Between Utopia and

Pragmatism
UHA/CCA

edited by
Maroje Mrduljaš, Vladimir Kulić

Zagreb, 2012
The project U nfinished M odernisations was commenced on the
initiative of the CCA/Croatian Architects' Association in
collaboration with other partners.

Project partners Project supported by

This project has been funded with support from the European
Commission. This publication [communication] reflects the views only of
the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use
which may be made of the information contained therein.

DAB A ssociation of B elgrade A rchitects (RS), O ris' kuća arhitekture

(HR), KOR C oalition for S ustainable D evelopment (MK), MAO
M useum of A rchitecture and D esign (SI), UGM M aribor A rt G allery
(SI), UHA C roatian A rchitects' A ssociation (HR).
 5 Unfinished Modernisations Dietmar Steiner

6 Between Utopia and Pragmatism: Architecture and Urban Maroje Mrduljaš

Planning in the Former Yugoslavia and the Successor States Vladimir Kulić

14 Yugoslavia as Project and Experiment

Dejan Jović
22 Timeline 1945-1991

34 Spaces of Representation

36 Architecture and Ideology in Socialist Yugoslavia Vladimir Kulić

64 5+2 Points on Architecture and Ideology Nika Grabar

78 Insisting on Architecture: Yugoslavian Modernism and Petra Čeferin

Contemporary Architecture

84 Yugoslavian Partisan Memorials: the Aesthetic Form of the Robert Burghardt

Revolution as a Form of Unfinished Modernism? Gal Kirn

96 Celluloid Building Sites of Socialist Yugoslavia: Cinema Irena Šentevska

Fiction and Unfinished Modernisations

120 Spaces of global Exchange

122 Constructing a Non-aligned Modernity: Dubravka Sekulić

the Case of Energoprojekt

134 The Zagreb Fair Lana Lovrenčić

154 Politics of Urban Space

156 From Planned to Unplanned City: Ivan Kucina

New Belgrade’s Transformations Milica Topalović

174 Planning Socijalist Zagreb: a History of Socialist Marko Sančanin

Policies and Urban Planning Tendencies

200 Skopje Urban Transformations: Constructing the Built Divna Penčić

Environment in Different Socio-Political Contexts Biljana Spirikoska
Jasna Stefanovska

218 Japan looks West: The Reconstruction of Skopje in the Ines Tolić
Light of Global Ambitions and Local Needs

232 Sarajevo – Marijin Dvor Nina Ugljen Ademović

Creating a New City Centre – The ‘Programmatic Elša Turkušić
Composition’ of a Socialist City

246 New Cities in Slovenia (1945-1960) Matevž Čelik

Alenka di Battistta
260 Planning Pula Prupa

276 Kaluđerica From Šklj to Abc: Ana Džokić and Marc Neelen
A Life in the Shadow of Modernisation (Stealth.Unlimited)
Nebojša Milikić

292 Design of Spatial Practices

294 Housing Architecture in Belgrade (1950-1980) and Tanja Damjanović Conley

Its Expansion to the Left Bank of the River Sava Jelica Jovanović

312 Split III Višnja Kukoč

318 Krstarica (‘Cruiser’) Housing Block Vesna Perković-Jović

328 Dugave and Ivan Čižmek: Daily Bricolage Marko Sančanin

...or Faking Daily Papers as an Act of Intimate Resistance

336 Murgle Housing Estate Martina Malešič

348 Constructing an Affordable Arcadia Luciano Basauri

Dafne Berc
Maroje Mrduljaš
Dinko Peračić
Miranda Veljačić

370 Yugoslav architectural space

372 The Borba for Architecture Ines Tolić

392 Plečnik’s Students in LeCorbusier’s Studio Bogo Zupančić

397 Ernest Weissmann and Juraj Nedihardt Tamara Bjažić Klarin

399 Modernist Tendencies in Serbia Before WWII Tanja Damljanović Conley

404 Prefabricated Construction in Socialist Yugoslavia: Jelica Jovanović

From ‘System’ to ‘Technology’ Jelena Grbić
Dragana Petrović

420 A ‘Taste’ for Structure: Architecture and Structural Luka Skansi

Figures in Slovenia 1960-1975

432 The Fusion of the Modern and the Traditional in Bosnia Nina Ugljen Ademović
Elša Turkušić

444 Zadar’s Unfinished Modernisations Dražen Arbutina

454 The Architectural Vision of Vladimir Turina Hela Vukadin

464 CVs, IMAGE SOURCES AND CREDITS

468 ABOUT THE PROJECT / PUBLICATION DETAILS

 Initially planned as the political,

Architecture 1950-1970
A Privileged Dwelling for a
Privilege-Free Society
Belgrade Residential administrative and symbolic
centre of socialist Yugoslavia,
New Belgrade grew through the
construction of large housing
blocks for six to ten thousand
tenants. A significant investor
in housing was the Yugoslav
People’s Army, which was the
first to introduce planning
standards and regulations.
These norms were above
the average of that time,
and they gradually migrated
to the civilian sector. And
while the urban morphology
was relatively monotonous
with extremely large scale,
significant achievements were
realized on the plan of improving
housing floor plans. Higher
planning standards than in
the rest of Yugoslavia offered
architects in New Belgrade the
room for manoeuvre, which
also assisted the development
of advanced organizational
schemes, uniting all functional
zones of an apartment and
enabling a greater flow within
Tanja DamLjanović Conley

this optimized framework.

The approach to planning
housing spaces was based on
a scientific, interdisciplinary
approach and the studies of
people’s habits, especially by the
Housing Centre of the Institute
for the Testing of Materials
Jelica Jovanović

(IMS) in Belgrade.

(eds)
 Housing Architecture in Belgrade (1950-1980) 1 The investors/clients of

295
Block 21 were the Directorate
and its Expansion to the Left Bank of the River Sava for the Construction of
Architectural Facilities
DSNO and the Architectural
Considering the optimal living standard and income levels, it has been decided that third- Department of Belgrade
category apartments will be given priority, with the exception of Novi Beograd, where no Garrison; as for Block 23, it was
low - quality apartments should be built and larger apartments should prevail . the Architectural Department
for the Construction of
Apartments and the Building
(Teze i stavovi za utvrdjivanje stambene politike u Beogradu Hypotheses and opinions for deter- Administration of the Federal
mining the housing policy in Belgrade; Belgrade: Municipal Assembly of Belgrade, 1964, p. 3) Ministry of National Defence;
and the investors of Block 63
were the Federal Ministry of
National Defence SSNO and the
Five blocks in Novi Beograd have been selected for Directorate for the Construction
this analysis, the aim of which is to indicate certain important phenomena of Belgrade; and those of Block
19a were the Directorate for the
in Belgrade’s housing architecture in general. As a symbol of the country’s Construction and Maintenance
reconstruction and development, Novi Beograd (New Belgrade) was the larg- of Housing (Yugoslav People’s
Army) and the Directorate for
est and highest-profile building site in former Yugoslavia, soon to become a 1:1 the Construction of Belgrade.
testing ground for the entire construction industry. Although it has often been
pointed out that this part of the city resembles an army barracks or a dormitory
rather than a residential district – owing to the investment mechanisms1 and the 2 In professional circles,
‘marginal building’ was a term
dominant typology (architecture) – this time we have focused on the processes
Belgrade Residential Architecture 1950-1970

commonly used for constructions

surrounding the construction itself. The construction of Novi Beograd was sup- in Belgrade’s historical centre,
either on empty lots or on
ported by research that was advanced at the time, as well as a great number of those where buildings had been
experiments and professional initiatives – which gave the process a scientific demolished. Building right on
grounding, affecting for decades the housing architecture of the region. the regulation line secured an
uninterrupted street front.
This type of construction was
The Beginnings: on Belgrade’s Housing Economy then neglected for a long time,
especially after the 1963 ban,
and was even stigmatized – it
In 1944, Belgrade’s population numbered 280 thousand, was believed that the standard
of living in those buildings
some 50 thousand less than in 1941, according to the estimates. The city had was much lower than in block
entered the war with a serious lack of public resources, and during the war it lost structures that were common in
other new neighbourhoods.
around 30% of its apartments. It was now growing very rapidly, so that by 1960 the
number of its residents had already doubled, with a growth rate that was twice as
fast as in the period before the war. Until 1960, housing architecture in Belgrade 3 V. Bjelikov, Način stanovanja
u Beogradu, Urbanizam Beograda
was mostly concerned with what was called ‘marginal building’2 –’filling in the soft 42 [Housing in Belgrade, urban
spots in the urban tissue’3 and ‘building on top of solid multi-storey buildings.’4 Only planning of Belgrade 42]
(Belgrade: Institute for the Urban
two satellite districts were built at that time – so-called ‘workers’ colonies’ (Železnik
Development of Belgrade, 1977),
and Rakovica – Kanarevo Brdo) and two larger housing complexes (Cvijićeva Street p. 12.
and Karaburma). During the time when the country was busy ‘creating the material
preconditions for the development of the economy and the society,’5 there was
simply not enough money to invest in good housing projects. As the population grew, 4 A. Mendelson, Nova
stambena naselja kao oblik
Belgrade’s People’s Committee implemented a General Master Plan of Belgrade,6 razvoja Beograda, Urbanizam
which encouraged a more dynamic expansion of the city towards the periphery. The Beograda 30 [New residential
districts as a form of development
plan stated that the city should be expanded by developing four new, well-planned
in Belgrade] (Belgrade: Institute
housing zones: for the Urban Development of
Belgrade, 1975), p. 18.

1. Stari Beograd – Mirijevo, Šumice, Banjica, Konjarnik,

Banovo Brdo, etc. – divided into four groups according 5 B. Stojanović and U.
Martinović, Beograd 1945-1975 -
to the locations: NORTH, EAST, WEST, and SOUTH; Urbanizam Arhitektura [Belgrade
2. Left bank of the Danube – Kotež, Borča; 1945-1975: Urban planning and
architecture] (Belgrade: NIRO
3. Zemun;
Tehnička knjiga, 1978), p. 115.
4. Novi Beograd.
UM
6 At the meeting held on The first major steps in an attempt at systematizing
October 20, 1950. See A.
Mendelson, Nova stambena
the housing economy were made in 1953, when the Permanent Conference
naselja kao oblik razvoja of Yugoslav Cities was founded. From the very outset it was a member of the
Beograda, Urbanizam Beograda
30 [New residential districts as a
International Federation of Cities and Local Administrations.7 In 1956, the
form of development in Belgrade] Directorate for Apartment Building was founded by the People’s Committee of
(Belgrade: Institute for the Belgrade. That very year saw the creation of a ‘Fund for Housing Loans’ and the
Urban Development of Belgrade,
1975), p. 17. introduction of a special tax for housing development, on the basis of the ‘Law
on the Special Conditions Regarding the Construction of Residential and Public
7 ‘On 21 and 22 April 1953, Buildings and Their State Supervision’ of 1956.
a Founding Assembly of the
Permanent Conference of
Cities and Municipalities of FNR Housing architecture in Belgrade was financed by
Yugoslavia was held. Besides
announcing the Foundation
both federal institutions and those of the individual republics, as well as the
Decree and the Statute, and Yugoslav People’s Army (JNA), which used its budget rather than the Fund for
electing its bodies, the Assembly that purpose. In 1963, Belgrade’s administration banned all marginal building,
made the decision on its
membership in the International stating that a housing block would be considered the minimum plot for housing
Union of Local Authorities construction.8 During the following few decades, housing policy in Belgrade
(IULA), which had been founded
in 1913 at the initiative of the was strategically oriented towards urbanizing new, unbuilt areas, mostly fol-
Belgian National Union, guided by lowing the General Master Plan from 1950, valid for the period from 1950-1980.
the same ideas and principles as
the Permanent Conference. On According to that master plan, the area of Novi Beograd was to become the
that occasion, it was especially most extensive project of building up a new residential district in terms of area
emphasized that in the times of
old Yugoslavia, from 1927 until
size – with plans to continue the irrigation of marshlands and construction
World War II, there was a Union works initiated immediately after the war.
of the Local Administrations
of Yugoslavia, whose main
aim was to fight against the The Capital as an Experimental City
central authorities and for
local autonomy.’ (Source: www.
skgo.org).  IULA – International It is practically a new city, which represents our desires and fantasies going back to
Union of Local Authorities – was the period of R enewal and C onstruction; it is a legacy of S ocialist Yugoslavia .
renamed in 2004 to United
Cities and Local Governments
(UCLG) and divided into sections (B. Stojanović and U. Martinović: Beograd 1945-1975 - Urbanizam Arhitektura Belgrade 1945-
by continents. In Europe, there 1975: Urban planning and architecture; Belgrade: NIRO Tehnička knjiga, 1978, p. 42)
has been a Council of European
Municipalities and Regions
(CEMR) since 1951, and all the
countries of former Yugoslavia From the beginnings of post-war construction in 1946,
are today its members. Novi Beograd had a particular significance and absolutely top priority in
comparison with other parts of the city.9 The Directorate for the Construction
of Novi Beograd,10 established in 1948, engaged the most prominent experts in
8 Ibid. order to find the best solutions for the new city district, including the decision
9 The initiative for building of the Municipal Administration that the designs of individual blocks in terms of
Novi Beograd came from the very
leadership of the Communist
both architecture and urban planning had to result from public competitions.11
Party of Yugoslavia and allegedly
from Tito himself; to took a
particular interest in the way
‘A nd you are sure that these palaces won’t sink ?’ a tall, skinny A merican asked.
the construction works were ‘Completely sure. Our structural engineers calculated it all. We trust them.’
progressing. State and federal ‘Haven’t the calculations been made by structural engineers from abroad?’
bodies were primarily in charge
– President’s Office and the ‘Why should they be ? There are plenty of skilled people in our country.’
Federal Ministry of Construction ‘Yes, but these are the first foundations of this type in Yugoslavia.’
– followed by the municipal
authorities: the Executive
Committee of the People’s (B. Jovanović: Beograd prelazi na levu obalu Save. Novi Beograd Belgrade is moving to the left
Committee of Belgrade. The bank of River Sava: Novi Beograd, Belgrade: Directorate for the Construction of Novi Beograd,
whole process was supervised 1967, p. 8)
by the Politburo of the Central
Committee of the Communist
Party of Yugoslavia, the Central
Committee of the Communist
Party of Serbia, and the Party’s
Municipal Committee of the
Party.
 The journalist’s amazement was not at all unfounded, 10 T. Devald, A. Đorđević, B.

297
Jovanović, and B. Pešić, Novi
for Yugoslavia was building its new (capital) city on marshlands that had been Beograd [Belgrade: Directorate
unregulated for centuries, and moreover the country had suffered huge war for the Construction of Novi
Beograd, 1967], p. 26.
damage and was largely underdeveloped in terms of the economy, education,
technology, industry, and infrastructure. Construction supervisors in Novi
Beograd were not hiding that the poorly qualified labour force was a huge 11 Several sources emphasize
the fact that projects of
problem. residential architecture, which
were financed from the state
budget, had to be obtained
The fact that we were not used to mechanization was a huge drawback and we were through public competitions. A
using our youth for construction works. We did not really appreciate machines, except series of documents submitted
for the compressors, which were indispensable when working in tunnels and on cliffs. by the People’s Committee
of Belgrade and ratified by
The inadequately trained youth soon created a true cemetery of bulldozers. Even the the Municipal Assembly of
engineers ignored the advantages of these machines. Belgrade, insisted on this way
of spending public moneys.
Competitions were organized
(B. Jovanović B.: Beograd prelazi na levu obalu Save. Novi Beograd, Belgrade is moving to by the Architects’ Association
the left bank of River Sava: Novi Beograd, Belgrade: Directorate for the Construction of Novi in charge. See Urbanistički
Beograd, 1967, p. 11) uslovi za izgradnju bloka 45
[Conditions for the construction
of Block 45 according to the
Thus, the city was built by barehanded youth, with Master Plan], from Technical
‘sticks and ropes.’ The same could be said for other aspects of construction: Documentation, Historical
Belgrade Residential Architecture 1950-1970

Archives of Belgrade, source:

before 1960, almost the only technology used in construction was ‘reinforced Teze i stavovi za utvrdjivanje
masonry.’ From that year onwards, there was more vigorous industrialization stambene politike u Beogradu
[Hypotheses and Opinions on
of housing construction, accompanied by modern solutions – primarily the
Belgrade’s Housing Policy]
technology of prefabricated building and prestressed concrete, which was (Belgrade: Municipal Assembly
mostly used in the construction of Novi Beograd. The first Yugoslav systems of Belgrade).

of prefabricated building were developed according to the current needs

(demands) of the housing economy, and they were constantly improved on 12 The skeletal system of
IMS Žeželj evolved from a
the basis of direct empirical evidence. Large building sites such as Borongaj 3.60m range (Block 21, building
(Zagreb), Novi Beograd, Novi Zagreb, Split III, and Liman (Novi Sad) were at the B9 – condominium) to that of
7.20m, with 2.10m consoles
same time experimental sites – for Jugomont, IMS Žeželj, Rad-Balency, Ratko (for the district of Cerak
Mitrović, Neimar NS 71, Trudbenik, and many other companies that produced Vinogradi), the fabrication of
prefabricated and semi-prefabricated buildings. Feedback from the building hollow columns with a 60/60cm
base (Liman, modified system
sites and offices found its way to the developers of these systems; the process Neimar NS 71) in order to fit the
of designing and constructing them was open and its participants cooperated basic architectural module of
60/60cm.
very actively, often reaching quite specific technological solutions to cater for
the needs of architecture.12
13 R. Vujnović, Dinamika
izgradnje grada – Jedna etapa
Architectural Design without Standards? u izgradnji i rekonstrukciji
Beograda [Dynamics of urban
construction: A phase in building
Before World War II, the architectural planning of
and rebuilding Belgrade]
Belgrade apartments was influenced by public housing in Vienna and Berlin (Belgrade: Izgradnja magazine,
– producing salon-type apartments with a central dining space from which Association of Construction
Engineers and Technicians of
doors opened to the other rooms. This sort of spatial organization did not really Serbia and Serbian Architects’
suit the new way of life or construction in dense city blocks. After the war, Association, 1997), p. 27.

architects abandoned such organizational principles with the explanation that

they went together with a different (more luxurious) lifestyle and that there
were simply no conditions for such construction in the situation of an urgent
need for housing (the policy of supplying ‘a roof over people’s heads’13). During
the first decade after the war, estimates of the number of apartments that were
needed in Yugoslavia were based on standards issued by the Federal Ministry
of Construction, whose parameters were based exclusively on the number of
UM
14 M. Bajlon, V. Hruška, J. persons per household. Thus, their use encouraged the design of apartments
Klepac, A. Ranković, A. Ševgić,
D. Vukčević Sarap, and A.
in sizes that did not really take the tenants’ needs and the realities of everyday
Žanko, Stan I i II [Apartment I life into account. Commenting on the military housing, built according to these
and II] (Belgrade: Committee
for Publications on Military
standards, Mate Bajlon also described the phenomenon of substandard hous-
Architecture, n.d.).ts’ ing: living rooms within the limits of a functional and biological minimum – 14
Association, 1997), p. 27. m2 in size!14
For many years, this architectural programme defined
15 According to Metodološko the quality of furnishing that the apartments had to have by using the same
uputstvo za utvrđivanje
vrednosti stambenih zgrada,
categorization of needs as the census. There were six such categories, with
stanova i poslovnih prostorija the seventh one ‘outside all categories,’ for buildings of extremely low quality.15
[Methodical instructions
for determining the value
In order to launch competitions and formulate the project tasks, construction
of residential buildings, policy makers used census tables to evaluate apartments on the basis of the
apartments, and business furnishing of both the apartment and the building. Such evaluation of apart-
facilities] (1965), p. 18, and
Prilozi uz metodološko uputstvo ments for the needs of architectural design – on the basis of ownership, num-
za utvrđivanje vrednosti ber of tenants, and sophisticated functional features such as ‘a passage room’,
stambenih zgrada, stanova i
poslovnih prostorija [Annex to ‘extended communication’, or the ‘position of the sanitary installations’ – was
the Methodical instructions carried out from the early 1950s by Mate Bajlon for the Army. In the mid-1950s,
for determining the value
of residential buildings, the profession was mostly involved in exploring and eliminating pathological
apartments, and business phenomena in housing, such as overpopulation or the lack of privacy.
facilities]. A system of points
was developed for the needs
The Yugoslav People’s Army (JNA) was the best
of categorizing apartments, organized client and investor, and in 1955 it published a set of ‘Instructions
including all aspects that could
be considered relevant: its
for the Construction of Residential Buildings for the Needs of JNA.’ The main
location and district, building aim of these instructions was to prevent oscillations in the quality of housing
materials, whether the building
for officers at the federal level. Empirically based research on housing needs
had an elevator, and whether
the apartment had a bathroom and expectations (‘habitology’) ensued only after the construction of Block
and a kitchen, to the quality of 21. Owing to a young team of authors, IMS Institute managed not only to
floors and walls.
design Block 21, but also to create a special scientific and research discipline
dedicated to the processes and technology of housing construction. Having
16 Architectural Centre completed the project for Block 21, architect Mihajlo Čanak was appointed
of Slovenia, Centre for
the Research of Housing
to the task of evaluating the Army standards of 1956, and as a result of his
at the Croatian Institute efforts and those of the Centre for Housing, a new set of ‘Instructions for the
for Architecture, and the
Macedonian Centre for Housing.
Construction of Residential Buildings for the Needs of JNA’ was published in
1964. The Centre for Housing was founded at IMS Institute at the initiative of
Mihajlo Čanak, and it joined the network of institutions dealing with similar
17 Vido Vrbanić and Ljubo Ilić issues16 on the federal and international level – within the United Nations
authored the project of blocks 7,
8, and 9: the residential district
Economic Commission for Europe. This Centre, which numbered only sixteen
of Tošin Bunar with around employees, carried out a series of scientific and technological experiments,
3000 apartments and the
which overlapped with the designing activities of architects working at
Student Centre (dormitory) for
5000 students. These blocks the Centre. Owing to their active participation in various competitions, the
were designed in 1949 at the Centre’s researchers had an opportunity of testing their results at the experi-
Institute for the Research and
Actualization of Issues Related mental building sites of Novi Beograd, Julino Brdo, and similar projects of
to Novi Beograd, and they were housing construction in Belgrade and throughout Yugoslavia, and to turn their
accomplished in the period from
1950-55. Later they were often observations into norms.
criticized for the low quality of
apartments and the uniform
solution in terms of urban
planning.
 Five Blocks of Novi Beograd 18 The urban planner on this

299
project was Branko Petričić
and the architectural designers
The first residential blocks of Novi Beograd were built of individual buildings were
Branko Petričić, Dušan
before 1955 (Studentski Grad, Tošin Bunar17) or before 1963 (Blocks 1 and Milenković, and Tihomir
2, Fontana). At the time when Blocks 1 and 2 were designed (1958-59),18 the Ivanović.
General Master Plan of Novi Beograd, the work of Branko Petričić, had already
been promulgated. This Master Plan established two concepts of spatial design, 19 V. Bjelikov, Način
stanovanja u Beogradu.
which proved decisive for the further construction of Novi Beograd. Thus, a Urbanizam Beograda 42
square for public events was built between the SIV building and the railway sta- [Housing in Belgrade: Urban
planning of Belgrade]
tion, defining the so-called central zone of Novi Beograd, and it has remained (Belgrade: Institute for
the crucial point of scholarly debate until the present day, since its later, ac- Planning the Development of
complished version was completely contrary to the initial conception in terms Belgrade, 1977), p. 12.

of design, function, and proprietary relations, which actually eliminated its

primarily representative and public character. The second concept consisted in 20 The central zone of Novi
Beograd (zone ‘B’) comprised
residential blocks organized according to the ‘Soviet model of micro-district,’19 nine blocks on the line of
which in its further elaboration led to the construction of district centres and (planned) centre between SIV
Palace and the railway station.
local communes – one for every 6000-10000 inhabitants – as small units of It was divided into central
communal self-management. blocks (blocks 24, 25, and 26),
The solution for the Central Zone20 in terms of urban intended to perform central
Belgrade Residential Architecture 1950-1970

functions, and marginal blocks

planning was proposed and ratified in 1962 according to the competition results (blocks 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, and
from 1959, the work of a team of architectural designers at the Institute for 30), intended for housing and
public facilities.
Urban Planning: Uroš Martinović, Milutin Glavički, Leonid Lenarčić, Dušan
Milenković, and Milosav Mitić. Their project distinguished between the ac-
centuated corner blocks and the more moderate central ones. The corner 21 Ibid., p. 17.
blocks had six main towers on their external facades and one on the interior,
two horizontal blocks of eleven storeys, and a five-storey meandering structure
– which settings were applied to all four blocks. The central blocks (22 and
29) were designed as a series of horizontal condominiums to the exterior, a
square district centre, and two main towers to the interior of the block, on the
central axis. These were the elements of the so-called ‘inline urban planning’,
which was typical of this phase of constructing Novi Beograd, and each single
competition project was fitted into such given parameters. One could often
hear in the professional circles that such structures were typical of what was
called ‘crane urban planning’,21 since they were almost regularly built in systems
of industrialized, prefabricated construction, which demanded large and well-
organized building sites with extensive mechanization – the so-called ‘runways’
for on-site prefabrication or cranes to transport the panels.
UM
 Beginnings of Standardization
and the Creation of Norms
Block 21

The project task for Block 21 is to plan the construc-

tion of the maximum number of mid-sized (two-room)
apartments. The apartment types must be as uniform
as possible in order to facilitate their industrial
production. Design of the ground floor and the facade
must be adapted to the demands of urban planning in
terms of regulations issued by the Council for Urban
Planning. Equipment of apartments must fall within
the limits of Category II.

(Technical Documentation: Block 21, Historical

Archives of Belgrade)

BLOCK 21 1960 Block 21 was the corner block of the central zone and the
first block built in it, and it was intended to serve the needs
anonymous public competition
of Yugoslav People’s Army. A public competition requiring
anonymous entries was launched for its design in 1961, result-
ing in three accepted solutions for three types of apartments.
The experienced duo of the ‘Stil’ Atelier, Bogdan Ignjatović and
Aleksandar Đorđević, were in charge of skyscrapers 1, 3, and
5, as well as the condominiums containing small apartments, 22
while Leon Kabiljo designed skyscrapers 2, 4, and 6 with large
apartments. The project of meander, condominium, and a hotel
for singles was planned in a skyscraper (the only one which
was never accomplished) which was entrusted to the newly
formed team consisting of Mihajlo Čanak, Leonid Lenarčić,
Milosav Mitić, and Ivan Petrović, who worked on their first
large project in the framework of IMS Institute.

Block 21 marked a sort of turning point at a time when there

were still no adequate regulations or norms that would bring
order into this new branch of industry that residential archi-
Urban design tecture was gradually becoming. Buildings largely depended on
Leonid Lenarčič, Milutin Glavički, Milosav Mitić, Dušan the skills and experience of their architects. Building B9 – ‘the
Milenković, Uroš Martinović condominium’ – which became one of the symbols of Novi
Beograd, was designed with service rooms on the ground level
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN and the top floor, which catered for its community: a laundry, a
self-service, and a restaurant, as well as rooms for socializing
B-1, B-3, B-5, B-8 (16 stories) and a kindergarten. In order to avoid the disadvantages implied
Bogdan Ignjatović, Aleksandar Đorđević (Atelje Stil) by the building’s large dimensions (280m in length and 30m
in height), its design included three tracts, where the central
B-2, B-4, B-6 (16 stories) and most disadvantageous one was used to house auxiliary
Leon Kabiljo (Komgrap) rooms, while the apartments were placed along the facade.
Even though their orientation was mostly one-sided, 50% of
B-7, B-9 (meander) the apartments had transversal airflow. The robust form of the
Mihajlo Čanak, Leonid Lenarčić, Milosav Mitić, Ivan Petrović building was broken up by means of dynamic architecture – it
(IMS) was divided into seven condominiums, organized around a
glazed staircase that allowed light to penetrate the structure
Investor and alleviate its massive appearance. etrate the structure and
State Secretariat for Affairs of National Defense (DSNO) alleviate its massive appearance.

Construction department of the Belgrade garrison

Developed by GP Napred 22 One or one-and-half room apartments
were considered small, two and two-and-
618 built apartments
half room ones mid-sized, and those with
Additional services: three or more rooms were large. In the
elementary school; kindergarten, cultural center; artisan center; district of Novi Beograd, the tendency was
supermarket, grocery, bakery; restaurant; community center to build mid-sized and large apartments.
It should be noted that the living room was
Apartment example: building B-7 (meander) counted as one of the rooms.
UM Belgrade Residential Architecture 1950-1970 301
BLOCK 21
 Concrete Baroque and Belgrade Apartments
Block 23

Blocks 22 and 23 resulted from a general Yugoslav competition of 1968,

where the architects that took the first prize were Božidar Janković,
Branislav Karadžić, and Aleksandar Stjepanović (IMS Institute and
OSNOVA Atelier). An advantageous fact was that Blocks 21 and 28 had
already been built and that their documentation was accessible at IMS
Institute, where Janković and Karadžić were working at the Centre for
Housing. The designers first analysed the completed buildings in these
blocks and classified their findings into three groups, according to the
morphology (condominium, meander, and towers), on which they then
based their own concept and architecture. They particularly studiously
approached the issue of designing the building, especially the organi-
zation of a ‘typical cell.’

The analysis of all existing volumes in Blocks 21 and 281 led to the fol-
lowing conclusions regarding the future construction of Block 23:

The number of storeys in residential towers should be in-

creased from sixteen to around twenty (based on a study of
high buildings in Blocks 21 and 28), and their facades should
be partitioned (both horizontally and vertically) in order to
render them more dynamic.

As for the longitudinal ten-storey building (condominium),

which was supposed to be 280m long, the analysis revealed a
BLOCK 23 1968
problem of relationship between the three basic dimensions,
anonymous public competition which had turned out visually problematic in Blocks 21 and
28 – the building appeared too narrow. The team of architects
therefore increased the depth of all tracts and created atria
both for the condominiums and for the meander. Learning from
this and their own experience, Mihajlo Čanak and Milosav
Mitić then applied the same strategy in Block 29.

The original volume of the meander, defined by urban regula-

tions, would be fragmented into smaller, horseshoe-shaped
segments, varied in form.

The new proportions that resulted from this change of dimensions

Urban and ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
Božidar Janković, Branislav Karadžić, Aleksandar Stjepanović
(IMS and OSNOVA)
Investor
Construction Department for Housing of the Construction
Administration of the Federal Secretariat for National Defence
required a different attitude towards the particular parts of the
block. In the case of towers, the ground floor and the mezzanine were
merged and withdrawn into the interior of the building, creating a
terrace in the foreground, with an additional accent in the form of
a protruding concrete frame. Oblique surfaces contributed to the
impression of dynamism. In the condominiums, the base took the
form of a two-tract building partitioned by means of atria. On its
longitudinal axis, the block was divided into three segments: two
frontal ones, which enclosed it width-wise, and the central body. The
tracts had ‘caesuras’ in the form of inserted staircases. Eventually,
the facade was partitioned by means of balconies, parapets, and ter-
races, which were rhythmically repeated, and architectural elements
such as balustrades, Venetian blinds, and window frames, painted in
vivid colours. The masterly composition of facades and the volume,
both on the level of the block as a whole and in relation to its sur-
roundings, led professionals to proclaim Blocks 22 and 23 examples
of ‘concrete baroque.’

User
State Secretariat for Affairs of National Defense (DSNO)
City Housing Company of Belgrade

Developed by GP Ratko Mitrović

2342 built apartments
Additional services
elementary school; kindergarten; recreation center;
community center

Apartment example: block 23 - tower

 303
Belgrade Residential Architecture 1950-1970
BLOCK 23

Residential units were planned with the help of a system of
questions and tasks that the authors had set before them
while observing the relation between the society and the
family.
Will society increasingly focus on the family or gradu-
ally lose interest in it?
What is the structure of today’s family and the rela-
tionships within it, and can its further development be
predicted?
What should the content of a basic cell unit be, taking
into consideration all impacts, needs, and possibilities of
the society?
By using the analysis of these facts and the identified prob-
lems, the architects now established a series of principles,
which served as a basis for designing the residential units in
their blocks, and which they also used in their later research
on architectural design. They established the so-called basic
core of the unit, which served for the joint activities of the
entire family (dining or living room) and created various sce-
narios of their use (parallel flows, as the authors called them)
according to the family’s age structure. The flexibility of this
core, which aimed at offering the basic conditions for growth
and operation of the family, was achieved by erecting movable
partition walls, which made the transformation of space easier
and helped avoid the feeling of oppression.

What is the ideal size of the basic unit in regard to our

present-day demands and possibilities, and taking
into account the permanent presence of the time
factor?

What are our present economic and technical capaci-

ties in terms of realizing the suggested concept?’

(Stan i stanovanje Apartment and housing;

Belgrade: Izgradnja magazine – special issue, 1972,
p. 139)
UM
 Building for the ‘Market’
Block 45

The competition for Blocks 45, 44, and 70 took place in 1965,
on the basis of the prize-winning project from the competition
related to urban planning, authored by Ivan Tepeš, Velimir
Gradelj, Milutin Glavički, and Jovan Mišković. At this invited
competition, the jury selected two solutions for two types of
buildings: that of Mihajlo Čanak (P+16), Grgur Popović (P+12
i P+14), and Branko Aleksić (P+6) for the skyscrapers, and
that of Risto Šekerinski for the semi-atrium buildings (P+2
and P+4). In this case, the investor was the Directorate for the
Construction of Belgrade, and the commissioning body the Bel-
grade Housing Community – unlike most other blocks in Novi
Beograd, which were built for the Army and for various state
and regional organizations.1 These apartments were intended
for the ‘market’, that is, for various workers’ organizations 23
that would buy them for their employees, who would pay them
off with the help of special loans. The planned capacity of the
block was 15,720 beds.

BLOK 45 1965 The competition project treated the block as an extended local
commune – a micro-district with four neighbourhood units.
invited competition
The buildings were scattered around in greenery, with a special
accent on the recreational areas between them – sports fields,
playgrounds, and pedestrian pathways. The winning projects
were selected so as to include various apartment typologies,
from studios to duplexes. In the case of skyscrapers, one of
the requirement was to include at least five studios for artists;
besides, each building had to have garages, rooms for children
to play in, and a concierge’s office, while the roof terrace was
open for all tenants and included service rooms. In some of the
buildings, there were ‘supply points’: restaurants, food stores,
newsagents and tobacconists. Besides the school and the
kindergarten, the block contained a meeting point for the local
community with a small (70 seat) and a large (450 seat) thea-
tre hall, a library, a crafts centre, a shopping mall, and offices
for social organizations. The project emphasized the idea of
designing both the individual buildings and the block as a whole
for the so-called ‘unknown user’. In this way, the block gained
in versatility regarding its urban functions, complementary
to the residential, and a series of new residential typologies,
unprecedented in Belgrade.

Urban design
Ivan Tepeš, Velimir Gradelj, Milutin Glavički,
Jovan Mišković (Institute of Urbanism Belgrade)

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
Mihajlo Čanak (17 stories),
Grgur Popović (13, 15 stories),
Risto Šekerinski (demi-atrium, 2&3 stories)
Branko Aleksić (7 stories)

Investor
Agency for the construction of Belgrade

User
City Housing Company of Belgrade
23 Vujnović: Table 45 – A building plot in
Novi Beograd. Dinamika izgradnje grada
Developed by INPROS
– Jedna etapa u izgradnji i rekonstrukciji
4800 built apartments Beograda [The dynamics of urban
Additional services construction – A phase in building and
elementary school, kindergarten, community center, rebuilding Belgrade] (Belgrade: Izgradnja
artisan center, supermarkets, garages magazine, Association of Building Engineers
and Technicians of Serbia and Serbian
Apartment example: demi-atrium - three lamellas Architects’ Association, 1997), 98.
UM Belgrade Residential Architecture 1950-1970 305
BLOCK 45
 ‘Belgrade’s Sails’
Block 63

Block 63 is located in line with Blocks 61-64, which

are considered a brutal example of ‘inline urban plan-
ning.’ Its author in terms of urban planning was Josip
Svoboda, who claimed Dubrovnik and Stradun as his
source of inspiration. His initial proposal included
structures of triangular cross-section – a macro-com-
position consisting of two regular lines of residential
buildings, linked to the line of the centres positioned
along the axis. The architectural solution was the result
of an internal Belgrade competition launched in 1971.
Owing to excellent cooperation between the team of
architects (Darko Marušić, Milenija Marušić, and Milan
Miodragović) and the team of urban planners, these
macro-structures eventually obtained their characteris-
tic stepped appearance.

The buildings’ architecture124 alternated two-tract (type A) and

one-tract (type B) volumes, placed so as to create a system of
passageways and garages in public space between buildings.
BLOCK 63 1971 Apartments were organized so as to have the rooms oriented
internal Belgrade towards the facade and the service rooms opening towards
competition the staircase, since the apartments in two-tract objects were
oriented only in one direction. The given structure included
one-room, two-room, and three-room apartments, which forced
the authors to consider creating a basic unit capable of being
adapted to the needs of a growing family. The space between
the entrance zone and the dining/living room was connected by
means of ‘circular links’ and movable partition walls, which the
family could either remove in order to obtain a more spacious
living room, or use for privacy, according to its needs. The apart-
ments extended into the depth of the tract, which was made pos-
sible by using the IMS Žeželj system of prefabricated construc-
tion, with the basic construction range of 5.40m. According
to the project, Blocks 61 and 62 were to be built in that system
because it offered great flexibility in organizing the basic unit
and made it possible to introduce their ‘brand mark’, the circular
link, into residential architecture. Later on, the Rad-Balency
panel system was used to build Blocks 63 and 64 despite the
architects’ objections. 25 It was a ‘closed-type’ system adapted
to the building conditions in Western Europe (with their norm of
20-25m2 per person) and was difficult to use with the spatial
urban design standard imposed by the investor for Blocks 61-64, namely 16m2
Josip Svoboda of net surface per person.
(Institute of urbanism Belgrade)

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
Darko Marušić
Milenija Marušić
Milan Miodragović (GRO Rad)

investor
Agency for the construction of Belgrade
Federal Secretariat for Affairs of National Defense (SSNO)

user 24 Stan i stanovanje [Apartment and

Federal Secretariat for Affairs of National Defense (SSNO) housing] (Belgrade: Izgradnja magazine –
City Housing Company of Belgrade special issue, 1972), pp. 125-33.

developed by GP RAD
3228 built apartments 25 Darko and MIlenija Marušić abandoned
the construction of Blocks 63 and 64, which
additional services
were built in Rad-Balency system according
elementary school; kindergarten; community center
to their architectural design. Darko Marušić,
apartment example: type B - lamela from an interview.
UM Belgrade Residential Architecture 1950-1970 307
BLOCK 63

BLOK 19 A 1975
invited Belgrade competition
Urban design
Dragomir Manojlović(Institute of urbanism Belgrade)
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
Milan Lojanica, Borivoje Jovanović, Predrag Cagić (PO
Arhitektura i urbanizam)
Investor
Agency for the construction of Belgrade
Administration of Military Engineering
User
Agency for the Construction and Maintenance of Housing
Stock of Yugoslav People Army
City Housing Company of Belgrade
Developed by INPROS
927 built apartments
No additional services built
Apartment example: flexible organisation
In Dialogue with Postmodernism
Block 19a
Block 19a at the edge of the Central Zone is considered the
last among the blocks of Novi Beograd to be built according
to the above-described construction methods. Unlike the
achievements of ‘inline urban planning,’ the Detailed Urban
Plan of Block 19a (authored by Vesna Matičević and Dragomir
Manojlović from the Belgrade Institute for Urban Planning)
was based on the idea that the settlement should fit into its
surroundings and alleviate the impact of pollution from the
motorway, without constraining the future architectural
designers. The detailed plan defined a set of conditions for
‘programming and designing’25 the residential block, a small
local commune (the block was planned for 3200 tenants), and
its central activities.
The conditions related to urban planning, which were
defined according to modern concepts for the first
time in our city, heralded almost all complex issues
of building on this locality. They were no longer a
stiff framework, as had hitherto been the practice,
but a preliminary study of problems, which defined,
directed, and encouraged a maximum of creative
work in this and all future phases of work. What was
demanded, therefore, was a creative contribution to
the existing residential architecture of Novi Beograd,
building upon its achieved qualities.
(Urbanizam Beograda 49 / Urban planning of Belgrade;
Belgrade: Institute for Planning the Development of
Belgrade, 1978, p. 55)
However, what was especially extolled by both the general pub-
lic and the profession was the architectural solution offered
by architects Milan Lojanica, Borivoje Jovanović, and Predrag
Cagić, the first-place project from the invited Belgrade compe-
tition of 1975. First of all, the fact that they abandoned the or-
thogonal urban scheme of Novi Beograd proved a very efficient
and bold move; furthermore, their use of sloping roofs and
openings was inspired by traditional architecture. Corridors
were formed within the block as green public spaces, oriented
towards the banks of Sava. The architects paid special atten-
tion to the issue of flexibility in residential structures, since
the possibility of transforming them was particularly important
for the investor. It is important to emphasize that in this period
the basis for calculating apartment surface was 21.0m2 net
surface per person (28,5m2/person gross), unlike the 16 m2/
person in Block 21 of 1961. The living standard was improving
and the new districts from the 1970s were already designed in
accordance with these advanced spatial standards, set down in
the General Master Plan of Belgrade until 2000.
26 Urbanizam Beograda 49 [Urban
planning of Belgrade] (Belgrade: Institute
for Planning the Development of Belgrade,
1978, pp. 47-53.
UM Belgrade Residential Architecture 1950-1970 309
BLOCK 19a
 Epilogue: A Dormitory?!?

Even though advertised through the specific concept of

‘social ownership,’ the socialist system of Yugoslavia created precise mecha-
nisms for financing collective residential buildings. Investors of the most
ambitious and best-equipped residential complexes were closely connected to
the government and the highest functionaries of the state. The army, police,
and state administration, the most efficiently organized structures, present
in all parts of the country through their networks, managed to identify the
emerging forms of the housing crisis and estimate its proportions better than
anyone else. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that these were the structures
that formulated most precisely the issue of the housing crisis and articulated
the solutions to these problems through their investments – for the officer, the
civil servant, the bureaucrat, and the worker. Those who were employed in these
branches thus enjoyed a sort of privileged position in terms of both using their
right to an apartment and the standards according to which their apartments
were designed, constructed, and equipped.

The fact that the new construction methods could be ap-

plied only together with the overall industrialization of the building process led
to the gradual emergence of an infrastructure of residential architecture, with
its two main aspects: the building operative and the ‘policy’, which included the
process of making and implementing plans, as well as financing – implying also
the distribution of apartments and eventually the empirically based standardi-
zation and normativization of construction. In order to master that amount of
work, a whole range of administrative bodies, organizations, institutes, and
centres were founded, which dealt with various issues in the field of residential
architecture. With time, achievements of the Army's technology, building opera-
tives, and standardizations were transmitted – through the mechanisms of
socially oriented residential architecture – to other groups of users, which had
hitherto been unable to invest in housing to the same extent as the Army. The
initial document was precisely the ‘Instructions for Constructing Residential
Buildings for the Needs of Yugoslav People's Army.’ The architectural profession
has considered this document as the starting point for rationalizing residential
architecture. Following the construction of Block 21 and the foundation of IMS's
Centre for Housing, the hitherto prevailing practice of changing the norms ac-
cording to the attitudes, wishes, and possibilities of individual commissioning
bodies was abandoned. The housing standards of the Army had spilt over into
the entire social sector and become a common good.
 References

311
1. Bajlon M., V. Hruška, J. Klepac, A. Ranković, A. Ševgić, D. Vukčević Sarap, and A. Žanko: Stan I
i II Apartment I and II. Belgrade: Committee for Publications on Military Architecture, n. d.

2. Blagojević, Lj.: Novi Beograd: osporeni modernizam Novi Beograd: Contested modernism.
Belgrade: Institute for Textbooks and Teaching Equipment, Faculty of Architecture at the Uni-
versity of Belgrade, Institute for the Conservation of Cultural Monuments in Belgrade, 2007.

3. Devald, T., A. Đorđević, B. Jovanović, and B. Pešić: Novi Beograd. Belgrade: Directorate for
the Construction of Novi Beograd, 1967.

4. Vujnović, R.: Dinamika izgradnje grada – Jedna etapa u izgradnji i rekonstrukciji Beograda
Dynamics of urban construction: A phase in building and rebuilding Belgrade. Belgrade:
Izgradnja magazine, Association of Construction Engineers and Technicians of Serbia and
Serbian Architects' Association, 1997.
5. Official Gazette of Belgrade, 31 December 1983: Uslovi i mehanički normativi za projektovanje
stambenih zgrada i stanova Conditions and mechanical normatives for designing residential
buildings and apartments. Municipal Assembly of Belgrade.

6. Stojanović B. And U. Martinović: Beograd 1945-1975 - Urbanizam Arhitektura. Belgrade

1945-1975: Urban planning and architecture. Belgrade: NIRO Tehnička knjiga, 1978.

7. Urbanizam Beograda 30 Urban Planning in Belgrade. Belgrade: Institute for Planning the
Development of Belgrade, 1975.
Belgrade Residential Architecture 1950-1970

8. Urbanizam Beograda 42 Urban Planning in Belgrade. Belgrade: Institute for Planning the
Development of Belgrade, 1977.

9. Urbanizam Beograda 49 Urban Planning in Belgrade. Belgrade: Institute for Planning the
Development of Belgrade, 1978.

10. Stan i stanovanje Apartment and Housing. Belgrade: Izgradnja magazine – special issue,
1972.

11. 25 godina rada KMG Trudbenik 25th anniversary of KMG Trudbenik. Belgrade: Izgradnja
magazine – special issue XXVII, 1973.

12. Referat za određivanje politike stambene izgradnje u Beogradu u periodu do 1961. godine
Report concerning defining the policy of housing construction in Belgrade until 1961. Belgrade:
Ministry of Information and Communication, People's Committee of Belgrade, 1958.

13. Metodološko uputstvo za utvrđivanje vrednosti stambenih zgrada, stanova i poslovnih pros-
torija Methodical instructions for determining the value of residential buildings, apartments,
and business facilities, 1965 (materials of Belgrade's census commission, author’s copy).

14. Prilozi uz metodološko uputstvo za utvrđivanje vrednosti stambenih zgrada, stanova i

poslovnih prostorija Methodical instructions for determining the value of residential buildings,
apartments, and business facilities, 1965 (materials of Belgrade's census commission, author’s
copy).
15. Teze i stavovi za utvrdjivanje stambene politike u Beogradu Hypotheses and opinions for
determining the housing policy in Belgrade Belgrade: Municipal Assembly of Belgrade, 1964.

16. Tehnička dokumentacija: Blok 21, Blok 22, Blok 23, Blok 63, Blok 45, Blok 19a Technical
documentation: Blocks 21, 22, 23, 63, 45, 19a. Historical Archives Belgrade – SO Novi Beograd.

17. Detaljni urbanistički plan (DUP) stambenog naselja "Bs" u Opštini Novi Beograd,  Blokovi
61, 62, 63 i delovi blokova 64 i 57a Detailed Urban Plan (DUP) for ‘Bs’ residential district in
the Municipality of Novi Beograd, Blocks 61, 62, 63, and parts of Blocks 64 and 57a. Belgrade:
Institute for Urban Planning, March 1970.
Chief designer: Josip Joška Svoboda, architect
Head of the Belgrade Institute for Urban Planning: Aleksandar Đorđević, architect
President of the Municipal Assembly: Branko Pešić
The plan is preserved at the Documentation Centre of the Belgrade Institute for Urban Planning.
18. http://www.skgo.org/
19. http://www.citymayors.com/features/iula.html
20. http://web.mit.edu/urbanupgrading/upgrading/resources/organizations/iula.html
21. http://www.ccre.org/en/
22. http://www.cities-localgovernments.org/sections.asp
UM
 DETAILS
PUBLICATION
Unfinished Modernisations
Between Utopia and Pragmatism

Architecture and Urban Planning in

the Former Yugoslavia and the Successor States

Editors –in –Chief

Maroje Mrduljaš
Vladimir Kulić

Editor
Antun Sevšek

Executive Editor
Ana Šilović

Graphic Design and Layout

Damir Gamulin

Translation to English
Graham McMaster
Dominko Blažević
Marina Miladinov
Andy Jelčić
Tatjana Jambrišak
Sonja Damčevska
Petra Shirley
Ksenija Vidić
Nick Saywell

Proofreading
Graham McMaster

Publisher
Croatian Architects’ Association

Print
Kolorklinika

Number of copies
700

Year
2012

All rights reserved

(c) of the edition: CAA and editors
(c) of the texts: their authors
(c) of the photographs and drawings:
their authors and owners

ISBN 978-953-6646-24-1

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available

from the National and University Library in
Zagreb under 812290

www.uha.hr

www.unfinishedmodernisations.net
The project Unfinished Modernisations was commenced on the initiative of the CCA/Croatian Architects' Association
in collaboration with other partners.

Project partners

Project supported by

EDUKATIVNA ARHITEKTURA

INSTITUT ZA ARHITEKTURU I URBANIZAM SRBIJE

INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN & SPATIAL PLANNING OF SERBIA

Acknowledgment