architectural policy of republic of serbia

8/13/2019 Architectural Policy of Republic of Serbia

1/16

Conference Proceedings2nd International Scientific Conference RESPAG 2013

160

ARCHITECTURAL POLICY OF REPUBLIC OF SERBIA

Milica Pajki1, Marija Martinovi

1and Mladen Pei

1

1Faculty of Architecture University of Belgrade, Serbia

e-mails: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

1. HISTORY OF THE IDEA OF ARCHITECTURAL POLICY

Having in mind that in the last 30 years there has been a growing recognition of theimportance of architectural quality for social, cultural and economic development,

majority of European countries have been developing documents, formulated as

Architectural policies (in further text AP), in order to promote spatial design quality

and raise public awareness on the significance of the built environment. The idea of

Architectural policy came into focus across Europe in 1980s and 1990s, and it

represented important part of civic actions for a better environment, in the period of

rapid internationalization, urbanization and opening up of economies and aspiration

for overall sustainable development. The role of policies was to support the creation

of, and care for a good built environment, to raise the quality of life of its residents

and to stimulate cultural and economic activity (http://www.apoli.fi/etusivu). Besidesthat AP-s had a role, as a part of general aspiration for sustainable development, to

promote balanced building and care for the environment.

First countries that have produced and published an architectural policy programme,

or some kind of similar legislative document, before the late 1990s, were France, the

Netherlands, Ireland, Finland, Sweden, Great Britain, Italy and Belgium. During this

process European Federation for Architecture Policies (EFAP) had an active role

especially with the new EU Member States. It is interesting to analyze activities

regarding each country, their national AP and their path to EU membership. Some

have been adopted by the national governments before and in some after becomingan EU Member State in others. The timeline is individual for each country, and while

new countries are becoming active within architectural policy, the pioneer countries

are now developing a second, and in some cases a third generation of AP.

1.1.Timeline of the idea of Architectural policy

At first, the process of developing Architectural policies was un-institutional, but

nowadays it is been institutionalized within the structures of European Union and its

member states, through the The European Forum for Architectural Policies

(EFAP FEPA), which was set up in 2000, on the initiative of Finland and France.


2/16


161

Its role was to support exchange of information and to promote architectural policy

and quality in the built environment within the EU and Member States.

Although the role of EFAP is to organize, more or less, standardized form for

creating and implementation of AP, there are notable differences in separate national

AP-s, which are reflecting on the wide diversity of cultures across the EU. Most

probably differences in approaches are caused by different backgrounds of Member

States such as: historical development, political and legislative systems, cultural and

social context. With different starting points some of the AP initiatives have different

goals, aims and target groups. However, all differences on the side, it is possible to

identify a growing tendency for the development of architectural policies on different

levels of government - national, regional and local, on the whole territory of EU.

2. SURVEY ON ARCHITECTURAL POLICIES IN EUROPE

STRATEGIC GUIDLINES

Knowing that EFAP is an international network devoted to fostering and promoting

architecture and architectural policies in Europe, bridging public governance,

profession, culture and education, its primary aim, among several other objectives, is

to disseminate knowledge and best practices on architectural policies through

meetings of experts, public events and publications. In 2011 EFAP conducted a

survey in order to measure the implementation progress of architectural policies by

individual Member States (and a accessing States) and to review the impact of twoEuropean Council Resolutions on subject of architecture, adopted in 2000 and 2008

(Council Resolution on Architectural Quality in Urban and Rural Environments

(2001/C 73/04) and Council Conclusions on Architecture: Culture's Contribution to

Sustainable Development (2008/C 319/05)) (Table 1).

Table 1- Timeline:Strategic documments regarding Architecture Policies

Survey was supposed to provide a panoramic view on architectural policies and to

advise European authorities both on local and national level. The Survey covered 33

European countries (Table 2): 27 Member States of the European Union, 4 official

EU candidate countries (Croatia, Iceland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

and Turkey) and 2 outside EU countries (Norway and Switzerland). In the end

Survey target group increased to a total of 37 administrative structures (according to

Belgium and United Kingdom local specifities because their regions have replied to

the Survey separately).


3/16


162

Table 2- Countries that participated in the Survey

Specific questionnaire was distributed to all official participants and in the end

results were published as a part of Survey document organized in three sections: (1)

departments responsible for architectural policies; (2) official documents on

architectural policy and (3) initiatives and actions corresponding to architectural

policies. Among 37 administrative structures surveyed, it is showed that 16

administrations have a specific department responsibility for architectural policy, and

that in the other 21 administrations question of architectural policy is a shared

responsibility between two or more departments (Table 3 a,b).

(a)


4/16


163

Table 3 a,b- Existence of departments in charge for developing and implementation of AP in

European countries

Survey also showed that in the most administrations the responsibility for

architectural policy is clearly defined. However the main difference is in scope andnumber of specific department in charge of architectural policy and in official status

of AP documents. In some countries responsibility for AP is shared between various

departments and organizations (both official and non-officinal) and it is possible to

observe that the scope and configuration of the departments is diverse and in most

cases the departments have other assignments than solely architectural policy. Also

survey showed that in some countries AP-s are not recognized in a form of official

document per se and it is very hard to identify departments responsible for their

implementation. Most probably these differences are result of wide diversities in

historical development, political and legal systems, and cultural, social and economic

backgrounds, between countries. In summary when AP developed under the specificdepartment in the system of administrative structures the majority of the departments

are within the scope of the Ministries of Culture / Arts (Table 4).

According to the document SURVEY ON ARCHITECTURAL POLICIES IN

EUROPE, at the moment there are 16 countries that have an official document

regarding architectural policy at the national level (plus Iceland and Norway), and 14

more that are planning to develop this kind of official document or are in the final

phase of the official approval of this document, while 5 administrations mentioned

that they are not planning to develop this kind of soft policy documents. In countries

which adopted AP documents, three types could be identified: a) Legislation type(France and Sweden); b) Comprehensive policy type (Belgium / Flanders; Denmark;


5/16


164

Estonia; Finland; Ireland; Latvia; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Netherlands; UK /

Scotland; UK / Northern Ireland; Iceland; Norway); and c) Sectoral policy type

(Cyprus, UK / England and UK / Wales).

Table 4- Ministry responsible for architectural policy

2.1.Comprehensive AP type - Norway

In this research, we will concentrate on second type of policies the comprehensive

ones- as we believe that they are the most suitable for overall social context of

Republic of Serbia.

Norway Architectural Policy is published in Architecture. now - Norwegian

Architectural Policy and it starts with a definition that architecture is a complex

field that spans many sectors and that in its broadest sense comprises all our man-

made surroundings. Further it states that it embraces buildings and infrastructure,

outdoor spaces and landscape, it is about individual buildings and buildings in

interaction, about the totality of towns, population centres and landscapes.1 With

this broad definition authors wanted to emphasize a substantial number of public

sector authorities that will be important participants in the task of promoting, of what

they consider to be, a good architecture.

Architectural policy of Norway focuses on areas presented as six parts of strategy:

(1) Architecture should be distinguished by eco and energy friendly solutions, (2)

Cities and population centres should be developed with architecture of good quality,

(3) The government should safeguard cultural environment and building heritage,

(4)Architecture should be promoted by knowledge, competence and dissemination,

(5)The government should be a role model, (6) Norwegian architecture should be

visible internationally. All six parts are separate documents which are interconnected

and represent various Governments measures and initiatives for a complete

1

http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/KKD/Kultur/Rapporter%20og%20utredninger/KKD_architecture.now.pdf


6/16


165

overview of existing and planned measures and initiatives, being implemented on

national level in order to promote good architecture. Document itself is based on

what the government is planning and doing in the field of architecture, with special

remarks on regulatory framework, guidelines, finance schemes and other funding and

resources.2As stated in the AP, document is intended to:

to help and encourage coordination and collaboration across administrativeboundaries

be used as a tool to strengthen the quality and awareness - of architectureand our physical surroundings and to make evident the combined and total

national field of architecture

The final goal of the AP is to assess status, discuss further strategies and inspire

further work within the architectural field.

2.2.Comprehensive AP type - Netherlands

Contrary to Norwegian Architectural policy which is more general, with broader

goals and aims, in next paragraph we will analyze framework of Dutch Architectural

Policy which seems to be more concrete, especially regarding to concrete

architectural projects.Under the name Architectural policy 2001 2004 : Shaping the Netherlands AP

is presented as a document which aims to: make a tangible contribution to the

spatial and architectural quality of our country by launching a number of Major

Projects in which design is to play a central role. The implementation of policy is

planned within selected architectural projects, which are serving as models for future

reference. While working on these projects and overall AP, Dutch Government had

planned to:

examine government responsibility for architecture policy (e.g. management,facilitation);

do justice to the public aspect of architecture and public space, and tostimulate public debate on the built and rural environment;

strengthen the relationship between cultural history and modern architecture/ aiming for conservation through development;

give culture a major role in weighing up claims on space, in addition totraditional spatial planning interests;

stimulate design studies before projects are finalized; stimulate greater variety in homes and living environments, to do more

justice to peoples needs and the Netherlands changing culture;

2

http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/KKD/Kultur/Rapporter%20og%20utredninger/KKD_architecture.now.pdf


7/16


166

accept societys need for mobility, and to cater for it in an architecturallysound manner, keeping future needs in mind;

combat the fragmentation of the open spaces between urban areas bystrengthening the individual features of the landscape;

promote cultural patronage, both large (professional principals) and small(individuals);

look at what is possible, not what is obligatory.3. EXPERIENCE OF EAST EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

Given the rapid impact of globalization, fast economy growth and the resultant

instability of local economies, those eastern countries that were not in the EuropeanUnion were struggling with many problems within their cities and regions, due to the

lack of strategic planning. Also, dealing with the city became more and more

formidable and complex process, including a difficult shift from socialistic to

market-based economy and involving a wide range of actors in these transformations.

By following Lefebvres thesis that cities are spatial projections of society (Lefebvre,

1968,64) we can trace in which way did access of these countries to EU and their

architectural policies change the societies and their approach to space planning.

In May 2004, the three Baltic countries Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, five eastern

Europe countries of the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Poland andthe two Mediterranean islands of Malta and Cyprus joined the European Union,

changing the institutional map of Europe. The accession of ten new members to this

political and economical union was of great deal for governance and spatial

development in Central Eastern Europe. But by analyzing this group, one could

clearly observe their highly heterogeneous character, both spatially and socio-

economically. Firstly, the Mediterranean ones were growing in population and

increase of money inflow; while Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, although rising from

the same roots, as former republics of Soviet Union (in August 1991, Latvia and

Estonia declared the restoration of their full independence following Lithuania's 1990

example) sharing common experience of a rapid transition from socialist, centrally-planned to market-oriented states, had very different economics and land use

structures, diverse political and socio-economic history of the various newly created

and reconstituted states. Being also the former members of COMECON countries

(Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, 1949-91.) Hungary, Poland and Czech

Republic were in the similar situation.

In addition, transformation processes of rapid globalization and economy had various

and different effects on these new member states. For example, only three cities have

more than a million inhabitants: Budapest, Warsaw and Prague and all of them have

different density of population and occupy different areas. As group of authors in

Spatial Planning and Urban Development in the New EU Member States BetweenAdjustment and Reinvention suggest, over the course of the last decade, the larger


8/16


167

cities typically lost population, for various reasons: low birth rates, suburbanization

and dramatic rises in rents and property values in the inner cities, economic

restructuring and job loss. A particularity in the Baltic States is the emigration of the

Russian population (Table 5).

Simin Davoudi in her analyses (Altrock et all, 2006, 31) identifies three key

challenges for spatial planning in the new EU member states. She notes great

regional distinction both within the states as well as between them due to their

different developments since the decay of the Soviet Regime 15 years ago. She also

emphasizes the relationship between economic growth and environment protection as

inseparable from strategic spatial planning. Finally, for new members the quality of

the institutional context in the emerging regional governance patterns breaks out as

an important issue. The privatization of the housing stock is a central planningproblem in the cities, as are the transportation and environmental consequences of

urban sprawl (see KPMG 2004a).

Table 5- Cross-reference data about joined members of EU in 2004Country City Population Area Density

Hungary Budapest 1.741.000 525km2 3.300km2

Estonia Tallinn 423.000 159km2 2.600km2

Latvia Riga 700.000 304km2 2.300km2

Lithuania Vilnius 554.000 404km2 1.391km2

Czech republic Prague 1.262.000 399km2 2.500km2

Slovakia Bratislava 367.000 426km2 1.258km2Slovenia Ljubljana 280.000 163km2 1.664km2

Malta Valetta 7000 0.8km2 8.700km2

Cyprus Nicosia 310.000 111km2 2.860km2

Poland Warsaw 1.708.000 517km2 3.300km2

It seems that it was hardest to adjust for those states that were in socialistic regime.

Having in mind the analogy with Serbia, it is crucial to underline and explain those

kinds of transformations and policies in spatial planning.

In some of the transition countries, because of the process of Europeanization, the

political and planning systems have to transform for far-reaching EU regulations and

directives. As a result that also brought about radical readjustments in the national

urban hierarchy and new challenges for regional development.

Following Mina Petrovi, an Associate Professor on Faculty of Philosophy in

Belgrade, who states that Post-socialist societies are simultaneously facing at least

three types of transformation, causing complex structural changes (Petrovi, 2005 ):

(1) transformation from totalitarian to democratic society, from the planned to market

based economy and/or from supply to demand driven economy; (2) developmental:

from an industrial to post-industrial (service) economy and society, (3)

transformation from an isolated to an integrated position in the world economy,

which is itself transformed from an international to global type- we believe that in

these changes lies the great power for forming a regional AP-s.


9/16


168

Problem still lies in the fact that urban issues are hardly addressed in a

comprehensive manner at the national level. Local governments still work in chaos,

with no specified path of dealing with urban problems, fragmented administrative

structures and the private investor has a significant influence over decision-making.

This need for institutional reform, together with the lack of strategic planning is the

main obstruction for vivid and planed urban development.

Because of this, there are rising initiatives for developing national urban policies in

order to coordinate medium to long-term development (see KPMG 2004a).

4. EXPERIENCES OF FORMER YUGOSLAVIAN COUNTRIES

REGARDING ARCHITECTURAL POLICIES

4.1. Architecture Policy Republic of Slovenia

At the beginning of this research it is important to underline that Slovenia was a

former state within the Federal Socialistic Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), from

February 1944 until March 1990, sharing the similar socio-cultural, political and

economic situation as Serbia. It was raised from a system of "self-management

socialism", with one-party system of representation delegate, planned economy and

the specific system (the so-called worker self-management), in which the property

was mostly in the state and social ownership. Although the federation was divided

into six republics and two autonomous provinces, preservation of the nationalidentity of an individual and at the same time, the construction of identity of

Yugoslavia was very important issue. This remained the important part, which

Slovenia upgraded through its recent architectural policy.

As it says in the beginning of the document, The Spatial Development Strategy of

Sloveniais a strategic spatial planning document, adopted by the National Assembly

of the Republic of Slovenia at its session as of 18 June 2004, published in the

Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, and in force since 20 July 2004. The

preparation of the Spatial Development Strategy of Slovenia was conducted by the

Office for Spatial Development, Spatial Planning Directorate of the Ministry of theEnvironment, Spatial Planning and Energy. Its aim is inclined towards imposing

conditions for balanced economic, social and cultural development while ensuring

the kind of development which will also enable the conservation of the environment,

nature, heritage, and the quality of living(The Spatial Development Strategy of

Slovenia, 2004). Janez Kopa, at that time, Minister of the Environment, Spatial

Planning and Energy of Slovenia, states in the introduction of the document that The

Spatial Strategy is the basic strategic spatial development document. It is an

integrated planning document which implements in its core the concept of

sustainable spatial development. But this document isnt solely inclined to guiding

development and harmonization of sectoral policies. As Strategy preparation processinvolved all ministries and services for participation in the European spatial


10/16


169

development, Strategy for Economic Development of Slovenia was also a key

document in shaping the consciousness of future sustainable spatial development.

In the first chapter of the Strategy one can find basic premises and objectives of

Slovenian spatial development relying on the general grounds, characteristic features

of Slovenian space, geographic features and landscape and urban structure

characteristicsFollowing is the concept of Slovenian spatial development with

priorities and guidelines for achieving spatial development objectives. Development

of spatial systems is carried with extensive guidelines for development of nearly

every segment of urban development at regional and local levels. At the end of the

document are presented different measures for implementation of the strategy

(methods, guidelines, programs of importance, tasks and activities of spatial planningstakeholders and other responsible parties, monitoring).

Main Slovenian Spatial Development Objectives:

1. Rational and effective spatial development

2. Polycentric development of the network of cities, towns and other settlements

3. Increased competitiveness of Slovenian towns in Europe

4. High-quality development and attractiveness of cities, towns and other settlements

5. Harmonious development of areas with common spatial development

characteristics6. Complementarity of rural and urban area functions

7. Integration of infrastructure corridors with the European infrastructure systems

8. Prudent use of natural resources

9. Spatial development harmonized with spatial limitations

10. Cultural diversity as the foundation of the national spatial identity

11. Nature conservation

12. Environmental protection

4.2. Architecture policy Republic of Croatia

Unlike Slovenia, which adopted its architectural policy immediately after joining the

EU, Croatia did it in 2012, while in the process of accession. This example is even

more convenient for analyses in terms of Serbia because of three factors. Firstly,

Croatia was also a member of SFRY with the same social, cultural and economic

roots. Secondly, in the field of architecture and especially housing, during the 20th

century there was an analogy between two different schools of housing rising in

about the same time in Zagreb and Belgrade, and thirdly, Serbia is also inclining

towards soon becoming a member of the EU.

In Croatia, the initiative for the development and adoption of the AP was launchedby the Architects HKAIG and Association of Croatian Architects on the first


11/16


170

Congress of Croatian Architects in 2004. The national platform was published in

2012, supported by Ministry of Environmental Protection, Spatial Planning and

Construction, Council of Spatial Planning, The Croatian Chamber of Architects and

the Association of Croatian Architects.

The thematic fields covered by the Strategy are:

1. Social awareness

2. Interventions in public space

3. Architectural heritage (heritage)

5. Building and designing space

6. Habitation/housing

7. Architectural and urban competition for the best solution8. Education

9. Space and architecture as a catalyst for economic development

10. The legislative framework

The fresh and new objectives of Croatias AP could be seen in its relation to

importance of reprogramming housing for the new globalized society that necessarily

has its roots in extensively researching of this theme. Also awareness that education,

architectural and urban competition must gain the central position in the AP, are

qualities for stabile urban development.

All this is in the aim of achieving three main goals of Croatias AP: that culture ofbuilding could serve as a prerequisite for the quality of built space, the quality of the

built space could became a basis for a good life of every individual and finally,

aiming at reaching the quality of architecture that could serve as an incentive of

national development and progress.

5. IMPORTANCE OF ARCHITECTURAL POLICIES FOR SPATIAL

DEVELOPMENT

It is being believed that through the preparation and implementation of Architectural

policies process of Europeanization is occurring. During this process each countryhas the opportunity to learn from the other - to make use of already existing policies,

and to use other countries experiences. However there is a specific part of each

policy, which is bound to the constitutional, administrative and political framework

in which the policy was developed.

Member States are, encouraged by the European Council Resolution (2001) and

European Council Conclusions (2008) on architecture, promoting architectural

quality as a precondition to improving the quality of life of European citizens. EU

institutions are constantly stimulating implementation of AP, although they are a

kind of soft policies which are not mandatory for the Member States. In this way AP

are very often acting as a catalyst of the public discourse on general architecturalknowledge and quality.


12/16


171

These policies are seen as one of the possible ways to achieve improvement of life

conditions and to improve the quality of the built environment. This is what

architectural policies should offer and strive to in the future.

Table 6- Geographic distribution of official documents of AP

By analyzing existing AP across European countries (Table 6) it could be concluded

that general aims in most of the AP-s are:

To raise the quality of public building and property management to a higher level

and thus set an example to the whole construction sector in our country;

To promote the use of methods which will advance good architecture and highquality building;

To enhance innovation through professional architectural education and through

research and development work;

To enhance the conservation of our architectural heritage and development of the

environments as a part of cultural history and architecture;

Also AP-s contain general remarks on the relationship between discipline of

architecture and other part of society, such as:

architecture is a fundamental feature of the history, culture and fabric of lifeof each of the countries;


13/16


172

architectural quality is a constituent part of both the rural and urbanenvironment;

the cultural dimension and the quality of the physical treatment of spaceshould be taken into account in Community regional and cohesion policies;

Architecture is an intellectual, cultural, artistic and professional activity.Architectural service therefore is professional service which is both cultural

and economic;

Almost all AP-s emphasize both the citizens right and duty to take responsibility of

their own environments and it that sense they are raising questions about:

The challenge posed by sustainability and climate change; The challenge posed by changes and transformations; The challenge posed by knowledge and innovation; The challenge of towns and populated areas to be developed by means of

good-quality architecture;

The responsibility of the State for taking care of cultural environment andbuilding heritage;

6. INSTEAD OF CONCLUSION

While joining the European Union, Serbia will become a part of global spatial

system. According to that, built and natural environment will become an integral part

of EU territory and cohesive approach will be needed for dealing with architecture

and urban environment. With the idea that a built environment is a prerequisite for

quality of life, it should be developed in accordance to the existing local heritage,

along with further urbanization and sustainability of the natural environment.

Expected urban growth across Serbia, and the changes to overall surroundings and

infrastructure associated with it will affect the environment of the whole country, and

probably of neighbour countries. Because of that it will be necessary to make plans

on regional level, and as it is showed, AP would be a valuable and useful tool for

governing that process. AP are offering integrated approach to the questions ofspatial development, and with the support of the general public in the future they

could become comprehensive documentations of the measures necessary for the

creation and preservation of a quality built environment in Republic of Serbia.

During the process of developing its own AP Serbia should use previous experience

of other countries that already have, or are still in the early stages of developing their

policies, in order to increase the awareness of the people to the role of architecture

and the responsibilities of improving the quality of the built environment. As earlier

mentioned, most differences in approaches and content of AP are caused by different

backgrounds of the states creating them, such as: historical development, political


14/16


173

and legislative systems, cultural and social context. Accordingly, with different

starting points some of the AP initiatives have different goals, aims and target

groups. But, being an ex communist country Serbia could use the practical

knowledge of other Eastern European countries because of their experience,

including a difficult shift from socialistic to market-based economy and involving a

wide range of actors in these transformations of becoming a part of EU. Then,

especially from the countries of former Yugoslavia, which are already members

(Slovenia), or are in the final stage of EU accession (Croatia), we could review the

thematic fields because of their similar historical, ideological and cultural

background.

Experiences from other EU countries could be used, as examples of more advanced

models. As in countries which adopted AP documents three types could be identified,it is our strong belief that in Serbia most efficient would be the comprehensive policy

type (like those in Belgium / Flanders; Denmark; Estonia; Finland; Ireland; Latvia;

Lithuania; Luxembourg; Netherlands; UK / Scotland; UK / Northern Ireland;

Iceland; Norway) because of its non binding character of what should/ is possible in

various fields of culture, economy, politics... Like in the cases of Netherlands and

Norway, Serbia should conduct its AP by accenting the general strategy,

organization, guidelines, potential from education to construction, objectives of

spatial development relying on the general grounds, characteristic features of space,

geographic features and landscape and urban structure characteristics

By implementing basic guidelines from other European AP, Serbian model should

formulate important principles and contain directives for short and long-term actions.

First step in starting the policy document should be a better understanding of the

present state in the field of architecture and urban planning, followed by public

discussion that includes architect, politicians, general public and all involved parties,

taking into account experiences of implementations of AP in the other European

countries. Afterwards particular part of AP should be developed in coordination with

local administrations, professional organizations, government and non-government

departments and organizations in order to achieve broad consensus on this question.

Regarding this consensus the general and primary intention of the architecturalpolicy should be to promote the quality of the planning and construction of buildings

in Serbia, in which the concept of "quality" cannot be defined as one particular

attitude to architecture and its surroundings, but rather as a mindset and a more

complex approach to spatial development.

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The paper is the result of research carried out within the scientific projects Research

and systematization of housing construction in Serbia in the context of globalization


15/16


174

and of European integration in order to improve the quality and standard of living

TR-36 034 and Studying climate change and its influence on the environment:

impacts, adaptation and mitigation TR- 43007, both financed by the Ministry of

Education and Science, Republic of Serbia.

8. REFERENCES

Figures and tables:

Table 1 4, 6: Public document - The European Forum for Architectural Policies (2011)

Survey on Architecture Policies, http://www.efap-fepa.eu/ (accessed 30thJuly 2012).

Table 5: by the authors.

Bibliography:

Altrock, U., Guntner, S., Huning , S., Peters, D. (2006) Spatial Planning And Urban

Development in the New EU Member States: From Adjustment to Reinvention,Burlington:

Ashgate Publishing Company.

Baker, S. (2006) Sustainable development. London-New York: Routledge.CEB (2010) Sustainable Housing and urban development: the CebS Contribution,

http://www.coebank.org/Upload/infocentre/brochure/en/housing.pdf (accessed 1st November

2011).

KPMG (2004a),National Urban Policies in the European Union, Amstelveen.Lefebvre, H. (1968)Le droit a la ville, Paris: Anthropos.

Ministarstvo graditeljstva i prostornog uredjenja Republike Hrvatske (2012) Arhitektonske

politike Republike Hrvatske 20132020. : Apolitika, http://www.mgipu.hr/doc/ApolitikA/

ApolitikA_2013-2020.pdf (accessed 07th January, 2013).

Petrovi, M. (2005) Cities after Socialism as a Research Issue, http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/

23378/1/DP34.pdf(accessed 20thDecember, 2012).

The European Forum for Architectural Policies (2011) Survey on Architecture Policies,

http://www.efap-fepa.eu/ (accessed 30thJuly 2012).

The Ministry of Culture and Church Affairs (2009)Architecture.Now - Norwegian

ArchitecturalPolicy, http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/KKD/Kultur/Rapporter

%20og%20utredninger/KKD_architecture.now.pdf (accessed 07th

January, 2013).The Ministries of Education, Culture & Science Housing, Spatial Planning & the

Environment Transport, Public Works & Water Management Agriculture, Nature

Management & Fisheries (2001)Architectural policy 2001 - 2004 : Shaping the

Netherlands, http://www.apoli.fi/instancedata/prime_product_julkaisu/apoli/embeds/11574_n

etherlands.pdf (accessed 07th January, 2013).

The Spatial Development Strategy of Slovenia(2004) Ljubljana: Ministry of the

Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy, Office for Spatial Development, 2004 (availableat http://www.arhiv.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/publikacije/drugo/en/

sprs_eng.pdf)


16/16


175

SUMMARY

Historical development of the idea of Architectural Policies is tied to international

debates between professionals from European countries, which later on, in the 1980s

and 1990s, moved to the national level. Today, the majority of European countries

already have a national architectural policy programme and the rest of them are in the

process of creating similar strategies.

Republic of Serbia is actively involved in the process of joining the EU. Therefore,

since Serbia is not a member state, there are no concrete actions to support EU

Council Conclusions on architecture regarding sustainable development and to start

working on Architectural Policy of Republic of Serbia. But in the near future, during

the process of accession, Serbian administration would have to consider thisquestion.

Finally, this research considered the initiatives for a platform that would serve as the

initial precondition for researching and establishing architectural policy in Serbia,

which is a prerequisite for non-institutional communication and networking of

architectural initiatives and organizations on local and global level.

architectural policy of republic of serbia

Documents