country (Skopje; Debar; Ohrid; Strumica; Gevgelija and Dojran), ready to succumb to the future transformation. In response to the alarming situation, in 2010 ...
ARCHHIST‘13: ARCHITECTURE_POLITICS_ART Theme: Architecture and urban planning as a political tool Title: Military politics as a tool for active destruction and passive decay in the former Yugoslavian cities Authors: Stanicic Aleksandar and Shundovska Milena (PhD students, Polytechnic of Milan, Italy) Introduction Federal National Republic of Yugoslavia (FNRY), the state that acquired its name and final shape on 29/11/1945, laid its foundations on the basis of glory achieved by victory in World War II. Composed in active military manner, the National Yugoslavian Army (named JNA) did not represent just a mere legacy of communist military formation of Partisans, but it was also a symbol of brotherhood and unity of all the people and nationalities in the middle of the Balkan Peninsula who constituted FNRY back in 1945. During the period in which this brotherly state existed, active service in JNA military system became paramount of life of its citizens. Therefore, it is not surprising why Yugoslavian politics, since its establishment, was to heavily invest in equipping, managing and planning of army structures and facilities. In such political and social circumstances, JNA became a sort of synonym for state itself in functional, and then in architectural-compositional sense. Of high importance is the issue that concerns central zones of larger cities, as the artifacts that were nationalized for the purpose of construction of military polygons, barracks, quarters and other buildings that belonged to the same domain. Subordinated by the main function that takes place inside, plenty of Yugoslavian cities could be categorized as “military cities”, the fact that makes their existence and compositional rules directly dependant on the actual politics conditions of the state. The facts mentioned above are just motifs which are used in this research to explain the consequences that this kind of planning had on future development of cities in former Yugoslavia. The narrowed domain of research interest arises from the fact that Yugoslavian cities today are facing their devastated physical structure on one hand, and their collapsed continuity - or possibility for development, on the other. In the process of reviewing, this problem will be approached in two ways, i.e. discussed from two different aspects: the "active" destruction by bombing the city (explained through the example of the city of Belgrade, Republic of Serbia) and "passive" decay caused by limitations in the refit military areas (explained through the example of the city of Bitola, Republic of Macedonia). Time frame will concern the consequences of the military directing, especially to those after the collapse of Social Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) after 1991 year. Keywords: city; politic; military; active destruction; passive decay
First part - Active destruction of the city during war operations, the example of Yugoslav Army General Staff Building and the Federal Ministry of Defense Building in Belgrade (Generalštab) When one talks about planned destructions of the city’s physical structure, especially about those supported or caused from the political circumstances, relevant examples could be found in bombings of the city of Belgrade. Particularly memorable are bombings in World War II which left significant visual proofs of destruction, scars that are still very much noticeable on urban skyline of the city. Unfortunately, we are talking about the stains that have not been remediated up until today and which testify about continuity of this problem in Belgrade. Squares Kosančićev Venac and Slavija are just some examples that describe how the ruins, which are created in period of active destruction, could still remain an enigma for architects and spatial planners. And these examples mentioned above are not even military facilities. Military installations as direct bombing targets are much easier to be found in one more recent example - NATO bombing of SR Yugoslavia in 1999. On this occasion, in addition to numerous caserns in the central zones of cities across Serbia, two buildings of the Yugoslavian Army, located in the very heart of the city of Belgrade, experienced grim collapse. The first one is Yugoslav Army General Staff Building and the Federal Ministry of Defense Building in Belgrade (Generalštab), projected in 1954 by remarkable Serbian architect and professor Nikola Dobrović, and the second one is Federal Ministry of Internal Affairs, projected in 1949 by Slovenian architect Ludovik Tomori. These objects, formerly composed as designer’s masterpieces, remained ruins even fourteen years after their unfortunate destruction. The main arising question after observing this situation is the following one: Is it because of lack of ideas – which is unlikely, because of lack of money - which is likely but not an unsolvable problem, or because of lack of political will and decisiveness - eternal plague of the Balkan's people? One thing is certain. During its entire existence, Dobrović’s Generalštab was vividly colored with politic insinuations, whether regarding symbolism of its controversial design, whether regarding strong connections between architect and Communist Party of Yugoslavia. Those connections rose in the autumn of 1943 when Dobrović crossed the Adriatic to join a communist liberation movement of Yugoslav Partisans, settled in Italy after fall of Musolini (Kulić, 2010). This movement turned out to be victorious in WWII and it gave the crucial base for future political constitution of Yugoslavia. Arriving in Belgrade as a liberator, and already proved as up-and-coming architect and communist, Dobrović immediately started to climb the ladder. Although he was born in Pécs in today’s Hungary, and gained his architectural knowledge in Budapest and Prague (Krunić and Perović, 1998), Dobrović was well known in Belgrade’s architectural establishment since he had won couple of big pre-war competitions, of which the most important one was the competition for Terazije terrace in 1930. According to Blagojević (2003), Dobrović used some essential premises of this project in later design of Generalštab, especially his space-in-motion theory
(Dobrović, 1960). Since none of these projects were ever realized, it appears that Dobrović finally gained an opportunity to make a mark in nation’s capital. Almost immediately after the war he became a founding director of city’s Institute of Urban Planning, in charge for conducting difficult tasks of reconstruction of heavily demolished Belgrade and ambitious projects for its future development. Nevertheless, Dobrović was soon removed from this position, and Kulić suggests that this happened ‘because of his fiery and inflexible character’ (2010, p.12). Instead, he became very prolific theoretician, writer and professor at the University of Belgrade (Lazar, 2002). Still highly respected in academic and communist circles, Dobrović was one of the great names of Yugoslavian architecture that were invited to give their contribution in competition for new Yugoslav Army General Staff Building and the Federal Ministry of Defense Building in Belgrade in 1953. Here he saw an opportunity to finally build a landmark that would contribute significantly to city’s silhouette, so he put a maximum effort in this project, as stated by Kulić (2010). For us it is important to understand the political circumstances in which this competition was held. FNRY was young communist state struggling for its position in modern world, especially during the period of cold war. After formal dissent with Social Realism imposed by SSSR in 1948, every metaphor that even merely resembled to Soviet Union became undesirable. And since reborn, neoclassicism became an official architectural style in Soviet’s Social Realism, officials turned towards contemporary architecture, glorifying the state that is modern, fast developing and progressive by embracing contemporary ideas and styles. As Weiss (2000) indicates, maybe this is why Dobrović’s design was chosen over rather classical and old-fashioned design by Dobrović’s grand competitor of the time, Slovenian architect Jože Plečnik. Of course, since the competition projects were submitted under a code, it would be difficult to argue that Dobrović’s history as a remarkable Partisan contributed him winning the competition, but it definitely contributed him being invited to take part in competition (Kulić, 2010). One could judge the importance of this project only by analyzing the location set for the future Generalštab. To this building, that would have to symbolize the strength and modernity of young communist state and the unity of its people, it was given a rather remarkable position in very heart of Belgrade – crossing between Nemanjina Street and Kneza Miloša Street (pic.1). Nemanjina Street is wide, uphill boulevard that connects Belgrade’s Train Station and Slavija square, and which is enclosed with governmental buildings of high importance – all of which are built in, and therefore symbolized, overthrown regime of Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Design for new Headquarters for Yugoslavian National Army should have shown progress by deflection from old architectural styles, and new building was meant to surpass and put in shadow governmental buildings in lower Nemanjina Street, physically and metaphorically (pic.2). By the time, regimes changed and symbolism of Generalštab changed with them, especially after bombing and destruction of the building in 1999. Later we will see how this influenced physical structure of the location.
As interpreted by many, the building itself was a homage to glorious victory over the fascist enemy in World War II, although architect himself didn’t emphasize the symbolism of the building. According to him, specific design of the building was a product of his theoretical work that he named space-in-motion, which was deducted from philosophical theories set by French philosopher Henry Bergson in his book Creative Evolution back at the beginning of XX century, and which was carefully explained by Dobrović in his article Space set in motion – Bergson’s Dynamic Schemes – New Image of Environment (Dobrović, 1960). In short, this theory is based on ‘perception of space in which an integral constellation of plastic volumes and the void between them create the spatial dynamics’ (Blagojević, 2003, p.117). In his design for Generalštab, Dobrović created a legendary void (pic.3 and 4) over Nemanjina Street, visually connecting two separate buildings of the same complex, justifying it with theory that the void itself represents an unbreakable part in perception of his masterpiece. Contrary to architect’s theoretical explanation, which in time was widely accepted among architects, common public connected with this void through the symbol of mount Sutjeska. In short, battle on Bosnian mount Sutjeska was one of the most glorious and most celebrated victories of outnumbered Partisans over much stronger and better equipped German Army that acted united with domestic collaborators. The battle took place in the spring of 1943, and during one month of trench battles, 16.000 Partisans and 3.500 wounded civilians held their positions over 120.000 well-equipped enemy soldiers. This event became a myth deeply rooted in foundations of Socialist Yugoslavia and it celebrated the birth of courageous and proud nation. Epic canyon where most of the battles took place became glorified motif in Yugoslav literature, art, movies, paints, sculptures…(pic.5) A motif so well known that everybody could relate to. When Dobrović created his famous void over Nemanjina Street, everybody recognized canyon of mount Sutjeska in it, and this symbol became so strong in Yugoslavian popular culture that buildings themselves were named Sutjeska I and II. Architectural experts of the time claimed that architect never had this motif in mind when he designed Generalštab, but in given circumstances, he accepted it in order to improve his status in military circles. But as Kulić (2010) points out, in his article Space set in motion – Bergson’s Dynamic Schemes – New Image of Environment, in section entitled Symbolism of the Content, Dobrović clearly states that ‘the builder broke off a piece of the mountains in which the fiercest and the most decisive struggle for the fate of the peoples of Yugoslavia was led, and he moved them to the center of the capital. An urban symbol of the Sutjeska is formed on either side of Nemanjina Street in a new spatial tone of a “visual Eroica”.’ (1962, p.43). The reference is obvious. What Dobrović didn’t know at the time is that, probably, this particular reference would eventually lead to destruction of the complex in NATO bombing in 1999. th th Buildings were bombarded two times during NATO aggression on SR Yugoslavia, at night between 29 and 30 of April and th th between 7 and 8 of May 1999. Those attacks occurred more than a month after the beginning of aggression, despite the fact that the buildings were completely emptied, since Military officials (and public) expected them to be targeted first. Taking into
consideration that the complex was out of use, hence not strategically relevant, other motives for those attacks must have existed. There’s no doubt that destruction of this building was justified by its symbolic disappearance from the city’s skyline. In eyes of its destroyers, Generalštab represented symbol of Milošević’s politics of “new fascism”, therefore, it had to be destroyed. What they didn’t know or understand was the original meaning of Dobrović’s project. As Weiss noticed, ‘As part “of a new struggle against fascism,” NATO selected to destroy the very buildings constructed in the post-war period to symbolize the struggle of a “stubborn nation against fascism” (2000, p.84). On the other hand, inhabitants of Belgrade didn’t feel any particular remorse over its destruction – for them, Generalštab was just one more building that got bombed. Reason for this lies in the fact that ideologies changed significantly after Yugoslavia fell apart in 1991. Once considered as the pride of free and modern nation, now it became the symbol of repression of Serbia’s awaken national identity. And maybe this is one of the reasons why ruins of Generalštab have not been remediated fourteen years after its demolition. Any association to the previous system is no longer welcome; the building has to be purged of its communist past in order to be accepted. To some it still represents a strong symbol of an ideology, and that ideology passed with a big bang, leaving deep scars in lives of Serbian people. Those scars are still fresh and their consequences certainly can be felt on a daily basis. For this reason, the new government has no interest in reconstructing the old symbols - they are the part of some old times in the past so they shall stay. Possible opening of this Pandora's Box is a huge risk and many are well aware of that. Other possible explanation is that those ruins represent a powerful reminder of NATO bombing in 1999, which is a certain paradox, because this bombing was directly caused by devastating politics that Milošević conducted in 1990s. After fall of Milošević in 2000 and establishment of new Democratic regime, any association to Milošević became inappropriate. But it is obvious that sense of injustice that was brought to Serbian people by NATO bombs is stronger than bigotry toward old regimes. One could consider this “reminder” even useful from one rather practical aspect – let’s not forget that the location of demolished Generalštab lies directly across the Parliament of the Republic of Serbia, and close to several other very important objects and national institutions. Also, the embassies of the United States, Germany, Italy and Canada are very near, almost in the same street as the building destroyed. Many foreign delegations were and still are frequent guests of these facilities, the delegation from which money is to be sought for all kinds of donations. Ruins of Dobrović’s masterpiece are standing suitably in this place as a handy reminder of the injustice that was inflicted upon Serbian people, the injustices that only money can fix. And ultimately, there are evident bureaucratic and practical reasons that could explain problems of reconstruction of Generalštab. First of all, in 2005 this complex of buildings was put under protection of Institute for Protection Cultural Monuments of Belgrade as a cultural heritage (Službeni Glasnik Republike Srbije, 2005). The question arises: why were these building not protected before, but six years after their demolition? A poor excuse was given by officials that buildings built in modern style
generally are not to be put under protection, and that “usually” at least 50 years have to pass after death of the authors for their buildings to be taken into consideration (U središtu pažnje, 2013). But those “rules” are not made official by any law. Put that aside, the consequences that brought this decision are more important – any reconstruction and restoration is possible only under special conditions stipulated by this Institute, any projects have to be approved by this Institute and any kind of building activities have to be monitored by this Institute. This significantly ties hands to future investors. And here we arrive to the second issue. In the period of global recession investors are not easy to find, and those who were getting involved in this adventure soon realized that the issue of cost-effectiveness of this ambitious projects was in the zone of incredible. The very attractiveness of the location and the price of land which is astronomical, were obviously not appealing enough to justify the investment and regain the money. Unfortunately, this method of problem solving often turns out to be only possible, for now. Simply, the state is unable to intervene alone but is forced to seek outside help, often forming unrealistic concessions. What is unacceptable is that even those things that could be done – weren’t (pic.6). Not one study about static condition of the ruins, not one assessment about costs of possible reconstruction. After years and years spent in fighting foreign enemies, maybe now the time has come when we ourselves are our greatest enemies. As Bogdanović once wittily noticed, ‘…what I fear are our homegrown masters of destruction. Cities fall not only physically, as a result of outside pressure; they fall spiritually, from within. The later is, in fact, the more common variant.’ (1994). Post scriptum. The most recent development events brought an incredible twist: highly interested investors from Middle East emerged with desire to buy the ruins of Generalštab and to build a luxurious hotel in its place. Serbian Government, which is formal owner of the complex, wants to sell its property under the best possible price (as any owner would want) which would eventually include increasing of urban parameters in favor of investor. Surprisingly, architectural establishment, and more important - general public, are strongly opposing to this idea. They state that we must protect our architectural legacy and only building that one of the greatest Serbian architects ever built in Belgrade. For this to have been possible, couple of things had to have occurred - Sutjeska interpretation had to be denied and the architect had to be dissociated from the previous ideological system. Simply, Dobrović is considered as a giant of Serbian architecture and he is too valuable to dismiss. It seems that the greatness of one architectural mind finally surpassed the ideology of its time.
Second part - Passive decay of the city caused by limitations in the refit military areas; Example of Former Casern in Bitola Speaking about passive decay of the cities that is a product of the relationship between politics and architecture, excellent examples could be found in the southern parts of the former Yugoslavian territory i.e. in the countries that were treated as edge of the tail of the political activities, within the period from 1946 to 1991. In fact, this part of the paper displays cases where internal policy, in a form of marginalized interest for investment in the urban structures and also, specific treatment above the military objects within the urban matrix, did not spare many cities in Macedonia from diverse negative scenarios that introduced forms of hibernation and atrophy, rather than the necessary vitality and development. Thereby, wide field for deeper research arises that should be concerned on the link between city itself and military architecture, as one of the responsible for city’s development in pre Yugoslavian era the same as for its continuous decline or better, for the stratification of the physical and spiritual structures, within i.e. after Yugoslavian era. Following part of the paper introduces chapter from multifaceted story, exemplified by the military quarter in the city of Bitola, where its plastic imprints on the city as a whole, should be considered nothing but a mutual relation between architecture and politic. Historical section through the city of Bitola, displays condition where military quarter possesses intricate chronological background of usage of approximately two centuries - one before and one during i.e. after Yugoslavian system up to date. The roots of its foundation date back to 1816, when Lory and Popovic noticed ‘Sultan Mahmud II transfers the seat of “beylerbeylik” of Romelia from Sofia to Bitola (Monastir).’ (1992, p.79). Actually, in this period, the city of Bitola grows into the largest military headquarters within region named Rumelia, as one of four main military parts within the Ottoman Empire. Subordinated to the given military function, the physical reality of the city transforms significantly with the construction of 2 military caserns, ‘each for 8 battalions of army’, as it is written by Momidikj (1992), or with capacity for 30 000 troops, as a total amount - which means almost 40% of the of total population within the city caught in 1859, according to the demographic analyses made by Dimitrov (1998).(pic.7) In context of these factual data, what is important to be examined from architectural point of view, is the case that military quarter in Bitola displays how urban space, which once has been created as a product of mature political thought (it is period of proficiency of Tanzimat), through its strategic disposition near the historic nucleus and its dominant size over the other elements in the city, could rise itself from a common city’s artifact into an important urban monument, whose authority and physical appearance could have stimulating action over the rest of the city.(pic.8). The last, undoubtedly, means that military objects, as urban monuments, possess huge potential to reflect on the morphological dimension of city, equally as on the city’s identity and memory. In terms of memory token and witness of the continuous transformations of the material structure versus the continuous presence of its spiritual structure, completely wrecked military quarter after the World War I become basic layer where
one part of the story for the special treatment of military architecture in the cities within the Yugoslavian system is rooted, as a central theme in this paper. Namely, in the timeframe after 40 years from the expulsion of the Ottomans from the Balkan Peninsula; in a period of social, economic and political turbulences in the Macedonian territory, the treatment of above mentioned military architecture becomes much more generalized than in the past, no taking into account if it belongs to the urban monument’s group or in the infrastructural domain. In practice, that scenario for unification happens by glorifying military power through the dominant physical presence of the military caserns within the urban matrix, as a first step and later it continues with stressing out the military strength through emphasizing functional activities that occurred inside of them. Both, at the end, result with negative consequences - firstly in a way of decreasing monument’s value and then by “weakening” its context around. Exactly this situation, much louder than any written document, indicates the importance of political apparatus above the city and its landscape in the period of former communist regime. In order to be perceived better, both of the approaches should be explained in detail: Dominance in the city's morphology, as the approach for managing of the military objects, could be understood by observing urban planned documentation for the city of Bitola from the early 1930s. In this period, several attempts in the urban planning policy results with solutions where inherited military quarter from the Ottoman era has been subject of morphological redefinition the eastern part has been physically transformed for the needs of the city and thus became zone for recreation (fact that consciously deny its importance, historical meaning and its pre-existence); while the rest of the quarter has been extended westward. Thus, physically displaced; redefined and renegotiated military ensemble, according to the concepts from the planned documentation, should become the new, focal point within the urban tissue, outlining its power through the central disposition and representatively wrapping up the powerful axial street. (pic.9). This fact undoubtedly shows how urban plans within the Yugoslavian system have been shyly trying, with delayed effects and fluctuations in the spirit of "Grand Manner", to inject personal imprints through hierarchy and dominance within the urban matrix. As Penćić (2011) notes, this practice during the 1930s was also typical for the urban planning polices in the General Regulatory Plan for the city of Skopje. Up to here, whole scenario, more or less, could be taken as positive. But due to a series of social, economic and political conditions on the global level (beginning World War II), the realization of urban planned documentation from this period, all around Macedonia, becomes partial and incomplete, so that opens place for emphasizing just of the functional side of the military quarter, neglecting its status as an urban monument. Actually, this point should be consider as a milestone, where the concept of urban catalyst intended for composing the city, starts its own declination and transforms into idea without idea, responsible for the beginnings of decomposing and stratification of the city. Above mentioned functional approach achieved it extremes in the period from 1944 up to the early 1990s (period when “NRM” becomes a full member of “NRJ”, later renamed SFRY, up to Yugoslavian break), when programmatic organization inside of the
military structures, more consciously than unconsciously, descends this type of urban monuments on the level of spatial and utterly devastated sediments, treating them just like a purely technical artifacts. Subjected just to the activities which take place inside, at late 1970s, within military quarter in Bitola will be deleted the last "urban atom" from its structure, and it becomes a military polygon - technical stereotype – mono functional part of the city, where, as Rossi noticed ’form is deprived of its most complex derivations: type is reduced to a simple scheme of organization, a diagram of circulating routes, and architecture is seen as possessing no autonomous value.’ (1966, p.46) This condition clarifies generalized picture for faded military architecture and displays how politically organized military complexes in the form of oasis for maintaining the peace, become in a very fragile way, isolated deserts from the city’s corporeality. However, for the topic of this paper of particular importance is to answer the question how could military policy management, at the micro level (over a complex or physical structure within the city), to contribute for stratification on the urban scale (decay of the city in the form of technical specifications, individual pieces and scraps)? The answer of the above mentioned question could be equally philosophical as technical one. From a philosophical point of view, it is obvious that political leadership over the city in Yugoslavian system became a surrogate idea, interested only in maintaining the kind of complexity in the military architecture, instead of taking care for the level of complexity that takes place in it. From a technical point of view it is obvious that preoccupation with the function it is the weakest point. Furthermore, according the policy of the Yugoslavian state and military leadership, all of the unified military buildings and structures, including the one belonging in to the urban areas too, have been threated as forbidden (fenced and closed) zones - state secrets, protected by law. (pic.10). This fact imposes, military quarter in Bitola, in all planning documents from the second half of the XX century up to the beginning of XXI century, to be treated as "zone with special purpose" (pic.10) i.e. as a Directive Regulatory Plan from 1949 describes "zone reserved for satisfying future residential needs of the urban development and urban expansion." (Antolić, 1949, p.26) With this statement, any vision for progressive urban development of the urban monument gets vaguely defined, labile and neglected form. In this way, urban planning of the city of Bitola, as a process that takes place under a dominant political circumstances, orientates just on the functional organization of the residential and working zones, while the military quarter (regardless of its presence in the context of urban space, or even more, to its historical significance, and distinctive cultural heritage) becomes just a ‘piece of terrain’ where internal military interests could be solved. In this context, the lack of interest for maintaining in the immanent features of the military quarter in a combination with the physical closeness and inaccessibility of the military quarter itself, at the beginning of the 1980s create such implications on its physical structure, which day by day, transforms it from catalyst for urban growth into impersonated introvert enclave, reaching its negative extreme in the form of a completely vestigial urban node. Starting from 1990s (the period when Macedonia pleaded for independence and the period of artificial transformation of the ash of “JNA” in to the new national phoenix called “ARM”), whole political scenario introduces circumstances where military
quarter in Bitola will morph from vanished into completely dead tissue within the urban organism. Physical presence of the military casern transformed into a dead military polygon, in such an environment creates “symphony" of side effects that refers on the city at macro level. Those negative aspects could be felt in terms of: • morphological fragmentation and functional imbalance within the city; • communicational barrier between the center area and the input exit routes from the city; • difficulty for tracing the infrastructure lines; • dispersion of housing land in kind of vacuum space around the military compound and in the outskirts; • reducing the value of the urban land; • enhancing the contaminations; • appearance of a classic brownfield area. In this way, it could be understood deeper, how Bitola has been faced for many years with the problem of losing of its spatialphysical features (urban artifacts and monuments) in a morphological sense; its vital functions in organizational context and its memory and immanent values in historical and cultural terms - all of them due to the dominance of the political apparatus over the urban landscape managing policy. Moreover, this condition could be attributed even as a result of insufficient power within the planning discipline to resist to the political insidious terror and to repress its impact on the organization of urban space, as utterly inadequate instrument in the operationalization of an extremely lively and fragile domain. This situation, ultimately reveals why, urban discipline within the Yugoslavian system, and then within the Macedonian society, has been many years faced the rigidity and restrictive planning laws; why it has been characterized by insufficient maintenance while dealing with compositional aspects and with a lack of guiding power for producing spatial development strategies. All results from the practice, suggest that above mentioned items in their form and content are extremely unfavorable and undesirable characteristics of cities that pose neither stabile presence nor clear vision for their existence. In the book “The city and the future”, Bogdanović (2011), names these cases of cities ‘cities without consciousness’ i.e. ‘cities without self-consciousness’ and for them, he provides black scenarios if they fail to intercept fast and strategically wise. As a result of the recognition of all potential dangers that threaten from above mentioned timed bombs within many Macedonian cities (most of them, like the Bitola’s case, in the form of abandoned military caserns, polygon or objects), in 2008, governmental apparatus implements many changes on the national level and that in turn reflects physical transformations on the local scale, directly on the urban tissue and its weak points. In particular for Bitola’s case, with the implementation of the politics for decentralization has been conducted indulging property above the military quarter in to the hands of the municipal administration
of the city. Finally, as it should be organized urban planning profession in a society that aspires to be part of the EU, the problem has been treated in a quite correct way – at the beginning by identifying the size and seriousness of its negative side, and then by approaching to be identified positive one in terms of unique opportunity and challenge for redefinition, not only within its borders, but also for the redefinition of the city as a whole. That step, for the decision-makers, concerned for spatial growth of Macedonia, means on one hand, cities to be adjusted in accordance with NATO standards (where is declared that all military complexes located at some distance from the border zones must be closed) and on the other hand, a spatial priority over who can provide conditions for the future development of urban lots. Military casern in Bitola, in 2008, fortunately became the part of the national program named “Old casernes for new urban development”, together with remaining six military enclaves in the borderlands cities in the country (Skopje; Debar; Ohrid; Strumica; Gevgelija and Dojran), ready to succumb to the future transformation. In response to the alarming situation, in 2010 Detailed Urban Plan was prepared (for the first time), concerning the revival of the abandoned military quarter (pic.12). The form of redefinition introduces mass interpolation of new physical structures within the empty, inherited borders of the former closed enclave, by giving them appropriate mixed usage scenarios (which means that finally spatial entity with a “specific purpose”, does not exist in the documentation) in accordance with the legislation; actual needs of the city and visionary views for its future development. Especially important to be emphasized is that the area of the military quarter, as a central subject of redefinition with planned documentation, for the first time after Ottoman period, has not been treated in isolation, but in the context of the central nucleus of the city, as well as, in the context of other zones that surround it. Another part, as a positive side from this urban planned documentation is the fact that, all remains from the historic scenography for the first time have been enhanced on the level of pedestal (the one that they deserved to be so many years before), protected as a valuable artifacts for the city’s identity and city’s memory, subjected to the national cultural heritage programs. Taken in general, whole urban planned documentation for redefinition of the old military casern, displays how Macedonian urban planning policy, in the XXI century, finally escaped from collapse and opened new chapter that acknowledged the polyvalent influences which comprise the city as a complex organism, in the same time releasing appropriate place for the instruments of the multilayered planning policy. The end result goes in the direction to be improved morphological program and communicational aspects, the same as social and environmental conditions in the city as a whole. This action displays concerned treatment on the city’s structures, artifact and monuments, but also establishes new types of program activities where the state’s interest in the form of a political tool for the management, finally decreases its role in order to leave place for merging of state’s interest with the interest of the private sector, community and the city itself. This should be considered as politics for giving new chances for realization of the new plastic imprints within the city's physical structure, where man could be able to maintain the remains of the memory of the place, but also to direct the city's growth into a developing direction.
Conclusion “Buildings are more permanent than cultural systems that created them and cultural shifts inevitably alter the perception of their visual rhetoric.” (Kulić, 2010, p.52) Politics which Yugoslavia used to conduct in the past century, and the consequences in public behavior that remained until nowadays within the independent Republics, significantly impact in descending relations with urban spatial-physical structures. That condition is visible in many cities of former Yugoslavia, and Belgrade and Bitola are just two of many examples that differ only in their form, while the content remains the same, given the fact that both cases in their final result contain remains of negative scenario, which could be felt not just in the misplaced principles within the urban planning, but also it could be reflected on the collective identity and memory of the city and community, as a whole. Reaching the point of negative extreme of this relation – descending of the urban tissue, man could speak about two different types of actions that politics possesses above the architecture: active deconstruction, on one hand and passive decay, on the other. The exploration of this topic is useful for understanding urban condition of the cities at the Balkan Peninsula, for systemizing the historical background of city’s urban composition, but also for directing its development for the future. After all, physical structure of the city is much more fragile category than the historical memory it carries with it. References Antolić, V.,1949, Urbanizam NR Makedonije – Directivna Regulaciona Osnova Bitole, originally published in ARHITECTURA, 25/27, Zagreb pp.26 Blagojević, Lj., 2003, The elusive margins of Belgrade architecture 1919-1941, London: The MIT Press Bogdanović, B.,1994, Murder of the City, Spazio e Società, 64, pp.72-75 Bogdanović, B.,2011, Gradot i idninata, Templum, Skopje Dobrović, N., 1960, Pokrenutost prostora – Bergsonove dinamičke sheme – nova slika sredine, originally published in ČIP, 100, pp. 10-11; rpt. in Dobrović, N., 1962, Savremena arhitektura 3: Sledbenici, Belgrade: Građevinska knjiga, pp. 234-247 Dimitrov, N., 1992, Bitola – Urbano Geografski razvoj, Society of science and art, Bitola Kovačević, B., 2001. Arhitektura zgrade Generalštaba: Monografska studija dela Nikole Dobrovića, Belgarde: Novinsko – Informativni centar Vojska
Krunić S. and Perović R.M. eds., 1998, Nikola Dobrović: Essays, Projects, Critiques. Translated into English by Ann Vasić. Belgrade, Arhitektonski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu and Muzej arhitekture Kulić, V., 2010. Architecture and the politics of reading:the Case of the Generalštab in Belgrade. [online] Rome: Fondazione Bruno Zevi, Available at: [Accessed 23 February 2013]. Momidić, R.V., 1992, Stojan Vezenkov – Eden nezaboraven Makedonski graditel od XIX vek, originally published in ZBORNIK NA TRUDOVI, 10-11, Zavod za zaštita na spomenicite na kulturata, prirodnite retskosti, muzej i galerija, Bitola Lazar, M.V., 2002, Beogradsko razdoblje arhitekte Nikole Dobrovića, Belgrade: Plato Lory, B. and Popović, A., 1992, Au carrefour des Balkans, Bitola 1816-1918, originally published in Villes ottomanes а la fin de l'Empire pp.75-94; edited by Dumont, P.,1992 L'Harmattan, Paris Penćić, D.,2011, Vlijanieto na urbanistickite planovi vrz diskontinuiratanat prostorna tranzicija na gradot Skopje vo dvaesettiot vek, Univerzitet”Sv.Kiril i Metodij”, Skopje Rossi, A.,1966, The Architecture of the City, The Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies and The Massachusetts of Technology, pp.46 Službeni Glasnik Republike Srbije, 2005, Odluka o utvrđivanju zgrada Generalštaba Vojske Srbije i Crne Gore i Ministarstva odbrane u Beogradu za spomenik kulture, 115/05, Belgrade: Vlada Republike Srbije U središtu pažnje, 2013, [Radio recording] Radio Beograd 1, 26 February 2013, 17.05. – Available through: http://www.rts.rs/upload/storyBoxFileData/2013/02/25/15233018/usp2602.mp3 [Accessed 28 February 2013]. Weiss, S.J., 2000, NATO as Architectural Critic, Cabinet, 1, pp. 84-89
Index of illustrations (1) Nikola Dobrović, The Generalštab Building, Site plan (Delineated by Christian Feneck). (2) The Generalštab Building (Federal Ministry of Defense and the Headquarters of the Yugoslav People’s Army), Belgrade, 1954-63 (©Wolfgang Thaler). (3) above - Nikola Dobrović, A diagram of “visual tensions,” 1960; left, under – Nikola Dobrović, An “extravagant” variation of “shapes in motion,” 1960; right, under - Nikola Dobrović, A variation of “shapes in motion,” 1960 (All three sketches delineated by Christian Feneck after Dobrović’s original). (4) above - Nikola Dobrović, A scheme of “consonance of the composition,” 1960. (Delineated by Christian Feneck after Dobrović’s original); under - The Generalštab Building, Belgrade, 1954-63 (©Wolfgang Thaler). (5) Miodrag Živković, Monument to the Battle of Sutjeska, Tjentište, Bosnia-Herzegovina, 1968 (© Wolfgang Thaler). (6) The Generalštab Building, Belgrade, 1954-63 (©Wolfgang Thaler). (7) Disposition of the military quarter in the context of the city of Bitola, Cadastral Plan of Bitola, 1921 (NI Institute adn Museum Bitola) (8) Military quarter, as an urban monument within the urban tissue, around 1920 (NI Institute adn Museum Bitola) (9) Military quarter, as a focal point within the urban tissue, 1929, Regulatory Plan (State Archive of the Republic of Macedonia, branch in Bitola) (10) Military quarter as a state secret, protected by law. Closed and forbidden (Private Archive of the researchers) (11) Military quarter as a "zone with special purpose", 1999 General Urban Plan for the city of Bitola (Private Archive of DO “URBANIZAM”, Bitola) (12) Military quarter as a redefined zone within the urban tissue, 2010 Detailed Urban Plan for ARM; Quarters 1, 2 and 3 (Private Archive of DOOEL “FORMI”, Bitola)
