Architectural Policy of Republic of Serbia

Conference Proceedings 2nd International Scientific Conference
RESPAG 2013
ARCHITECTURAL POLICY OF REPUBLIC OF SERBIA

Milica Pajki1, Marija Martinovi1 and Mladen Pei1
1 Faculty of Architecture University of Belgrade, Serbia e-mails: m.pajkic@yahoo.com; marija.martinovic@gmail.com; mladmix@gmail.com
1. HISTORY OF THE IDEA OF ARCHITECTURAL POLICY

Having in mind that in the last 30 years there has been a growing recognition of the importance 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). Besides that 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 becoming an 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.
160
RESPAG 2013
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 two European 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).
161
RESPAG 2013
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)
162
RESPAG 2013
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 and number 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 specific department 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;
163
RESPAG 2013
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 manmade 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_arch itecture.now.pdf 164
RESPAG 2013
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.2 As stated in the AP, document is intended to: to help and encourage coordination and collaboration across administrative boundaries be used as a tool to strengthen the quality and awareness - of architecture and 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 to stimulate 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 to traditional 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_arch itecture.now.pdf 165
RESPAG 2013
accept societys need for mobility, and to cater for it in an architecturally sound manner, keeping future needs in mind; combat the fragmentation of the open spaces between urban areas by strengthening 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 European Union 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 and the 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 socioeconomically. 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, centrallyplanned 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 Between Adjustment and Reinvention suggest, over the course of the last decade, the larger
166
RESPAG 2013
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 planning problem 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 2004
Country Hungary Estonia Latvia Lithuania Czech republic Slovakia Slovenia Malta Cyprus Poland City Budapest Tallinn Riga Vilnius Prague Bratislava Ljubljana Valetta Nicosia Warsaw Population 1.741.000 423.000 700.000 554.000 1.262.000 367.000 280.000 7000 310.000 1.708.000 Area 525km2 159km2 304km2 404km2 399km2 426km2 163km2 0.8km2 111km2 517km2 Density 3.300km2 2.600km2 2.300km2 1.391km2 2.500km2 1.258km2 1.664km2 8.700km2 2.860km2 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.
167
RESPAG 2013
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 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 national identity 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 Slovenia is 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 the Environment, 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 process involved all ministries and services for participation in the European spatial
168
COUNTRIES
RESPAG 2013
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 planning stakeholders 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 characteristics 6. 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 launched by the Architects HKAIG and Association of Croatian Architects on the first
169
RESPAG 2013
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 solution 8. 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 of building 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 country has 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 architectural knowledge and quality.
170
RESPAG 2013
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 high quality 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 life of each of the countries;
171
RESPAG 2013
architectural quality is a constituent part of both the rural and urban environment; the cultural dimension and the quality of the physical treatment of space should 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 and building 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 of spatial 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
172
RESPAG 2013
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 architectural policy 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
173
RESPAG 2013
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 30 th July 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 20th December, 2012). The European Forum for Architectural Policies (2011) Survey on Architecture Policies, http://www.efap-fepa.eu/ (accessed 30 th July 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 (available at http://www.arhiv.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/publikacije/drugo/en/ sprs_eng.pdf)
174
RESPAG 2013
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 this question. 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.
175

Architectural Policy of Republic of Serbia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Architectural Policy of Republic of Serbia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conference Proceedings 2nd International Scientific Conference