Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T11:44:34.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cold War vs. architectural exchange: Belgrade beyond the confines?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2015

ALEKSANDRA STUPAR
ALEKSANDRA STUPAR*
Affiliation:
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Architecture, Bulevar kralja Aleksandra 73/2 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

The Cold War era created a gap between two opposing ideologies manifested on all social, economic and spatial levels. However, cities and their material expression maintained their significance, acting as valuable ideological resources.The specific position of Yugoslavia during the Cold War shaped the political background in which Belgrade and its planning and architectural scene developed intensive professional activities and international interactions thus overcoming global tensions. Covering the period from 1948 until 1980, this article identifies the main channels of professional exchange and dissemination beyond the constraints of the Iron Curtain, as well as their influence on the production of urban space in Belgrade.

Type
Research Article
Information
Urban History , Volume 42 , Issue 4 , November 2015 , pp. 622 - 645
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Wakeman, R., ‘Rethinking postwar planning history’, Planning Perspectives, 29 (2014), 153–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Hietala, M., Services and Urbanisation at the Turn of the Century: The Diffusion of Innovations (Helsinki, 1987)Google Scholar; Hietala, M., ‘Epilogue: cities, competition, and cooperation. Prospect meets retrospect’, in Saunier, P.-Y. and Ewen, S. (eds.), Another Global City: Historical Explorations into the Transnational Municipal Movement, 1850–2000 (New York, 2008), 185–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 King, A., ‘Writing transnational planning histories’, in Nasr, J. and Volait, M. (eds.), Urbanism. Imported or Exported? (Chichester, 2003), 1–14Google Scholar; Ward, S.V., ‘Re-examining the international diffusion of planning’, in Freestone, R. (ed.), Urban Planning in a Changing World. The Twentieth Century Experience (London, 2000), 40–60Google Scholar; Saunier and Ewen (eds.), Another Global City.

4 Hein, C., ‘The exchange of planning ideas from Europe to the USA after the Second World War: introductory thoughts and a call for further research’, Planning Perspectives, 29 (2014), 143–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 The Balkan federation was supposed to include Bulgaria and Albania as new Yugoslav republics.

6 For a comprehensive picture of the period which followed the confrontation with the Cominform, see Marković, P., Beograd između istoka i zapada 1948–1965 (Belgrade, 1996)Google Scholar.

7 Bogetić, D., Koreni jugoslovenskog opredeljenja za nesvrstanost (Belgrade, 1990)Google Scholar.

8 For more about the event and transformations of urban scenery, see Stupar, A. and Antonic, G., ‘Cold War displacements: Belgrade memories from a non-aligned realm’, in Hietala, M. and Pizzi, K. (eds.), Cold War Cities between History and Memory (Oxford, forthcoming)Google Scholar.

9 For the importance of professional and municipal journals for modern urban historians, see Hietala, ‘Cities, competition, and cooperation’, 185–93; Hietala, M., ‘New challenges for urban history: culture, networks, globalization’, Culture & History Digital Journal, 1 (2012) 1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Griffiths, J.R., ‘Civic communication in Britain: a study of the Municipal Journal c. 1893–1919’, Journal of Urban History, 34 (2008), 775–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Weston, N., ‘Cold War modern: design 1945–1970’, Craft Arts International, 75 (2009), 94–6Google Scholar.

11 The Athens Charter (Charte d’Athènes) is a document about urban planning created by Le Corbusier. Based on the results of the CIAM's conference held in 1933 and the concept of the Radiant City (Ville Radieuse), the ideas presented in the Charter had a significant impact in cities and their planning after World War II.

12 CIAM was founded in 1928 and was active until 1959. During this period, as one of the leading institutions focused on the architecture of the Modern Movement, it organized 11 working congresses. Mumford, E., The CIAM Discourse on Urbanism, 1928–1960 (Cambridge, MA, 2000)Google Scholar.

13 For the insight into the architectural dichotomy of Berlin, see Castillo, G., ‘The Nylon Curtain: architectural unification in divided Berlin’, in Broadbent, P. and Hake, S. (eds.), Berlin Divided City, 1945–1989 (New York, 2012), 46–55Google Scholar.

14 International Style in architecture developed during the 1920s and 1930s in Europe and the United States. Its basic architectural and structural characteristics (rectilinear forms, plane surfaces, glass curtain walls, use of cantilever construction) became dominant during the 1950s and 1960s.

15 Ward, ‘Re-examining the international diffusion of planning’.

16 Glendinning, M., ‘Cold-War conciliation: international architectural congresses in the late 1950s and early 1960s’, Journal of Architecture, 14 (2009), 197–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Ward, S., Planning the Twentieth-Century City: The Advanced Capitalist World (Chichester, 2002)Google Scholar.

18 Wagner, P., ‘A transnational lobby for postwar planning? The International Federation for Housing and Town Planning in the 1940s and 50s’, EAUH: 11th International Conference on Urban History (Prague, 2012), 1–10Google Scholar.

19 Wagner, P., ‘Competing visions of a transboundary expert community – the International Federation for Housing and Town Planning and Postwar International Order’, Conference ‘Restructuring Communities’ (Ravenstein, 2013), 1–11Google Scholar.

20 www.ifhp.org/content/past-ifhp-congress-themes#overlay-context=content/past-ifhp-congress-themes, accessed 25 Nov. 2014.

21 Two organizers from Japan, Cobe (1976) and Chiba (1989), and six from European ‘neutral’ states – Orebro (1965), Dublin (1969), Geneva (1977), Gothenburg (1979), Malmo (1986) and socialist Belgrade (1971).

22 M. Geertse, ‘Defining the universal city. The International Federation for Housing and Town Planning and Transnational Planning Dialogue, 1913–1945’, Vrije Universiteit Ph.D. thesis, 2012.

23 Glendinning, ‘Cold-War conciliation’, 198.

24 ‘East’ host cities – Moscow (1958), Havana (1963), Prague (1967), Varna (1972), Warsaw (1981) and ‘non-aligned’ – Cairo (1985).

25 More details on these events are provided in V. Kulić, ‘Land of the in-between: modern architecture and the state in socialist Yugoslavia, 1945–65’, University of Texas at Austin Ph.D. thesis, 2009, 216–17.

26 For more detail on pre-war Serbian modernism see Blagojević, L., Modernism in Serbia: The Elusive Margins of Belgrade Architecture, 1919–1941 (Cambridge, MA, 2003)Google Scholar.

27 On the specificities and shifts in international perception of Yugoslav architecture during the Cold War, see Kulić, V., ‘“East? West? Or both?” Foreign perceptions of architecture in socialist Yugoslavia’, Journal of Architecture, 14 (2009), 129–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Somborski, M., ‘Problemi urbanističkog planiranja Beograda’, in Beograd: Generalni urbanistički plan 1950 (Belgrade, 1951), 5–10Google Scholar.

29 V. Vrbanić, ‘Urbanistički plan Novog Beograda’, in Beograd: Generalni urbanistički plan 1950, 118–36.

30 These included the building of the Presidency (later the Federal Executive Council), the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia and a representative hotel.

31 Novi Beograd 1961 (Belgrade, 1961).

32 ‘Posete koje su Urbanističkom zavodu učinile grupe ili pojedinci krajem 1970. godine’, Urbanizam Beograda, 8/9 (1970), 30.

33 According to the concept of professional networks explained in Hietala, ‘New challenges for urban history’, 4–5.

34 Ward, ‘Re-examining the international diffusion of planning’, 40–60; S.V. Ward, ‘Learning from the US: the Americanisation of western urban planning’, in Nasr and Volait (eds.), Urbanism, 83–106; Joch, A., ‘“Must our cities remain ugly?” – America's urban crisis and the European city: transatlantic perspective on urban development, 1945–1970’, Planning Perspectives, 29 (2014), 165–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 Đurović, Đ., ‘Budimpešta’, Urbanizam Beograda, 12 (1971), 20–2Google Scholar.

36 Janić, M., ‘Regionalni plan Kopenhagena’, Urbanizam Beograda, 17 (1972), 17–20Google Scholar.

37 ‘Posete koje su Urbanističkom zavodu učinile grupe ili pojedinci krajem 1970. i 1971. godine’, Urbanizam Beograda, 11 (1971), 24; Bogetić, D., Jugoslovensko-američki odnosi 1961–1971 (Belgrade, 2012).Google Scholar

38 According to the introductory talk of architect Aleksandar Đorđević, the director of the Town Planning Institute in ‘Generalni urbanistički plan Beograda’, Arhitektura Urbanizam- separat, 70–2 (1974), 1–5.

39 ‘Posete Zavodu za planiranje razvoja grada Beograda’, Urbanizam Beograda, 55 (1979), 109.

40 Popović, V., ‘Nedelja Beograda u Kopenhagenu’, Urbanizam Beograda, 24 (1973), 26Google Scholar.

41 ‘Planerski atlas o razvoju Beograda na izložbama u Dablinu i Parizu’, Urbanizam Beograda, 62 (1981), 51.

42 The list includes periodicals from Germany (Bauen + Wohnen, Garten und Landschaft), France (L’architecture d’aujourd’hui, Urbanisme, Mon jardin et ma maisons), Italy (Urbanistica, Domus), UK (Architectural Design, Architects’ Journal, Architect & Building, Architectural Review, Town Planning Review), USA (Architectural Forum, Architectural Record, Landscape architecture), Austria (Der Aufbau), Poland (Architektura), USSR (Строительство и архитектура, Жилищное строительство, Архитектура СССР), Romania (Arhitektura RPR) and Czechoslovakia (Architektura ČSSR).

43 Divac, O., ‘Sedmi međunarodni kongres arhitekata u Havani’, Arhitektura/Urbanizam, 24 (1963), 50Google Scholar.

44 Mendelson, A., ‘Svetski kongres urbanista u Beogradu od 6. do 12. VI 1971. godine’, Urbanizam Beograda, 12 (1971), 23–4Google Scholar.

45 ‘Izložba arhitekture naroda SSSR u našoj zemlji’, Arhitektura I, 4–6 (1947, 1948), 8.

46 ‘Izložba engleskog Ministarstva urbanistike’, Naše građevinarstvo II, 4–5 (1948), 271–2.

47 More on the exhibition and its reception in Kulić, ‘Land of the in-between’, 199–201.

48 Ibid., 229–30.

49 Kovačević, N., ‘Povodom izložbe švedske arhitekture’, Arhitektura/Urbanizam, 1 (1960), 30.Google Scholar

50 S. S., ‘Izložba savremene arhitekture Jugoslavije u inostranstvu’, Arhitektura/Urbanizam, 1 (1960), 31.

51 Minić, O., ‘Izložba rumunske arhitekture’, Arhitektura/Urbanizam, 6 (1960), 44Google Scholar.

52 Vuković, S., ‘Savremena sovjetska arhitektura’, Arhitektura/Urbanizam, 25 (1964), 42–3Google Scholar.

53 Radojević, A., ‘Izložba ‘‘Poljski arhitekti na međunarodnim konkursima’’’, Arhitektura/Urbanizam, 43 (1967), 51Google Scholar.

54 Vuković, S., ‘Savremena arhitektura Danske’, Arhitektura/Urbanizam, 14 (1962), 31–2Google Scholar.

55 Z. M., ‘Izložba britanske arhitekture’, Arhitektura/Urbanizam, 18 (1962), 46, 51.

56 ‘Arhitekta Alvar Aalto (1989–1976): Muzej savremene umetnosti 29. mart – 4. maj 1987.’, Arhitektura/Urbanizam, 98 (1986), 53.

57 Kulić, V., ‘National, supranational, international: New Belgrade and the symbolic construction of a socialist capital’, Nationalities Papers: The Journal of Nationalism and Ethnicity, 41 (2013), 35–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58 The background story about the changes to the original project can be found in Kulić, ‘Land of the in-between’, 291–6.

59 Branko Petričić, the architect who designed Blocks 1 and 2, also worked in Le Corbusier's office, which helps explain his approach. During 1958, Petričić was the director of the Town Planning Institute of Belgrade where he conducted the work on the Master Plan of New Belgrade and the revision of the Master Plan of Belgrade. Curiously enough, he was also the architect of the Trade Union Hall (1947–55), the only building in Belgrade completely designed in the style of Socialist Realism.

60 The architects of the plan for Block 21, who were also in charge of the Plan of the central zone of New Belgrade in 1960, were Uroš Martinović, Milutin Glavički, Leonid Lenarčič and Dušan Milenković and Miloslav Mitić.

61 Arhitektura/Urbanizam, 58 (1969).