreted that Dobrovićlater the modernist described paradigm as the freelycity landscape and un- [27]. It relieddogmatically, on the connecting and actually potential offered of a the novel green approac areash while in modern insisting urban on an planning, organic the quality one that of space, continuityDobrović and later movement. described Dobrovićmaintainedas the city landscape [27]. that It relied the unified, on the connecting continual potential tissue of of the the socialist green city shouldareas be while perceived insisting just on likean organic in motion quality pictures: of space, produced continuity byand the movement. cohesive Dobrović forces ofmaintained the collective will,that it would the uni providefied, continual an unbroken tissue of progressionthe socialist city of spatialshould be units, perceived perpetually just like permeatedin motion pictures: and united. produced by the cohesive forces of the collective will, it would provide an unbroken progression of With the Conceptual Plan, the city landscape of New Belgrade turned from homogeneous space of an spatial units, perpetually permeated and united. With the Conceptual Plan, the city landscape of New administrative district, into a complex and heterogeneous city matrix, with the large housing blocks in Belgrade turned from homogeneous space of an administrative district, into a complex and its veryheterogeneous centre [40] city (Figure matrix,6b). with the large housing blocks in its very centre [40] (Figure 6b).

(a) (b)

FigureFigure 6. ( a6). ( Conceptuala) Conceptual Plan Plan of of New New Belgrade. Belgrade. Model. Model. Urban Urban Planning Planning Institute Institute of Belgrade of Belgrade & & architectarchitect Nikola Nikola Dobrovi´c,1948. Dobrović, 1948.Source: Source: [41]] ( (p.p. 13 13);); (b ()b Aerial) Aerial view view of the of thefuture future green green area at area the at the confluence, 1963. In front: the Central Committee building; left: housing. Belgrade City Museum, conﬂuence, 1963. In front: the Central Committee building; left: housing. Belgrade City Museum, signature: Ur_12495. signature: Ur_12495. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1177 11 of 18

Officially,Sustainability 2019 construction, 11, x started on April 11th 1948, and the largest part of construction11 work of 18 was carried out by youth working brigades from all parts of Yugoslavia. Building the river embankments, earthworkOfficially, and planting construction the first started trees were on April all part 11th of 1948, the and process. the largest The greening part of construction began along work the was Danube, at thecarried scattered out by locations youth working that today brigades form from the richall parts and of diverse Yugoslavia. greenery Building of the the urban river embankments, park Ušće [42 ]. earthwork and planting the first trees were all part of the process. The greening began along the 4.5. LayersDanube of, Newat the Belgrade scattered Landscape: locations that The Danubetoday form Riverfront the rich Revisionsand diverse (from greenery 1960) of the urban park Ušće [42]. The proposal for the Master plan for New Belgrade from 1960—after years of political and economic4.5. Layers crises of causedNew Belgrade by the Landscape: Yugoslav-Soviet The Danube split—although Riverfront Revisions quite (from different 1960) from the initial plans, managed to build (at least formally) on Dobrović’sconception of city landscape. Thus, the Danube The proposal for the Master plan for New Belgrade from 1960—after years of political and riverbank,economic a space crises thatcaused linked by the three Yugoslav key- buildingsSoviet split— inalthough the previous quite different plan, was from earmarked the initial plans, as a new, openmanaged public space—a to build great(at least representational formally) on Dobrović’s park. Beginning conception in of the city 1960s, landscape there. Thus, were the several Danube design competitionsriverbank, for a space keycultural that linked and thr politicalee key buildings state institutions in the previous situated plan, in was this earmarked area, as well as a asnew, for the specialopen part public of the space green—a zonegreat atrepresentatio confluence:nal the park. Park Beginning of Friendship. in the 1960s, there were several design competitions for key cultural and political state institutions situated in this area, as well as for the 4.5.1.special 1960: Thepart Parkof the ofgreen Culture, zone at Science confluence: and Politicsthe Park of Friendship.

The1960: 1960 The planPark providedof Culture, for Science a large and promenade Politics along the axis that connected the Central Committee building with the most exposed part of the riverbank, which was to end at the Museum of the The 1960 plan provided for a large promenade along the axis that connected the Central Revolution (Figure7a,b). Both sides of the axis were projected to have buildings for culture, science and Committee building with the most exposed part of the riverbank, which was to end at the Museum politics. Yet, the only part of this plan that was completely realised was the Museum of Contemporary of the Revolution (Figure 7a,b). Both sides of the axis were projected to have buildings for culture, Art, openedscience and in 1965. politics. It was Yet, designed the only part by Ivankaof this plan Raspopovićand that was completely Ivan Antić,both realised was prominent the Museum architects of at theContemporary time, and the Art, building opened became in 1965. a paragonIt was designed of post-war by Ivanka modernism Raspopović in Yugoslavia.and Ivan Antić, The both winning projectprominent of the 1961 architects competition at the time, for the and Museum the building of the became Revolution, a paragon by of architects post-war Vjenceslav modernism Richter in and BorisYugoslavia. Antunović,also The winning garnered project of a lot the of 1961 public competition and expert for attention.the Museum However, of the Revolution, after a period by of reworkingarchitects the Vjenceslav preliminary Richter draft, and it Boris was Antunović, decided that also thegarnered Museum a lot of should public beand moved expert attention. to a new site, because,However, “due toafter its a dimensions period of reworking and rigid the geometry, preliminary it has draft, an aggressiveit was decided effect that in the one Museum of the mostshould serene city landscapes,be moved to at a thenew junction site, because of the, “ twodue largeto its rivers”,dimensions and and “its rigid height geometry, ( ... ) would it has causean aggressive disharmony effect in one of the most serene city landscapes, at the junction of the two large rivers”, and “its height with the recently opened Museum of Contemporary Art” [44] (p. 1). A new site was found between (…) would cause disharmony with the recently opened Museum of Contemporary Art” [44] (p. 1). A the building of the Central Committee and the building of the Presidency. In addition, yet, shortly new site was found between the building of the Central Committee and the building of the after constructionPresidency. In began addition, in 1978, yet, shortlythe whole after enterprise construction was began interrupted in 1978, and the finally whole abandoned enterprise was in 1980. Subsequentinterrupted studies and finally showed abandoned that the reasonsin 1980. Subsequent were not only studies in theshow domained that the of aesthetics,reasons were nor not in the financialonly shortagesin the domain as officially of aesthetics, claimed, nor in butthe financial in its vestigial shortages ideological as officially and claimed, political but in content its vestigial [23,26 ]. ideological and political content [23,26].

(a) (b)

FigureFigure 7. (a )7. Site (a) planSite plan of the of complexthe complex of museums of museums and and government government buildings buildings at at the the conﬂuence, confluence, inin New Belgrade,New 1960. Belgrade, Source: 1960. [43 Source:] (p. 33); [43] (b (p.) Location 33); (b) Location of the Museum of the Museum of the Revolution of the Revolution and the and Museum the of Museum of Contemporary Art, New Belgrade. Master plan of New Belgrade with the elements of Contemporary Art, New Belgrade. Master plan of New Belgrade with the elements of Regulation plan, Regulation plan, 1961. Source: [23] (p. 254). 1961. Source: [23] (p. 254). Sustainability 2019, 11, 1177 12 of 18 Sustainability 2019, 11, x 12 of 18

1961:4.5.2. The 1961: Park The of Park Friendship of Friendship and the and Confluence the Confluence FollowingFollowing the the first first premise premise of of the the Draft, Draft, the the visionary visionary conception conception of of the the citycity landscape landscape,, and and the the numerousnumerous procedures procedures coordinated coordinated by by the the Urban Urban Planning Planning Institute, Institute, the the green green space space of of New New Belgrade Belgrade waswas conceived, planted andand maintainedmaintained as as a a whole. whole. It It consisted consisted of of a seriesa series of of modern modern parks parks such such as theas thePark Park of Friendship,of Friendship, the the Park Park of Art,of Art, the the Sava Sava park park and and two two city city parks parks planned planned to to be be set set laterally laterally in inrelation relation to to the the building building of of Presidency. Presidency. The The Park Park of Friendshipof Friendship was was conceived conceived by Vladetaby VladetaĐor Đorđevićđevićand andopened opened in 1961, in 1961, on the on occasion the occasion of the of First the ConferenceFirst Conference of the Nonalignedof the Nonaligned Movement. Movement. It was formedIt was formedas a representational as a representational space for space which for 26 which participating 26 participating countries countries at the Conference at the Conference planted aplanted tree each a treein the each Alley in the of Peace,Alley of a symbolPeace, a ofsymbol commitment of commitment to peace to and peace friendship and friendship among among nations. nations. The park The is parkimmersed is immersed in the largein the greenlarge green space space of the of Confluence, the Confluence, and the and boundaries, the boundaries, in terms in terms of meaning of meaning and andspace, space between, between the twothe two blur blur [45]. [45]. In 1965, Milan Pališaški’s entry won the first prize at the all-Yugoslav competition, and its geometricIn 1965, layout Milan remains Pališaški the’s entry most definitewon the space first prize in this at riverscape the all-Yugoslav (Figure competition,8a). Its triangular and its geometriccomposition layout became remains the basis the for most further definite development space in of this this riverscape space, though (Figure it has 8a). never Its triangular been fully compositionrealised. Among became other the elements basis for offurther the Park, development its central of motif this space, (an abstract though sculpture it has never on an been elevated fully realised.platform) Among remained other on paperelements only. of Instead, the Park, in 2000,its central the central motif spot (an ofabstract the Park sculpture of Friendship on an waselevated taken platform)by the monument remained of on the paper Eternal only. Flame Instead, (Figure in 2000,8b). It the is dedicatedcentral spot to of the the victims Park of theFriendship 1999 NATO was takenbombing by the of Serbia monument (when of the the Central Eternal Committee Flame (Figure building 8b). and It is the dedicated Hotel Yugoslavia to the victims were alsoof the severely 1999 NATOdamaged). bombing of Serbia (when the Central Committee building and the Hotel Yugoslavia were also severely damaged).

(a) (b)

FigureFigure 8. (a) Milan Pališaški,Pališaški, thethe competition competition project project for for the the Park Park of Friendshipof Friendship at the at Confluence,the Confluence, 1965. 1965.Source: Source: [45] (p. [45] 206); (p. (206);b) The (b Park) The of Park Friendship of Friendship with the with monument the monument of the Eternal of the FlameEternal by Flame Svetomir by SvetomirRadović.Photo Radović. by Photo Marija by Milinković,2011. Marija Milinković, 2011.

19724.5.3.–2003: 1972–2003: The Natural The Natural Core of Core Belgrade of Belgrade AA significant significant change change to to the the function function of of the the area area around around the the confluence confluence was was made made in in the the General General UrbanUrban Plan Plan of of 1972. 1972. It Itremoved removed the the idea idea of ofturning turning the the arm arm of the of theDanube Danube into into a lake, a lake, preserving preserving the existingthe existing form form and and function function of the of the Great Great War War Island Island [46 [46]. ].Although Although this this conception conception of of the the space space remainedremained in in place place for for the the next next two two decades decades,, after after 1991, 1991, this this area area was was neglected. neglected. T Thehe Socialist Socialist Federal Federal RepublicRepublic of of Yugoslavia Yugoslavia entered entered the the last last stadium stadium of of a a comprehensive comprehensive social social crisis crisis,, which which resulted resulted in in itsits own own dissolution dissolution,, disintegration disintegration of of the the exi existingsting political political and and economic economic system system and and beginning beginning of the of transitionthe transition to capitalism to capitalism.. The The post post-socialist-socialist period period started started in in 2000, 2000, with with the the coming coming of of democratic democratic politicalpolitical opposition opposition to to power. power. TheThe 2003 2003 General General Plan Plan further further developed developed aspects aspects of of preservation preservation and and enrichment enrichment of of the the natural natural structuresstructures surrounding surrounding the the confluence, confluence, including including Kalemegdan Kalemegdan park in park old Belgrade, in old Belgrade, Park of Friendship, Park of ˇ Friendship,the continuous the continuous strip of green strip along of green Sava’s along left bank,Sava’s as left well bank, as theas welCapljal as the Island Čaplja and Island area on and the area left Sustainability 2019, 11, 1177 13 of 18 Sustainability 2019, 11, x 13 of 18 on the left bank of the Danube [47]. The plan thus included the formation of green riverbanks entitled bank of the Danube [47]. The plan thus included the formation of green riverbanks entitled “Natural “Natural Core of Belgrade”, with the Great War Island at its centre [47,48]. Core of Belgrade”, with the Great War Island at its centre [47,48].

Epilogue4.5.4. Epilogue On January 24th 2017, the Danish ur urbanban design firm firm Gehl Architects submitted their strategic rere-design-design of the New Belgrade urban park UšćeUšće [49,50]].. This preliminary landscape project of the site became the blueprint forfor ambitiousambitious plansplans of of the the city city government government for for this this area. area. From From the the perspective perspective of ofthe the ongoing ongoing transformation transformation of of this this open open public public space, space our, our study study was was conceived conceived as as an an investigation investigation of ofthe the intrinsic intrinsic pre-existing pre-existing qualities qualities of the of space the (Figure space 9(F).igure The Gehl 9). The Architects’ Gehl Architects’ plan for the plan Confluence for the Confluencewas announced was afterannounced the adoption after the of the adoption new General of the Urbannew General Plan of Urban Belgrade, Plan in of March Belgrade, 2016 [in51 March]. This 2016document [51]. This also document made possible also made and legitimate possible and the realisationlegitimate the of the realisation Belgrade of Waterfront the Belgrade Project, Waterfront on the Project,right bank on th ofe the right Sava, bank whose of the ongoing Sava, whose development ongoing hasdevelopment provoked has many provoked controversies many controversies [52]. [52].

Figure 9. Synoptic map: Spatio-temporal superimposition of historical layers of New Belgrade Figure 9. Synoptic map: Spatio-temporal superimposition of historical layers of New Belgrade riverscape (design by Zlata Vuksanovi´c-Macura). riverscape (design by Zlata Vuksanović-Macura).

5. Discussion of the Case of Confluence Sustainability 2019, 11, 1177 14 of 18

Sustainability 2019, 11, x 14 of 18 5. Discussion of the Case of Confluence The analysis implemented in our enquiry is conceived as a contribution to a more comprehensiveThe analysis research implemented procedure in our that enquiry examines is conceived the present as a condition contribution of the to a New more Belgrade comprehensive urban landscape,research procedure more precisely that examines the open the public present space condition at the of rivers the New’ confluence. Belgrade Our urban systematization landscape, more of historicalprecisely thedata open was publicguided space by the at thenotion rivers’ that confluence. for this particular Our systematization mode of historical of historical survey datait is wasless importantguided by to the extend notion the that scope for this of existing particular knowledge mode of historicalthan to set survey up methodological it is less important guidelines to extend for thisthe scope type of of research. existing knowledge Namely, this than analytical to set up probe methodological was centred guidelines on establish for thising typethe relationship of research. betweenNamely, thisthe critical analytical practice probe of was landsc centredape architecture on establishing and theurban relationship planning, between at one side, the criticaland the practice critical methodof landscape of historical architecture enquiry, and urbanat the other. planning, The atlatter one is side, discuss anded the in critical broader method terms of in historical Tafuri’s Theories enquiry, andat the History other. The of Architecture latter is discussed, under in the broader term terms of the in ‘critical Tafuri’s history’Theories and (storia History critica of Architecture) [22,23]. Yet,, under the relationshipthe term of the between ‘critical historical history’ ( surveystoria critica and )[ architectural22,23]. Yet, the practice relationship has rarely between been historicalproductive, survey and evenand architecturalTafuri insisted practice on their has separated rarely been development. productive, Nevertheless, and even Tafuri the examples insisted of on such their productive separated relationshipdevelopment., even Nevertheless, if rare, might the examples be found of in such various productive historical relationship, periods. For even example, if rare, might the renowned be found architectin various Philippe historical Rahm, periods. in the For elaboration example, theof his renowned theoretical architect concept Philippe of ’meteorological Rahm, in the architectu elaborationre’, callsof his for theoretical a critical concept understanding of ’meteorological of historical architecture’, examples callsof cities, for a criticalthat is understandingcampi di Venezia of [53] historical—‘an ingeniouslyexamples of cities, conceptu thatalized is campi rainwater di Venezia filtering[53]—‘an and ingeniously collecting conceptualized system’ that also rainwater represents filtering ‘spatio and- socialcollecting and system’cultural that network’ also represents of the city ‘spatio-social [54] (p. 27). and In our cultural study, network’ profound of the historical city [54 ]enquiry (p. 27). Inof ourthe Newstudy, Belgrade profound riverscape historical revisions, enquiry ofcovering the New the Belgrade spectrum riverscape of environmental revisions, and covering societal the conditions spectrum, intervenedof environmental in the andcomplex societal network conditions, of historical intervened layers in thethatcomplex depict critical network moments of historical in formation layers that of thedepict physical critical structure. moments in formation of the physical structure. The assay started with the proposition of theoretical and methodological framework and led towards an interpretationinterpretation of the assimilated knowledge. The The results results of of the the research are presented through the synoptic map map,, and are additionally sublimated in a complementary synoptic diagram (Figure 10).

Figure 10.10. Synoptic diagram: spatial superposition of historical strata distinguished through critical analysis of historical data (design(design by Zlata Vuksanovi´c-Macura).Vuksanović-Macura).

The synoptic map (from(from AncientAncient GreekGreekσυν συνοπτικόςoπτικóς,, sunoptik sunoptikós,ós, ‘seeing ‘seeing the the whole whole together together or or at at a aglance’) glance indicates’) indicates that that the thedistinguished distinguished layers layers are not are only not historically only historically superposed superposed one onto one another, onto another, but that they intervene with one another more profoundly, forming a complex state of circumstances that we have addressed with the conceptualization of urban landscape. In the synoptic diagram we have distinguished five historical strata (a set of layers) that contribute significantly to Sustainability 2019, 11, 1177 15 of 18 but that they intervene with one another more profoundly, forming a complex state of circumstances that we have addressed with the conceptualization of urban landscape. In the synoptic diagram we have distinguished five historical strata (a set of layers) that contribute significantly to comprehension of the present state. By looking at the traces of the formative period of Belgrade urban landscape, the moments of New Belgrade’s inception, inerasable impacts of war, vigorous post WWII socialist transformation and, finally, the series of Danube riverscape revisions, we intend to depict the complexity of the modern city legacy and thus stress the interconnectedness of past and future endeavours. Their spatial distribution also reveals the relationships between the initial subject matter, represented by the historical stratum, labelled in the diagram as Revision, and the broader spatial and historical context. Depending on how seriously the site survey is taken, the number of historical layers that are taken into account enhances, and the distinction of the historical strata becomes more precise. Our research shows the lessons of socialist city planning in conceptualising and building an urban environment that in many aspects advanced the conditions of living in a metropolis. These advantages become conspicuous in comparison to pre-modern and post-modern social and spatial practices: by connecting the private domain of high-quality mass housing and a novel kind of public open spaces within continuous greenery, the modern city offered an alternative to traditional forms of city dwelling. Paradoxically, rigorous planning strategies proved to be rather adaptive to new and constantly changing conditions of the contemporary urban environment and of the world at large. Its solid infrastructure and incompleteness thus provided good conditions for the post-socialist market-driven urban development. Regarding today’s complex global situation with regard to the making of urban sustainability and resilience in cities, contemporary research in Serbia is identifying problems in the spatial distribution of green spaces within the Belgrade administrative area, finding they are caused by lack of instruments in “legal adoption and implementation at the local level of planning and managing” in green infrastructure delivery [55] (p. 492). Through the accumulation of ideas and conceptions, New Belgrade long ago stopped being a no-man’s wetland. In this respect, the results of our investigation can be considered a point of departure for pursuing new, contemporary critical practices of rethinking and reimagining of (New) Belgrade urban riverscapes. Likewise, in the projects of the riverscape planning we have acknowledged the impact of both immanent and transcendent critique, exemplary in the work of Leko and Dobrović. Without an enabling social mechanism, critical projects are often rejected, and the redrawing of Leko’s plan testifies to that. Yet, the way it was conceived and argumented may still give us a clue about how to conceptualize immanent but severe critique by way of a landscape project. Compared to Leko’s plan from 1904, the criticality in Dobrović’swork operated in a transcendental mode, as an avant-garde critique that fundamentally altered the heritage of pre-war urban practice. Although the impact of Dobrović’scriticism was huge, it was nevertheless limited—resulting in New Belgrade becoming a complex and heterogeneous modern city. By comparing these profoundly differing practices regarding the socio-economic context in which they occurred, we would assume that even today, in fundamentally altered social and political conditions and almost without any enabling mechanism, new modes of criticality may be invented. Finally, we would argue that the major pitfall of modern (and contemporary) city planning, in both socialist and capitalist economic systems, seems to be the old Faustian trap of considering unbuilt space as emptiness, ready to be filled. As shown in many previous cases, such insensitivity towards local histories and cultural geographies, have made too many projects go astray. Thus, we would like to underline the necessity of assimilating our particular, contemporary moment in history, always defined in critical relation to the complex cultural layers of the past, and directed towards the more heterogeneous, that is, resilient and sustainable, visions of future. In an era when cities are progressively built in an “ad-hoc project modus” [9] (p. 625), the aim of this paper was to challenge the globalizing tendencies of built environments by contributing affirmatively to the critical projects of the urban landscape. Prompted by ongoing processes of re-programming and Sustainability 2019, 11, 1177 16 of 18

‘thematisation’ of the extremely important and large part of the New Belgrade riverfront, this study suggests closer examination of the material and immaterial layers of the existing space. A closer look into the specific history of planning, constructing and inhabiting of the modern city of New Belgrade, and in particular its riverfronts, might prevent such shortcomings and open different and unique perspectives for re-conceptualizing its urban landscape. It can bring not only a better understanding and comprehension of the specificities of the place, but it might be the very source of imagination [10]. These notions may be inapplicable in present conditions, since the detailed plan for the Ušće park has been adopted by the city authorities. Nevertheless, our study’s significance is not only didactic, since the Case of Confluence exceeds the re-modelling of one city park, and might prove edifying in the face of new long-term challenges to sustainability of modern cities.

Author Contributions: In preparing of this manuscript, the original paper presented at the conference has been significantly expanded. To include the valuable comments and general insights from the conference, M.M. and D.C.;´ extended the original paper by structuring the theoretical framework and enhancing the scopes of the initial historical enquiry. Z.V.-M. wrote some new parts of the paper, offered proposals and comments, and drew Figures9 and 10 (Synoptic map and Synoptic diagram). The Discussion of the research manuscript also aroused from the new set of findings. Funding: This research received no external funding. Acknowledgments: The translation of quoted works not published in English are by Edward Djordjevic, and the authors are grateful to him for detailed English proofreading of the first version of the manuscript. The authors are also grateful to two anonymous reviewers for the close reading of the previous version of this article and the most constructive comments. This paper was realized as a part of the project “Studying climate change and its influence on the environment: impacts, adaptation and mitigation” (III 43007) and the project “Geography of Serbia” (III 47007) supported by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Serbia, within the framework of integrated and interdisciplinary research. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Lefebvre, H. Social Space. In The Production of Space, 2nd ed.; Blackwell Publishing: Malden, MA, USA, 2008; pp. 68–168. 2. Wang, Y.; Dong, W.; Boelens, L. The Interaction of City and Water in the Yangtze River Delta, a Natural/Artificial Comparison with Euro Delta. Sustainability 2018, 10, 109. [CrossRef] 3. Haslam, S.M. The Riverscape and the River; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2008. 4. Petriˇcić,B. Ambijenti i prostorne vrednosti Beograda [Ambient and spatial values of Belgrade]. Godišnjak grada Beograda 1977, 24, 319–330. 5. Corović,D.;´ Blagojević,L. Water, Society and Urbanization in the 19th Century Belgrade: Lessons for Adaptation to the Climate Change. SPATIUM Int. Rev. 2012, 28, 53–59. [CrossRef] 6. Girot, C.H. Four Trace Concepts in Landscape Architecture. In Recovering Landscape, Essays in Landscape Architecture; Corner, J., Ed.; Princeton Architectural Press: New York, NY, USA, 1999; pp. 59–67. 7. Djalali, A.; Vollaard, P. The Complex History of Sustainability: An index of Trends, Authors, Projects and Fiction. 2008. Available online: https://rasmusbroennum.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/the-complex- history-of-sustainability-timeline.pdf (accessed on 21 December 2018). 8. Waldheim, C. The Landscape Urbanism Reader; Princeton Architectural Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006. 9. Shennon, K. Landscapes. In The SAGE Handbook of Architectural Theory; Greig Crysler, C., Cairns, S., Heynen, H., Eds.; SAGE Publishing Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2012; pp. 625–638. 10. Corner, J. Introduction: Recovering Landscape as a Critical Cultural Practice. In Recovering Landscape, Essays in Landscape Architecture; Corner, J., Ed.; Princeton Architectural Press: New York, NY, USA, 1999; pp. 1–28. 11. Frampton, K. Toward an Urban Landscape. In Columbia Documents; Columbia University: New York, NY, USA, 1995; pp. 83–93. 12. Berrizbeitia, A. Re-Placing Process. In Large Parks; Czerniak, J., Hargreaves, G., Eds.; Princeton Architectural Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 174–197. 13. Antrop, M. Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2005, 1–2, 21–34. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2019, 11, 1177 17 of 18

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

38. Anonymous. Uslovi konkursa [Conditions of the Competition]. Tehnika [Technology] 1946, 11–12, 339–342. 39. Dobrović,N. Obnova i Izgradnja Beograda. Konture budućegGrada [Reconstruction and Construction of Belgrade. Contours of the Future City]; UrbanistiˇckiInstitut NRS: Belgrade, Serbia, 1946. 40. Blagojević,L.J. The residence as a decisive factor: Modern housing in the central zone of New Belgrade. Architektúra & Urbanizmus [Architecture and Urbanism] 2012, 3–4, 228–249. 41. Ilić,L. Uz izgradnju Novog Beograda [On the Construction of New Belgrade]. Arhitektura [Architecture] 1948, 8–10, 9–13. 42. Mišić,B. Palata Saveznog izvršnog većau Novom Beogradu [The Building of the Federal Executive Council in New Belgrade]. Nasleđe [Heritage] 2007, 8, 129–150. 43. Minić,O. Moderna galerija u Beogradu [A modern gallery in Belgrade]. Arhitektura urbanizam [Arch. Urban.] 1962, 16, 33. 44. Perović,M.; Tomić,V. Elaborat o lokaciji i urbanistiˇcko-tehniˇckimuslovima za Muzej revolucije u bloku 13 na Novom Beogradu [Study on Location and Urbanistic-Technical Conditions for (the Construction of) the Museum of the Revolution in Block 13 in New Belgrade]; Zavod za planiranje razvoja grada Beograda [The Institute for the Developmental Planning of the City of Belgrade]: Belgrade, Serbia, 1977. 45. Vesković,I. Park prijateljstva u Novom Beogradu [The Park of Friendship in Novi Beograd (New Belgrade)]. Nasleđe [Heritage] 2011, 12, 203–216. 46. Generalni urbanistiˇckiplan Beograda do 2000 [General Urban Plan of Belgrade to 2000]; Urban Planning Institute of Belgrade: Belgrade, Serbia, 1972. 47. Generalni plan Beograda do 2010 [General Plan of Belgrade to 2010]. Službeni list grada Beograda [Official Gazette of the City of Belgrade] 2003, 27, 901–1080. 48. Simić,I.; Stupar, A.; Djokić,V. Building the Green Infrastructure of Belgrade: The Importance of Community Greening. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1183. [CrossRef] 49. Gehl, J. Cities for People; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2010. 50. Anonymous. Usce Park to Have Seven Zones—We Present Conceptual Design of Belgrade‘s Green Oasis. eKapija. 16 March 2017. Available online: https://www.ekapija.com/en/real-estate/1699074/KZIN-BUP/ usce-park-to-have-seven-zones-we-present-conceptual-design-of-belgrades (accessed on 25 March 2017). 51. Generalni urbanistiˇckiplan Beograda [General Urban Plan for Belgrade]. Službeni list grada Beograda [Official Gazette of the City of Belgrade] 2016, 60, 1–106. 52. Grubbauer, M.; Camprag,ˇ N. Urban Megaprojects, Nation-State Politics and Regulatory Capitalism in Central and Eastern Europe: The Belgrade Waterfront Project. Urban Stud. 2019, 649–671. [CrossRef] 53. Rahm, P. In Architecture, Precisely. In Precisions: Architecture between Sciences and the Arts; Moravánszky, A., Fischer, O.W., Eds.; Jovis: Berlin, Germany, 2008; pp. 166–195. 54. Blagojević,L.J.; Corović,D.´ Klimatske promene i estetika savremene arhitekture [Climate change and contemporary architecture aesthetics]. In Uticaj klimatskih promena na planiranje i projektovanje [The Impact of Climate Change on Planning and Design]; Djokić,V., Lazović,Z., Eds.; Univerzitet u Beogradu–Arhitektonski fakultet: Belgrade, Serbia, 2011; pp. 19–33. 55. Vasiljević,N.; Radić,B.; Šljukić,B.; Gavrilović,S.; Medarević,M.; Ristić,R. The concept of green infrastructure and urban landscape planning: A challenge for urban forestry planning in Belgrade, Serbia. iForest-Biogeosci. For. 2018, 4, 491–498. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).