LANDSCAPES OF POSTMODERNITY: CHANGES IN THE BUILT FABRIC

OF BELGRADE AND SOFIA SINCE THE END OF SOCIALISM1

Sonia Hirt2
Program of Urban Affairs and Planning
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Abstract: In this article, I discuss recent physical changes in the built fabric of the Serbian
capital of Belgrade and the Bulgarian capital of Sofia. I apply two bodies of literature, involving
postsocialist urban transitions and postmodern urban transitions. I present empirical observations on changes in building functions, scales, and styles in both cities. I show that certain
general common traits prevail in the evolution of urban forms in both Belgrade and Sofia, but I
also argue that the contrasting social and cultural experiences of Serbia and Bulgaria during
socialism and postsocialism produced some locally specific results. I further suggest that postsocialist cities represent textbook examples of urban postmodernization, much as socialist cities
epitomized the essential legacy of modernist urbanity. [Key words: postsocialist cities, postmodern urbanism, Belgrade, Sofia.]

In his 1992 Summer Mediations, Vaclav Havel (1992b, pp. 104105) painted a vision
of the impending transformation of Pragues urban fabric in the following optimistic
terms:
Life in the towns and villages will have overcome the legacy of grayness, uniformity, anonymity, and ugliness inherited from the totalitarian era. Every main
street will have at least two bakeries, two sweet-shops, two pubs, and many other
small shops, all privately owned and independent. Prefabricated high-rise apartment blocks and other kinds of gigantic public housing developments will no
longer be built. Instead, there will be developments of family houses, villas, townhouses and low-rise apartment buildings. They will be better constructed, more
varied and on a more human scale. Existing high-rise housing estates, where
so many have made their homes over the last four decades, will be enlivened in

This research was supported by the National Council for Eurasian and East European Studies, the Graham
Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts, and the Humanities Program at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. The author thanks the editors, the referees, as well as Z. Nedovic-Budic, J. Scarpaci,
and J. Steiff for their extremely helpful comments on earlier drafts. The author is deeply indebted to M.
Petrovic and Z. Gligorijevic for their invaluable insights on Belgrades landscape, as well as to the staff of the
Belgrades Urban Institute (especially M. Ferencak), the Belgrades Institute of Informatics and Statistics
(especially O. Momchilovich) and the Serbian Institute of Statistics (especially S. Gazo). Without the thoughtful input of these Belgrade colleagues, the article could not have been completed. Finally, the author thanks her
research assistants D. Prichard and S. Swenson.
2
Correspondence concerning this article should be addresses to Sonia Hirt, Assistant Professor of Urban
Affairs and Planning, 213 Architecture Annex, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg,
Virginia 24061; telephone: 540-231-7509; fax: 540-231-3367; e-mail: shirt@vt.edu

785
Urban Geography, 2008, 29, 8, pp. 785810. DOI: 10.2747/0272-3638.29.8.785
Copyright 2008 by Bellwether Publishing, Ltd. All rights reserved.

786

SONIA HIRT

different wayssome redesigned and altered, others gradually phased out to make
room for something more adequate for the 21st century.
Without being an urban geographer or a sociologist, Havel grasped precisely the
essence of socialist urbanism: massiveness, uniformity, and scarcity of urban services. I
take his statement as a close parallel to the summary of the fundamentals of the socialist
city, which were proposed by sociologist Ivan Szelenyi in 1996 (pp. 300303) and noted
by many other theorists (e.g., Scarpaci, 2000; Sheppard, 2000; Banerjee, 2004): (1) lack
of functional diversity (especially shortage of commercial functions); (2) striking grandeur and rigid order of spaces and buildings, as exhibited in colossal but visually disciplined public plazas and massive housing estates; and (3) oppressive monotony of
architectural styles.3 Havels vision has been equally insightful in outlining the broad
dimensions of postsocialist restructuring. In essence, he expected three interrelated
processes of change: commercialization of the built fabric, decrease in spatial scale and
decline of spatial formalism, and diversification of architectural stylesall of which
have been discussed to varying degrees in the literature on postsocialist urbanism (e.g.,
Sykora, 1998, 2007, and Garb and Dybicz, 2006, on commercialization; Bodnar, 2001,
Ioan, 2007, and Stanilov, 2007a, on decline in spatial scale and spatial formalism; and
Andrusz, 1996, Sarmany-Parsons, 1998, and Boym, 2001, on changes in architectural
styles).
In this study, I turn to two southeastern European cities, the Serbian capital of
Belgrade and the Bulgarian capital of Sofia. I offer observations on their built fabric
according to the three types of change outlined above: functional changes, changes in
building and spatial scale, and changes in architectural style. By comparing the two cities,
I aim to discern and reflect upon both the trends that transcend the individual cases and
those that set them apart (regarding comparative case studies, see Yin, 1994, and Nijman,
2007). Such comparisons are especially needed in the literature on postsocialist urbanism,
which has been dominated by studies of single cities (Sykora, 2000). This study also
extends existing work on Sofia (Hirt, 2006) while offering novel observations on
Belgradea city that has received insufficient attention due to Serbias recent international isolation.
My hypothesis is that Belgrade and Sofia have undergone similar transitions: in both
cities, functional reorganization is driven by sharp increases in commercial uses; in both,
a new paradigm of development, defined by smaller projects and more fragmented
spaces, has replaced the socialist order and grandeur; and in both, architectural styles
have been radically diversified. Regardless of these similarities, I note some differences
that result from former Yugoslavias unique experiences prior to 1990, Serbias societal
collapse during the 1990s, and its belated embrace of a pro-Western development after
2000. Without dismissing the importance of the local, I argue that the above-listed
changes are inherent to East European postsocialism. I also further hypothesize that they

Szelenyis categories are much broader. For example, regarding the socialist lack of diversity, he implies a
lack of diversity in social behaviors. It would be virtually impossible to provide evidence for changes along
Szelenyis broader categories in a single article. I have, therefore, modified his framework and used it in a
much narrower senseonly as it pertains to my focus, the physical features of the built fabric.

LANDSCAPES OF POSTMODERNITY

787

Fig. 1. Belgrade, Serbia. The map shows the administrative districts of the metropolis, the boundaries of
the so-called City Proper (according to the Institute of Informatics and Statistics), the Planned City (according
to the Urban Institute), and various neighborhoods referred to in the article. Author: David S. Prichard.

fit well into the framework of a global modern-to-postmodern urban change. I provide a
theoretical case as to why postsocialism and postmodernism are related. I suggest that
postsocialist cities provide highly vivid examples of the rupture between the modern and
the postmodern, perhaps as vivid as examples in the so-called Western world.
I employ several data sources. Where appropriate, I use simple quantitative data from
the Institute of Informatics and Statistics in Belgrade, the National Statistical Institute in
Sofia, and select municipal sources. Noting that many changes (e.g., those in aesthetics)
are not quantifiable and that there may be no reliable numeric measure of postmodern
urbanism, I rely heavily on personal observation and the thick description of the built
fabrica method used in architectural essays and similar to that of Leontidou (1993) in
her study of Mediterranean postmodernisms. Many of my examples come from two
socialist housing districtsNovi Beograd in Belgrade and Mladost in Sofia (Figs. 1 and

788

SONIA HIRT

Fig. 2. Sofia, Bulgaria. The map shows the administrative districts of the metropolis, the boundaries of the
so-called Compact City (according to the Directorate of Architecture and Urban Planning), and various neighborhoods referred to in the article. Author: David S. Prichard.

2).4 As landmark examples of socialist urbanism, these places display well the archetypical postsocialist (and postmodern) changes. I also use a photographic survey as well as
interviews with the Chief Architects of both cities and experts from Sofias Directorate of
Architecture and Urban Planning and Belgrades Urban Institute.
My study is organized as follows. I first outline the general processes of transforming
socialist into capitalist cities, and connect postsocialist urbanism with postmodern urbanism. Next, I present a brief history of Belgrade and Sofia within the context of pertinent
societal changes in Yugoslavia/Serbia and Bulgaria. Third, I introduce my empirical notes
on changes in the built fabric of Belgrade and Sofia. I then interpret these changes not
only as postsocialist but also as inherently postmodern.

Sources for all maps, tables, and charts are: in Belgrade, the Institute for Informatics and Statistics (2005) and
the Urban Institute of Belgrade (2003); and in Sofia, the National Statistical Institute (1993, 2003) and the
Directorate of Architecture and Urban Planning (2003). Some information was obtained from personal communications with staff from these agencies. All photos were taken by the author.

LANDSCAPES OF POSTMODERNITY

789

FROM THE SOCIALIST TO THE POSTSOCIALIST CITY: GENERAL TRENDS

The Socialist City
The first important aspect of the socialist city discussed here is the scarcity of commercial uses. This scarcity resulted from the socialist emphasis on industry and the systematic
underproduction of consumer goods, which translated into fewer commercial spaces
(Szelenyi, 1996; Stanilov, 2007b). Furthermore, since socialist governments owned most
urban land, they could reserve larger areas in prime urban locations for public and industrial uses rather than the type of commerce found in CBDs in the West (e.g., Bertaud and
Renaud, 1995; Bertaud, 2006). They could also retain substantial residential functions in
city centers. The second aspect of the socialist citythe striking grandeur of public projects (which includes housing estates because during socialism they were built under public auspices)also had its roots in the vast powers of socialist states to control land.
Spatial grandeur, however, had deep ideological roots as well (Crowley and Reid, 2002).
It expressed the socialist dedication to an egalitarian public realm and collectivist urban
living, and a fascination with big is beautiful projects on behalf of socialist elites
(Andrusz, 1996; Banerjee, 2004). Finally, suppressing aesthetic diversity had much to do
with totalitarian control (Klassanov, 1992). In housing, it also had to do with economies
of scale and the socialist embrace of Modernist functionalism and uniformity as the
proper aesthetic medium of progress and equality (Lizon, 1996; Scott, 1998).
These features of socialist urbanism were attuned to the key aspects of the socialist
socioeconomic and political order: dominance of production over consumption; dominance of the public and the collective over the private and the individual; and dominance
of order and discipline over diversity and marginality (e.g., Banerjee, 2004).
The Postsocialist City
The abrupt collapse of Eastern European socialism brought about the more gradual,
post-1990 decomposition of the spatial characteristics of the socialist city. The literature
points to several factors behind this urban transition: economic, institutional, social, and
cultural. The first and most important factor is the economic, the rebirth of the land and
property market following state policies of restitution and privatization (Nedovic-Budic
et al., 2006). Market pressures lead to major land-use realignment as higher-intensity uses
(e.g., commercial) move in to displace lower-intensity uses (e.g., residential), and as large
industrial plants close down (Sykora, 1998). The end of state control over urban land and
real estate parallels the abrupt withdrawal of state agents from the production of housing
(Stanilov, 2007a). The private firms that take the lead in building the postsocialist city are
typically small, fragmented, and capital-poor, although the situation varies from country
to country based on the levels of development (Low and Tsenkova, 2003). This reversal
of roles between the public and the private sector translates into a major shift in built
forms. Large ceremonial civic projects (e.g., the Romanian Peoples Palace and Victory
Boulevard, or the East German Alexanderplatz and Karl Marx Alee) are no longer built.
Mass, large-scale residential construction ceases and most new housing assumes a fragmented form as either individual homes or small multifamily dwellings.

790

SONIA HIRT

In social terms, privatization and the end of state control over prices lead to rapid class
stratification and the formation of an impoverished mass as well as a small group of
nouveau riche (e.g., Milanovic, 1997).5 The lifting of travel barriers and the new cultural
openness leads, at least initially, to a fascination with all things Western, from pop music
to architecture, and a rejection of the socialist cultural legacy (Sykora, 1994; SarmanyParsons, 1998). The latter translates into an overarching decline of the very idea of a
benevolent public realm (Kharkhordin, 1995; Bailey, 2002; Stanilov, 2007c) and the
weakening of urban planning controls (Sykora, 1994, 1998; Nedovic-Budic, 2001; Hirt,
2005). It also brings about a new generation of builders who rebuff modernist functionalism and collectivism, assert a radical aesthetic individualism, and import eclectic styles
(Andrusz, 1996; Boym, 2001). Nowhere is this more apparent than in the lavish homes of
the nouveau riche (Sarmany-Parsons, 1998; Humphrey, 2002).
In short, the literature has noted several broad societal changes that lead us to expect
that Belgrade and Sofia should have evolved in the direction outlined by Szelenyi and
others. It is important to note, however, that the trends mentioned above have mostly been
discussed in the context of states such as Bulgaria, which were once orthodox socialist
and underwent a relatively rapid transition. Former Yugoslavia and its successor Serbia
deviate from the typical model. Whereas during the first two decades after World War II
the republic was ruled by a classic socialist regime, reforms starting in the mid-1960s
transformed it into an economy comprising both socialist and capitalist elements
(Schrenk, 1979).6 Post-1965 Yugoslavia had higher living standards and much deeper
cultural links with the West than other East European states, and its citizens could travel
freely.7 The 1990s, however, brought about a reversal of fortunes. All Eastern European
countries experienced socioeconomic problems during the 1990s, but none suffered a
deeper crisis than former Yugoslavia. The 1990s was a period of hyperinflation, war, and
international isolation. Some stability was achieved between 1995 and 1998 but it was
reversed by NATOs bombing in 1999. Housing was privatized hastily in 19921993.
Other privatization reforms also began at that time, but many were later overturned,
leading scholars to label the 1990s as the decade of the blocked transition (Petrovic,

5
In the mid-1990s, the Gini coefficient of inequality was 0.45 in Serbia and 0.34 in Bulgaria, up from about
0.25 a decade earlier (Milanovic, 1997; Djuric-Kuzmanovic and Zarkov, 1999). In 1999, the top 8% of the
Bulgarian population commanded resources equal to those of the bottom 75% (Rajchev et al., 2000).
6
The Yugoslav model of self-management or market socialism meant that most industrial firms were
socially owned, but about 90% of agriculture was private. Profitability was in theory the main economic principle. In practice, in socially owned firms, if profits were generated they would go to the employees through
wages; if losses occurred, the firm asked the state for help (Hadzic, 2002). Although this differs from the model
of orthodox socialism, there are many shared elements: most urban land in former Yugoslavia was state-owned
and the methods of housing production and distribution were quite similar (Petrovic, 2001).
7
An example of this cultural openness was the routine participation of Yugoslav architects in Western architectural forums. Whereas Bulgarian architects looked for Soviet guidance, their Yugoslav colleagues looked West.
All Sofias urban plans from the 1940s and 1950s were juried by architects from the Eastern bloc (Hirt, 2005).
In contrast, the Yugoslav Master Urban Regulation from 1949 was written following German, British, and
Swedish legislation (Nedovic-Budic and Cavric, 2006). The most significant architectural venue of the mid20th century, the Congress of International Architecture (CIAM), held its 10th Congress in 1956 in Dubrovnik
(now part of Croatia). Yugoslav architects were an integral part of the Western avant-garde and many prominent ones like N. Dobrovic and D. Brasovan were honorary members of the Royal Institute of British Architects. Yugoslavias closer ties to the West under socialism continued the already-strong Serbian standing in
global architecture (Maric, 2002; Blagojevic, 2003).

LANDSCAPES OF POSTMODERNITY

791

2001; Hadzic, 2002). As the state focused on more pressing issues, particularly wars,
local planning authority nearly collapsed, which led to a shocking upsurge in illegal
construction (Vujovic and Petrovic, 2007). It was not until 2000, under the new regime,
that Serbia started the pro-Western transition that had begun a decade earlier in most other
Eastern European nations. Ironically then, a country that had notable experience in quasicapitalist economics and was well integrated into Western culture entered the 21st
century in a weaker position than other countries in the region.
The preceding discussion leads to two questions. (1) Have both cities undergone the
three types of spatial change suggested by Szelenyi, Havel, and others? And (2) Are there
notable differences between changes in Belgrade and changes in Sofia? The next theoretical section builds the case for a broader third question. (3) How does postsocialist urban
restructuring relate to what many geographers have described over the past 20 years as a
global modern-to-postmodern transition in built forms?
POSTSOCIALIST AND POSTMODERN?
A powerful case could be made that socialismas a socioeconomic order dependent
on large-scale, Fordist-type industrial production; a hierarchical, highly bureaucratized
political regime; and a technocratic, Enlightenment-inspired ideology for relentless
progressrepresents the climax of Western modernity (Murray, 1992; Inglehart, 1997).
Contrasts between socialism and Western liberal capitalism, of course, should not be
overlooked: the balance between state and markets, as well as between collective and
individual actions were clearly different (e.g., Wu, 2003). These basic contrasts underpinned the key differences between socialist and capitalist cities. Yet in Baumans view,
socialisms and capitalisms shared emphasis on science-based industry and administration, and common embrace of homogeneous culture made them the two legs on which
modernity stood (Bauman, 1995, p. 148) Not only can socialism and capitalism be
conceptualized as alternative modernities (Ray, 1997), but arguably socialism took the
modern project further: it was modernitys most devout, vigorous and gallant champion
(Bauman, 1991, p. 38, also 1992; see also Scott, 1998). Indeed, it was under socialist
auspices that the modernist dream of limitless industrial progress (at the expense of simple, everyday pleasures), and an omnipotent, rational, and ostensibly just public realm (at
the expense of small, private freedoms) was pushed to its limits and executed, so vigorously and meticulously, in the organization of urban space (Banerjee, 2004). If Harveys
definition of modern urbanism as urbanism led by large-scale, metropolitan-wide, technologically rational and efficient urban plans, backed by absolutely no-frills architecture
(1990, p. 66) is correct, then socialist cities were its most archetypical examples.
Following the interpretation of socialism as modernitys peak, several theorists including Havel (1992a, 1994) have argued that socialisms end marked modernitys end, and
postsocialism is a part of an epochal postmodern transition (see also Inglehart, 1997). But
if postsocialism can be taken as part of postmodernity, then postsocialist and postmodern
forms should have an elective affinity for each other (Kumar, 1995). Of course, the
postmodern urbanism of Dear (2000) or Ellin (1996) is too complex to be presented here.
Still, there is no doubt that it entails: intense commercialization of built forms as part of
the postindustrial economic shift; substitution of formal, master-planned order with
small, piecemeal, fragmented developments resulting from the reduced role of the state in

792

SONIA HIRT

city-building; and a new, dramatic diversity of aesthetic styles (e.g., Jencks, 1987; Relph,
1987; Harvey, 1990; Leontidou, 1993; Dear and Flusty, 2002a, 2002b; Ley, 2003).
As these definitions reveal, there are overlaps between postsocialist and postmodern
urbanity: both entail commercialization, fragmentation, and diversity.8 The overlaps are
not coincidental because the structural processes underlying them (e.g., deindustrialization, decline of the public realm, and growing cultural pluralism) are present in both. If
anything, postmodern changes may have been more abrupt in postsocialist states than in
capitalist ones because, as Bauman and Havel noted, socialism took industrialism,
collectivist order, and homogeneity to the extreme. With these theories in mind, I now
turn to Belgrade and Sofia as examples of postsocialist/postmodern change.
COMPARATIVE CITY PROFILES OF BELGRADE AND SOFIA
Both Belgrade and Sofia are ancient cities. Belgrade became the Serbian capital in the
13th century. Overtaken by the Ottomans in 1521, it served for centuries as a major
battleground for Austrians, Hungarians, and Turks. It regained its capital city status in
1841. In 1918, it became the capital of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (later,
Yugoslavia). In 2006, after Montenegros secession, it again became the capital of Serbia
alone. Sofia, once an important regional node, declined after the Ottoman invasion in
the 1300s. Yet it was selected to be the state capital in 1879 following Bulgarias independence.
Both Belgrade and Sofia experienced substantial growth during most of the 20th
century. By the early 1900s, both had acquired the typical form of the European city: a
busy core of elegant civic, commercial, and mixed-use buildings; a ring of higher-income
areas; and a periphery housing the poor and the growing industries (Staddon and Mollov,
2000). Belgrades previous capital status and its earlier liberation from Ottoman rule
translates into a more historically significant fabric, which does not cease to impress
despite the damage endured during World War II and the turmoil of the 1990s.
The postWorld War II triumph of socialist regimes had major impacts on both cities.
In both Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, most urban land, industries, major real estate, and businesses were nationalized within a decade after the war, and urban development was
monopolized by the state. The new priorities were the egalitarian distribution of resources
(including housing) and planned urbanization (Hirt, 2006; Nedovic-Budic and Cavric,
2006; Vujosevic and Nedovic-Budic, 2006). Industrial plants were built primarily at the
urban edge (e.g., the Tito Shipyard in Belgrade and the chemical giant Kremikovtsi in
Sofia), but also in certain prime urban locations (e.g., warehousing and engine plants in
central Belgrade and textiles in central Sofia). Industrial growth spurred rural-to-urban
migration. Belgrades population grew from 650,000 in 1948 to 1,470,000 in 1981, and
Sofias from 530,000 in 1946 to 1,066,000 in 1975. Since then, growth has stabilized.
Belgrade, however, has recently absorbed 150,000 refugees from Kosovo and Croatia,
some of whom may not have been included in the latest census.

Because of size limitations, I have focused on only three themes, thereby ignoring many other important
aspects of postmodern urbanism. One such aspect is the proliferation of explicitly private, walled-off spaces,
and both Belgrade and Sofia are rich in such spaces.

793

LANDSCAPES OF POSTMODERNITY

TABLE 1. POPULATION AND AREA OF BELGRADE AND SOFIA

Belgrade
Year

Metropolis
(322,268 ha)

1971
1981

Sofia
City proper
(35,996 ha)

Year

Metropolis
(134,185 ha)

Compact city
(19,080 ha)

1,209,000

n/a

1975

1,066,000

n/a

1,470,000

1,092,000

1985

1,202,000

n/a

1991

1,602,000

1,171,000

1992

1,190,000

n/a

2002

1,576,000

1,200,000

2002

1,194,000

1,096,000

The greatest spatial legacy of socialism is embodied in the vast districts around the old
city centers. Following the ideas of the 1934 Athens Charter, these districts included massive buildings made of prefabricated units. In the heroic spirit of modernity, ground was
broken in 1948 to create Belgrades grandest project, appropriately named Novi Beograd
(New Belgrade). Practically a city within the city, Novi Beograd today houses 200,000
people. A similar transformation started in Sofia in the early 1960s with the building of
Mladost (youth) and Luylin, each designed for 100,000 people (Figs. 1 and 2).9 From
the mid-1960s onward, orthodox socialism in Yugoslavia no longer existed. Industry
remained in state hands but small private retailing was permitted, and government was
decentralized. However, reforms stagnated during the 1980s and collapsed after 1990.
As noted earlier, postsocialist Serbia and Bulgaria followed different trajectories.
Bulgarias economy was hit hard in the early 1990s; steady recovery only began after
1998. Serbia was in wars and isolation throughout the 1990s. From 1989 to 1993, Serbian
GDP per capita dropped by 60%; recovery began after 2000. In 2005, Serbias per capita
GDP was at 60% of its 1989 level; Bulgarias was at 90% (UN Economic Commission
for Europe, 2005, pp. 23; EBRD, 2007a, 2007b). Serbia lags in privatization and foreign
direct investment (FDI).10 In 2006, Serbian GDP per capita was about $7,200, whereas
Bulgarias was $8,800. Bulgaria joined the European Union in 2007; Serbia is not likely
to enter until after 2010.
Dramatic changes at the state level have had major impacts on both cities. In terms of
population, neither city has changed radically. Belgrade today contains 1.6 million inhabitants; Sofias total is 1.2 million (Table 1). Living standards are low: average monthly
salary is US$400 in Sofia and US$500 in Belgrade. Poverty is visible in faded faades
and self-built illegal houses, especially in Belgrade (Zegarac, 1999). Social stratification
has had clear spatial impactsSofias Lozenets and Belgrades Dedinje are now favored
locations for a newly affluent class whose wealth is of unclear origin. In both cities, 90%

9
Consequently, many other similar housing areas were built in both cities. In Belgrade, they include Banija and
Banovo Brdo; in Sofia, Nadezhda and Studentski Grad.
10
Serbias private sector share of GDP is 55%, whereas Bulgarias is 75% (EBRD, 2007a, 2007b). In 2005, FDI
in Serbia was $1,286 million, but $2,223 million in Bulgaria (Invest Bulgaria, 2006; Serbia Investment and
Export Promotion Agency, 2006).

794

SONIA HIRT

TABLE 2. EMPLOYMENT STRUCTURE OF BELGRADE AND SOFIA (PERCENTAGES)

BELGRADE
Metropolis
(322,268 ha)

SOFIA

City proper
(35,996 ha)

Metropolis
(134,185 ha)

Compact city
(19,080 ha)

1989

2005

1989

2005

1989

2002

1989

2002

1.44

1.71

n/a

0.79

1.79

2.39

n/a

n/a

Secondary sector

38.67

31.64

n/a

27.57

44.81

23.21

n/a

n/a

Tertiary sector

59.89

66.65

n/a

71.64

53.40

74.40

n/a

n/a

Primary sector

of housing is private (Buckley and Tsenkova, 2001; Petrovic, 2001). New dwellings are
privately built. Development firms have proliferated,11 although most have been small
and capital-poor.12
THREE ASPECTS OF THE CHANGING FABRIC OF BELGRADE AND SOFIA
Let us now consider three changes in built forms, involving function, scale, and style.
Functional Changes
After socialism, the major forces underlying functional realignment in Belgrade and
Sofia have been the decline of industry and the rise of commerce and services. From 1989
to 2005, employment in the secondary sector dropped sharplyfrom 39% to 32% in
Belgrade, and from 45% to 23% in Sofia. Conversely, employment in the tertiary sector
increased from 60% to 67% in Belgrade, and 53% to 74% in Sofia (Table 2). These trends
point in the same direction, but there is also notable local variation. The postindustrial
transition seems to have begun earlier in Belgrade but slowed down in the 1990s, likely
the result of two causes: (1) the Yugoslav socialist regime did not adhere as closely to the
Soviets dominant industrial growth strategy as did Bulgarias planners, and (2) because
of lagging postsocialist privatization and foreign investment in the aftermath of the 1990s
wars and isolation, Serbias economy did not restructure as swiftly after 1989. The difference in priorities between the Yugoslav and Bulgarian socialist regimes is reflected in
spatial terms as well: Belgrades industrial zones left over from socialism occupy less
land and therefore a smaller share of the urban area (Table 3). Even so, if measured
according to share of the built-up urban area, Belgrades and Sofias industrial zones
amount to 10% and 20%, respectively,13 compared to about 5% in capitalist cities like

11

There were 349 building firms in Belgrade in 1980 and 3088 in 2005.
Most local private building firms had fewer than 10 employees (Buckley and Tsenkova, 2001; UN Economic
Commission for Europe, 2005).
13
By built-up urban area, I mean the total area in the central (compact) city excluding green, water, vacant, and
agricultural lands.
12

795

LANDSCAPES OF POSTMODERNITY

TABLE 3. FUNCTIONAL BALANCE IN BELGRADE AND SOFIA (PERCENTAGES)

BELGRADE (2001)
Functional areas
Residential areas

Planned city
(77,602 ha)

Central city
(13,146 ha)

SOFIA (2001)
Metropolis
(134,185)

Compact city
(19,080)

16.20

30.02

10.40

37.30

Commercial and public areas

2.31

9.73

2.30

8.10

Industrial areas

2.06

4.67

4.40

13.40

Infrastructure

6.14

3.64

2.50

6.30

15.09

20.47

37.90

10.60

0.88

1.87

0.40

1.30

5.25

9.32

2.20

0.20

51.10

5.50

36.80

6.70

Green areas
Sport and recreation areas
Water
Agricultural areas
Vacant and other areas
Total

0.97

14.78

3.10

16.10

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

Parisclear testimony for socialisms heavy emphasis on industrialization. As many of

the socialist industrial giants went bankrupt in the early 1990s, Belgrade and Sofia are
now left with massive stretches of industrial lands in disrepair; Belgrades new master
plan, for example, puts the number at 63% (Urban Institute of Belgrade, 2003).
In contrast to declining industry, commerce in both cities has exploded. Historic data
show that the two cities started from almost identical positions in terms of retail supply.
In 1980, Belgrade had 4,899 retail outlets; in 1981, Sofia had 4,106 outlets.14 The numbers grew slowly during the 1980s. Between 1989 and 2005, however, although neither
city increased in population, the number of retail facilities in each about quadrupled: from
5,947 to 24,629 in Belgrade, and from 4,761 to 16,224 in Sofia. These figures translate
into 3.7 outlets per 1,000 people in Belgrade in 1989 compared to 15.4 in 2005, and 3.9
outlets per 1,000 in Sofia in 1989 compared to 13.2 in 2005 (Figs. 3 and 4).15
Statistics from Belgrade offer additional insights. During the 1990s, data were collected on retail in private versus public ownership. The numbers show rapid growth in
private-sector retailing and a slow withdrawal of public-sector retailing (Fig. 3). In Sofia,

14

This amounts to 3.3 outlets per 1,000 people in Belgrade and 3.5 outlets in Sofia. Admittedly, retail space
may be a better measure of retail supply than the number of retail outlets. However, Sofia has collected data on
retail space only sporadically, so I used the more systematic data on retail outlets. This approach, however, has
limitations. For example, during the 1970s and 1980s, the relatively prosperous Belgrade authorities made significant investments in large shopping centers in socialist housing districts such as Novi Beograd. Such shopping areas were much more limited in Sofias socialist districts. Thus it is possible that Belgrade had more
retail space per person than did Sofia. This is a logical hypothesis considering the higher purchasing power of
Belgrades citizens.
15
Belgrades higher number from 2005 may be due to the slightly higher purchasing power of its population
and because the city has absorbed refugees not included in the official data.

796

SONIA HIRT

Fig. 3. Growth in number of retail outlets in Sofia.

Fig. 4. Growth in number of retail outlets in Belgrade.

such data were never collected; if they had been, they would most likely show a much
more abrupt transition from all-public retailing in 1990 to all-private retailing by 1992,
since the postsocialist privatization of public assets occurred in Sofia both earlier and
faster.
Commercialization has been most visible in two types of urban areas: the historic
urban cores (where most retail outlets were concentrated prior to socialism but were then
replaced by public and residential uses after nationalization in the late 1940s), and the
socialist estates (where socialist planning failed to provide sufficient services). In the old
cores, postsocialist market pressures for high-rent (i.e., commercial) land uses in prime
locations caused notable depopulation. From 1991 to 2002, Sofias Sredets (Middle)
district lost 10,000 people (24% of its residents); Belgrades Stari Grad (Old Town) lost
13,000 (18% of its residents). These numbers point to the fact that one of the key features
of the socialist citythe residential downtownis beginning to fade away. In the socialist estates, commercialization has also been highly visible as small-unit retailing spread

LANDSCAPES OF POSTMODERNITY

797

Fig. 5. Kaleidoscopic minishops have moved into the entry halls and the ground-floor apartments of this
grey concrete socialist residential tower in Novi Beograd.

through public spaces and took over the lower floors of grey residential buildings, adding
a layer of vivid informality to the once-bland, orderly built fabric (Figs. 5 and 6).
Along with the retail revolution, there has also been a dramatic increase in office
space. In 1989, high-end private office space did not exist in either city. But by 2007,
Sofia had 606,000 sq m of Class A and B office space; Belgrade had 270,000 (Colliers
International Bulgaria, 2006, 2007a, 2007b; Colliers International Serbia, 2007a, 2007b).
Belgrades lower number reflects the fact that high-end office space is typically sought by
multinational firms, which have only recently entered Serbia.
A notable trend in both cities is a shift in type of commercial space from local to more
commonly foreign-dominated. The 1990s were marked by the growth of local businesses
that moved (legally or not) into existing buildings (e.g., remodeled apartments, garages,
residential entry halls) or into kiosks and self-styled merchants quarters placed upon
public space. Lately, however, local merchants have been aggressively challenged by
larger foreign firms (this is why the number of retail units has leveled off since about
2000; Figs. 3 and 4). By 2006, Sofia had 25 foreign-owned hypermarkets and 4 malls, and
Belgrade had 17 hypermarkets and 3 malls, many of which are built upon the open public
spaces in socialist areas such as Novi Beograd and Mladost.
In short then, Belgrade and Sofia have undergone industrial decline and intense commercialization. Although there are important differences (e.g., Sofia relied more heavily
on industry during socialism; but it is now Belgrade that slightly lags behind in certain
types of high-end commercial and office space) due to variations in the national context

798

SONIA HIRT

Fig. 6. Small private shops have overtaken the entire ground floor and even parts of the second floor of this
once exclusively residential building in Sofias Mladost.

both before and after 1989, the directions of change appear to be parallel. Undoubtedly,
both de-industrialization and commercialization are processes typical of postsocialist
Eastern Europe (Stanilov, 2007b). Yet both are also integral to global urban changes commonly depicted as postmodern (Harvey, 1990). If anything, the notes from the Balkans
suggest that the postsocialist processes of change (e.g., the quadrupling of commercial
outlets in a few years in the context of zero population growth) proceed with a remarkable
intensity that may be hard to find in a typical capitalist city (Sykora, 1994).
Changes in Building and Spatial Scale
As noted earlier, an important feature of the socialist city according to Szelenyi and
others was spatial grandeur. Enabled by the vast powers of socialist planners to control
space, this feature was most clearly visible in two types of projects: ceremonial civic
spaces and housing projects (which, under socialism, were of course built under public
auspices). Both Belgrade and Sofia offer excellent examples. Novi Beograd was the first
and most massive of several housing estates that surrounded Belgrades old core between
1950 and 1980. In addition to its colossal residential towers, the district includes a number
of equally grand public buildings and spaces such as the Yugoslav Palace of the Federation
and the New Fairgrounds. Sofias center was transformed twice under socialism, each
time after the demolition of vast stretches of historic urban fabric: first in the 1950s with
the construction of the Largo complex, which comprises a number of ceremonial public

799

LANDSCAPES OF POSTMODERNITY

TABLE 4. COMPARATIVE RESIDENTIAL PROFILES OF NOVI BEOGRAD AND MLADOST

Novi Beograd
(2002)
Land area (ha)
Population
Residential units
Residential buildings
Average number of units per building

Mladost
(2001)

4,074

1,678

217,773

95,505

78,324

39,289

3,265

1,851

24

21

Share of dwelling units located in buildings of up to four stories

0.35

0.08

Share of dwelling units located in buildings between five and nine stories

0.37

0.68

Share of residential units located in buildings of more than nine stories

0.28

0.25

buildings along a wide formal boulevard, and second during the 1980s with the erection
of the massive Peoples Palace and its adjacent plazas.
There have been no new public projects of such spatial scale after socialism (in fact,
the once public Peoples Palace in Sofia now houses a private convention center, shops,
and a cinema). The economic crisis of the 1990s, the re-emergence of the land market, the
diminished capacity of the public sector to build, and the fragmented nature of the private
development industry have all combined to spell the end of socialist-type grandeur.16
This decline in spatial scale is equally well reflected in housing. In lieu of the large
towers for collectivist living produced during socialism, the postsocialist market offers
single-family homes, row housing, and medium-sized multifamily buildings. In
Belgrade, the share of single-family homes among all new housing units built in 2003, for
instance, represented 65% of all new housing units as compared to 36% in 1990 (Vujovic
and Petrovic, 2007). Sofia does not maintain statistics on single-family homes but its data
show that, from 1989 to 2001, the average number of dwelling units per building dropped
from about 10 to 5, which also hints at a notable shift in the scale of new housing forms.
Socialist districts such as Novi Beograd and Mladost provide a useful illustration. The
scales of their residential structures are similar.17 As compared to buildings that form the
19th- and early-to-mid-20th-century cores of Belgrade and Sofia, Novi Beograd and
Mladost are characterized by very tall and large modernist buildings (of more than 20
units on the average; Table 4). A look at historic data in Mladost offers insights into how
this scale has changed over time. In the 1970s, the average number of units per building
was 34; in the 1980s, it rose to 48; in the 1990s, however, it dropped to 13. And, while the

16

One exception to this rule is the building of Belgrades St. Sava Cathedral (the largest functioning Eastern
Orthodox church in the world). Most construction occurred during the Milosevic regime, with the clear goal of
boosting national pride. Large commercial venues like the foreign hypermarkets are another exception.
17
There is one key difference. Novi Beograd lies close to Belgrades core; Mladost is farther out. Because of
this, Novi Beograd is now an extension of Belgrades downtown; Mladost comes closer to being an edge city.

800

SONIA HIRT

Fig. 7. A shift in scale and styles as seen from the edge of Sofia. The tall, grey buildings in the background
form the socialist estates. In front is a layer of single- and two-family homes and low-height apartment buildings built since the end of socialism. There is a clear architectural rupture between the concrete, uniform, and
flat-roofed socialist buildings and the layer of smaller postsocialist structures with their multilayered volumes,
sloped roofs, and colorful facades of red brick and painted stucco.

large majority of units built during socialism were in buildings exceeding six stories, only
half of those built in the 1990s were in buildings of such height. Comparable data on Novi
Beograd are not available18 but an extensive visual inspection indicates a similar trend
toward smaller-scale built formsa trend that has resulted in contrasting socialist and
postsocialist layers of the city (Figs. 7 and 8).
However, there is an important difference. In Belgrade, the shift in building scale, at
least in housing projects, began before socialisms end. Residential neighborhoods constructed in Novi Beograd during the 1980s (e.g., in Beanijska Kosa) already exhibited a
transition toward a more human-scale environmentan environment no longer dominated by massive, concrete, Le-Corbusier-like structures (Fig. 9).
In Belgrade, there also was a parallel transition in the organization of open public
space. The modernist dictum of placing freestanding buildings among vast stretches of
common green spacean idea that affirmed the supremacy of the public realm over private interests (Holston, 1987)seems to have given way to a different design model.
Green space in front of buildings from the 1980s often is organized into small, semiprivate yards framed by landscaping elements (Fig. 9). No such shift can be observed in the
socialist areas of Sofia. The interviewees suggested that this contrast stems at least
partially from the different ideological climates of Bulgaria and Yugoslavia in the 1980s:
I dont think that conditions here [in Bulgaria] in the 1980s were very different from
those in the 1970s. The transition really started in 1990. I think by the 1980s most
of my colleagues had already developed a certain allergy toward the panel-made

18

Comparable data from the 1970s and 1980s could not be obtained. Parts of Novi Beograd were recently
included in Surcin. Post-2000 data do not cover the same area as earlier data and have inconsistencies.

LANDSCAPES OF POSTMODERNITY

801

Fig. 8. A shift in scale and styles as seen from the edge of Belgrade. The massive concrete towers of Novi
Beograd comprise the photos backdrop. In front is a layer of more humanely scaled, post-1980 buildings
exhibiting various stylistic influences, such as revived national, postmodern and neoclassic. Belgrade differs
from Sofia in that the shift in scale and styles started earlier in Belgrade and is visible in socialist districts like
Novi Beograd itself.

buildings. But to design differently was not quite allowed. Only select architects
favored by the regime had a bit more freedom to experiment. For example, echoing
traditional Bulgarian architecture was already in fashion but this was happening
mainly in landmark public buildings. Most of us who designed the regular residential blocks still operated in the mode of mass-housing production. The idea of
building private yards had not received much official endorsement. Here and there,
some colleagues experimented with larger, semienclosed balconies to give people
more privacy, but otherwise the idea was that the socialist man will thrive in the
socialist districts, as we had gotten accustomed to designing them. Trying to do the
opposite would mean that you are antimodern, if not worse. (Interview with expert
from Sofias Directorate of Architecture and Urban Planning, June 2005)
I think by 1980, most of us [Yugoslav architects] had taken down the portrait of Le
Corbusier off the wall. Our architects were very much in tune with the global
trends, I think, and there was a pretty strong professional consensus that mistakes
were made in the Athens Charter. It was pretty clear that these enormous modernist buildings and vast empty public spaces carried a heavy human cost, psychologically speaking. So the whole [modernist] idea was already pass. (Interview
with expert from Municipality of Belgrade, July 2005)
The observations above suggest that despite the fact that there are some contrasts (e.g.,
the earlier introduction of human-scale forms and semiprivate spaces in Belgrades housing projects in the 1980s), the two cities share the broad outlines of change. In both, the
causes behind the decline of spatial and building scale stem from the economic crisis and
the sharply reduced role of the once-almighty public sector in city-building. These experiences have affected cities across Eastern Europe although to varying degrees depending
mostly on the depth of the 1990s economic downturn in the rspective countries (e.g.,

802

SONIA HIRT

Fig. 9. Belgrades cautious break with austere modernism in the 1980s. As compared to the bland grey
towers which form the background of Figure 8, this 1980s building shows the softer side of Novi Beograd.
Not only is it of more humane scale than its 1970s predecessors, but it includes details borrowed from Serbian
national architecturethe sloped tile roof, the white stucco faade, and the dark-wood windows. Furthermore,
green space around the building is semienclosedyet another antimodernist novelty standing in sharp contrast to most of Novi Beograd.

Stanilov, 2007a). Yet, whereas these changes are clearly linked to the postsocialist transition, they are also reminiscent of the decline of public spaces and shift in building scales
described by theorists of postmodern urbanism (Ellin, 1996; Loukaitou-Sideris and
Banerjee, 1998).
Changes in Architectural Styles
As the previous section alluded, Yugoslav architecture was already moving away from
orthodox modernism in the 1980s. Exposed concrete, flat roofs, and repetitive, pure
architectural masses gave way to painted stucco, sloped tile roofs, and more informal,
multilayered volumes. New attention was focused on architectural details, including
details inspired by traditional Serbian styles. The shift in style is visible in Novi Beograd
(Fig. 9) as well as in several other city areas, such as Padina and Banija.
The 1990s intensified this architectural transition in Belgrade and brought it, more
abruptly, to the doorstep of Sofia. The new built forms are the visual opposite of socialist
formalism, repetitiveness, and purity of form; they are the spatial rejection of the socialist
message of strict state control. The resulting architecture is perhaps best described as ad
hoc architecture or perhaps accidental architecture. If socialist districts were carefully
planned with formal public spaces and a coherent, uniform style in mind, postsocialist

LANDSCAPES OF POSTMODERNITY

803

Fig. 10. A series of small buildings that were erected illegally on public space in Novi Beograd in the 1990s
and later legalized. The buildings contain dwellings and small businesses such as the Bali Caf and a print shop
with the ambitious name PrintSerbia.

buildingswhether kiosks or small housespop up impromptu, often without any

formal planning and right upon the once-formally organized open public spaces. This
new spontaneity is particularly true for Belgrade where planning authorities in the 1990s
nearly collapsed, leading to the construction of myriad unauthorized small buildings
(Vujovic and Petrovic, 2007). The new forms pierce the existing strict stylistic order with
their surprising shapes and bright colors (Fig. 10, also Figs. 5 and 6). As an architect from
Sofia shared, We seem to have moved from one extreme to the other. Back in its day,
Mladost must have been one of the most boring places on earth. But look around now
you walk a bit and you learn to expect the unexpected (Interview from June 2005).
As the landscapes reveal, there is a sharp rupture between the formal discipline of the
large grey buildings from the socialist era and the cheerful chaos of new shapes, signs,
and logos. The latter seems to be driven not only by capitalisms everlasting need to selfadvertise, but also by the freeing of a long-suppressed desire of owners and builders to do
as they wish without restrictions. As one planner from Sofia put it, People are so sick of
being told how to live that some now take pride in breaking the planning norms. I think
the new rule [of architecture] is Shock thy neighbor (Interview from June 2005).
The neighborhoods of the nouveau riche, such as Sofias Boyana and Lozenetz and
Belgrades Dedinje and Padina, are a particularly compelling embodiment of the new
rule. There, the startled visitor has the dubious privilege of viewing a diversity of styles
that cross time and space, from Bulgarian and Serbian Revival to Tudor and from
neogothic to neomodern. Popular details include gilded lions, marble balustrades,
Egyptian-like sculptures, and Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian columns, placed strategically
on the Ottoman-like stone walls that surround lavish homes. Of particular prominence is
a reinvigorated classicism popularly known as Mafia Baroqueperhaps a reflection of

804

SONIA HIRT

Fig. 11. Mafia Baroque: The spectacular gates in front of a new single-family home in Belgrades most
prestigious neighborhood, Dedinje.

the aspirations of new (and often illegally earned) money to project legitimacy by
embracing the striking glamour of the old, classic style (Fig. 11).
The haphazard juxtaposition of the grey formalism left over from the early socialist
decades, the cautious break with modernism from the 1980s, and the informality and confused eclecticism of the 1990s have produced a postsocialist bricolage of uses, styles, and
signs (Fig. 12). This bricolage seems the near-perfect reflection of what Jonathan Raban
(1974) once described as an urban emporia of styles and what Charles Jencks (1993)
referred to as the dissonant beauty of heterogeneous architecture.
CONCLUSION
The empirical notes on Belgrade and Sofia offered above support the claim that the
built fabrics of these cities are changing in accordance with the theories of postsocialist
urbanism. Both cities have experienced commercialization, decrease of spatial scale, and
radical aesthetic diversification. However, the seeds of change were planted earlier in
Belgrade. Because of former Yugoslavias pre-1990 pro-Western economic and cultural
orientation, de-industrialization began earlier. There were also visible shifts toward a
more humane development scale and a richer architecture, which penetrated even the
grimmest socialist estates. On the other hand, de-industrialization trends slowed during
the 1990s, and certain commercial spaceswhether for good or badnow lag behind.
As a result of the swifter demise of state authority and the legal chaos that defined Serbia
in the 1990s (and because of the earlier break with modernism), Belgrade entered the 21st

LANDSCAPES OF POSTMODERNITY

805

Fig. 12. Belgrades bricolage. In the background is a concrete, monochromatic, and flat-roofed residential
building from the 1970s. In front of it are human-scale buildings from the 1980s with brick faades and arched
structural elements in the postmodern tradition. Today their lower floors are taken by small shops, which have
added a layer of competing logos, awnings, and miniroofs along this street in Novi Beograd.

century with a more radical informality of built forms and a braver stylistic eclecticism
than did Sofia.
Differences aside, however, Belgrade and Sofia clearly share the broad outline of
changes in functions, scales, and styles. If, as noted earlier, Szelenyis three features of
the socialist city reflect the dominance of production over consumption, the public and
the collective over the private and the individual, and order and discipline over diversity
and marginality, then the three postsocialist features described here manifest the dawn of
a postindustrial consumer society, the sharp decline of the public realm, and the challenge
to disciplinary authority posed by a newly emboldened pluralism in everyday life.
But put in those terms, the three aspects of postsocialist urbanism do not seem that
uniquely postsocialist. Rather, they share the basic outlines of a postmodern shift typically discussed in Western postindustrial contexts. What I propose here is that the landscapes of todays Eastern Europe may be as paradigmatic postmodern examples as the
landscapes of California and other avant-garde centers of Western urbanism (where postmodern theorists usually take us; Jencks, 1993; Dear, 2000).
I argue that postsocialist spaces display the contrast between the modern and the postmodern in strikingly vivid hues because they speak of the culture of unrestrained personalism and privatism and avalanche-like collapse of officialdom that makes
postsocialist societies perhaps more postmodern than the societies that invented the term

806

SONIA HIRT

(Kharkhordin, 1995, pp. 224225). There, in postsocialist cities, the remnants of a oncevictorious disciplined modernity have made their most heart-wrenching rendezvous
(heart-wrenching for any true modernist, that is) with the offspring of a thriving postmodernity. There, in postsocialist cities, tiny, illegally built shops from the 1990s unabashedly consume the vast public green spaces from the 1970s; piecemeal development
corrodes the once-tightly planned and strictly enforced spatial order; a riot of ad-hoc
shapes and colors overpowers the solemn aesthetics of modernist functionalism and collectivism. Therefore, while others have shown us the advent of postmodernity in Western
cityscapes such as Baltimore (Harvey, 1990), I see it equally well displayed in Belgrade.
REFERENCES
Andrusz, G., 1996, Structural change and boundary instability. In G. Andrusz, M. Harloe,
and I. Szelenyi, editors, Cities After Socialism: Urban and Regional Change and Conflict in Post-Socialist Societies. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 3069.
Bailey, J., 2002, From public to private: The development of the concept of the private.
Social Research, Vol. 69, No. 1, 1531.
Banerjee, T., 2004, Beijing, Berlin and Bucharest: Legacies of Socialist Modernity at the
End of History. Paper presented at the 11th Conference of the International Planning
History Society, July 1417, Barcelona, Spain.
Bauman, Z., 1991, Living without an alternative. The Political Quarterly, Vol. 62, No. 1,
3544.
Bauman, Z., 1992, Imitations of Postmodernity. London, UK, and New York, NY:
Routledge.
Bauman, Z., 1995, Searching for a center that holds. In M. Featherstone, S. Lash, and R.
Roberson, editors, Global Modernities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 140154.
Bertaud, A., 2006, The spatial structures of Central and Eastern European cities. In S.
Tsenkova and Z. Nedovic-Budic, editors, The Urban Mosaic of Post-Socialist Europe.
Heidelberg, Germany: Springer and Physica-Verlag, 91112.
Bertaud, A. and Renaud, B., 1995, Cities Without Markets: Location and Land Use in the
Socialist City. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Blagojevic, L., 2003, The Elusive Margins of Belgrade Architecture 19191941.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bodnar, J., 2001, Fin de Millenaire Budapest: Metamorphoses of Urban Life. Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Boym, S., 2001, Nostalgia, Moscow Style, Harvard Design Magazine, Vol. 13, 18.
Buckley, R. and Tsenkova, S., 2001, Strategia za Razvitie na Grad Sofia: Predvaritelna
Ocenka [Stratregy for the development of the City of Sofia: A preliminary assessment]. Sofia, Bulgaria: Stolichna Obshtina, Direkcia po Arhitektura i Gradoustrojstvo.
(In Bulgarian)
Colliers International Bulgaria, 2006, Retail Market Overview. Retrieved October 11,
2007, from http://www.colliers.com/Content/Repositories/Base/Markets/Bulgaria/
English/Market_Report/PDFs/RetailMarketReportFirstHalf2006.pdf
Colliers International Bulgaria, 2007a, Market Overview: Office in Bulgaria Second Half
2007. Retrieved October 11, 2007, from http://www.colliers.com/Content/Repositories/

LANDSCAPES OF POSTMODERNITY

807

Base/Markets/Bulgaria/English/Market_Report/PDFs/SofiaOfficeMarket
OverviewH22007.pdf
Colliers International Bulgaria, 2007b, Market Overview: Retail in Bulgaria Second Half
2007. Retrieved October 11, 2007, from http://www.colliers.com/Content/Repositories/
Base/Markets/Bulgaria/English/Market_Report/PDFs/BulgariaRetailMarketReport
1stHalfof2007.pdf
Colliers International Serbia, 2007a, Office Market Overview: Belgrade. Retrieved
October 11, 2007, from http://www.colliers.com/Content/Repositories/Base/Markets/
SerbiaMontenegro/English/Market_Report/PDFs/BelgradeOfficeFirstHalf2007.pdf
Colliers International Serbia, 2007b, Retail Market Overview: Belgrade. Retrieved
October 11, 2007, from http://www.colliers.com/Content/Repositories/Base/Markets/
SerbiaMontenegro/English/Market_Report/PDFs/SerbiaRetailFirstHalf2007.pdf
Crowley, D. and Reid, S., editors, 2002, Socialist Spaces: Sites of Everyday Life in the
Eastern Bloc. Oxford, UK: Berg.
Dear, M., 2000, The Postmodern Urban Condition. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Dear, M. and Flusty, S., 2002a, Introduction: How to map a radical break. In M. Dear and
S. Flusty, editors, The Spaces of Postmodernity. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Dear, M. and Flusty, S., 2002b, Postmodern urbanism. In M. Dear and S. Flusty, editors,
The Spaces of Postmodernity. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 216234.
Directorate of Architecture and Urban Design [Direkcia po Arhitektura i Gradoustrojstvo], 2003, Obsht Ustrojstven Plan na Grad Sofia i Stolichnata Obshtina:
Sukraten Doklad [General Development Plan of Sofia and the Capital Region: An
Abbreviated Report]. Sofia, Bulgaria: Stolichna Obshtina. (In Bulgarian)
Djuric-Kuzmanovic, T. and Zarkov, D., 1999, Poverty and Directed Non-Development in
Serbia. Retrieved October 3, 2007, from http://condor.depaul.edu/~rrotenbe/aeer/
v17n2/Kuzmanovic.pdf
EBRD (European Bank for Reconstruction and Development), 2007a, Bulgaria: EBRD
Country Factsheet. Retrieved October 9, 2007, from http://www.ebrd.com/pubs/
factsh/country/bulgaria.pdf
EBRD (European Bank for Reconstruction and Development), 2007b, Serbia: EBRD
Country Factsheet, Retrieved October 9, 2007, from http://www.ebrd.com/pubs/
factsh/country/serbia.pdf
Ellin, N., 1996, Postmodern Urbanism. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press.
Garb, Y. and Dybicz, T., 2006, The retail revolution in post-socialist Central Europe and
its lessons. In S. Tsenkova and Z. Nedovic-Budic, editors, The Urban Mosaic of PostSocialist Europe: Space, Institutions and Policy. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer and
Physica-Verlag, 231252.
Hadzic, M., 2002, Rethinking privatization in Serbia. Eastern European Economics, Vol.
40, No. 6, 623.
Harvey, D., 1990, The Condition of Post-Modernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Havel, V., 1992a, The End of the Modern Era. Excerpts from a speech delivered at the
World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on February 4, 2004. New York Times,
March 1, Section 4, p. 15.
Havel, V., 1992b, Summer Meditations (P. Wilson, trans.). New York, NY: A. Knopf.

808

SONIA HIRT

Havel, V., 1994, Search for something of value: Man as observer increasingly alienated
from himself as being. Buffalo News, July 10, Viewpoints section, p. 8.
Hirt, S., 2005, Planning the post-communist city: Experiences from Sofia. International
Planning Studies, Vol. 10, No. 3/4, 219240.
Hirt, S., 2006, Post-socialist urban forms: Notes from Sofia. Urban Geography, Vol. 27,
464488.
Holston, J., 1987, The Modernist City: An Anthropological Critique of Brasilia. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Humphrey, C., 2002, The villas of the New Russians: A sketch of consumption and
cultural identity in post-Soviet landscapes. In C. Humphrey, editor, The Unmaking of
Soviet Life: Everyday Economies After Socialism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Inglehart, R., 1997, Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic and
Social Change in 43 Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Institute for Informatics and Statistics (Zavod za Informatiu i Statistiku), 2005, Statisticheski godishnik za grada Beograda [Statistical Yearbook of the City of Belgrade].
Belgrade, Serbia: Institute for Informatics and Statistics. (In Serbian)
Invest Bulgaria, 2006, Bulgaria Factsheet 2006: Economy, Investment, Business &
Industry. Retrieved October 10, 2007, from http://www.bulgarianembassy-london.org/
pdf/Factsheet.pdf
Ioan, A., 2007, The peculiar history of (post)communist public places and spaces;
Bucharest as a case study. In K. Stanilov, editor, The Post-Socialist City: Urban Form
and Space Transformations in Central and Eastern Europe After Socialism.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 301312.
Jencks, C., 1987, Postmodernism: The New Classicism in Art and Architecture. New
York, NY: Rizzoli.
Jencks, C., 1993, Heteropolis: Los AngelesThe Riots and Strange Beauty of Heterogeneous Architecture. New York, NY: St. Martins Press.
Kharkhordin, O., 1995, The Soviet individual: Genealogy of a dissimulating animal. In
M. Featherstone, S. Lash, and R. Robertson, editors, Global Modernities. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage, 209226.
Klassanov, M., 1992, Totalitarism, democraciya, arhitektura [Totalitarianism, democracy,
architecture]. Arhitektura, Vol. 6, 2631. (In Bulgarian)
Kumar, K., 1995, From Post-Industrial to Post-Modern Society. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Leontidou, L., 1993, Postmodernism and the city: Mediterranean versions. Urban Studies,
Vol. 3, No. 6, 949965.
Ley, D., 2003, Forgetting postmodernism? Recuperating a social history of local knowledge. Progress in Human Geography, Vol. 27, No. 5, 537560.
Lizon, P., 1996, East-Central Europe: The unhappy heritage of socialist mass housing.
Journal of Architectural Education, Vol. 50, No. 2, 104114.
Loukaitou-Sideris, A. and Banerjee, T., 1998, Urban Design Downtown: Poetics and
Politics of Form. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Low, S. and Tsenkova, S., 2003, Housing Change in East and Central Europe: Integration or Fragmentation? Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Maric, D., 2002, Vodich Kroz Modernu Arhitectury Beograda [Guide to Modern Architecture in Belgrade]. Belgrade, Serbia: Drujstvo Arhitekta Beograda. (In Serbian)

LANDSCAPES OF POSTMODERNITY

809

Milanovic, B., 1997, Income, Inequality and Poverty During the Transition from Planned
to Market Economy. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Murray, R., 1992, Fordism and post-Fordism. In C. Jencks, editor, A Post-Modern
Reader. London, UK: Academy Editions, 267276.
National Statistical Institute (Nacionalen Statisticheski Institut), 1993, Statisticheski
SbornikSofia [Statistical compilationSofia]. Sofia, Bulgaria: National Statistical
Institute.
National Statistical Institute (Nacionalen Statisticheski Institut), 2003, Sofia v Chisla
[Sofia in numbers]. Sofia, Bulgaria: National Statistical Institute. (In Bulgarian)
Nedovic-Budic, Z., 2001, Adjustment of planning practice to the Eastern and Central
European context. Journal of American Planning Association, Vol. 67, No. 1, 3852.
Nedovic-Budic, Z. and Cavric, B., 2006, Waves of planning: A framework for studying
the evolution of planning systems and empirical insights from Serbia and Montenegro.
Planning Perspectives, Vol. 21 (October), 393425.
Nedovic-Budic, Z., Tsenkova, S., and Marcuse, P., 2006, The urban mosaic of postsocialist Europe. In S. Tsenkova and Z. Nedovic-Budic, editors, The Urban Mosaic of
Post-Socialist Europe. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer and Physica-Verlag, 320.
Nijman, J., 2007, IntroductionComparative urbanism. Urban Geography, Vol. 28, 16.
Perovic, M. and Zegarac, Z., 2000, The destruction of an architectural culture: The 1999
bombing of Belgrade. Cities, Vol. 17, No. 6, 395408.
Petrovic, M., 2001, Post-socialist housing policy transformation in Yugoslavia and
Belgrade. European Journal of Housing Policy, Vol. 1, No. 2, 211231.
Raban, J., 1974, Soft City. London, UK: Hamilton.
Rajchev, A., Kolev, K., Boundjoulov, A., and Dimova, L., 2000, Socialnoto Razdelenie v
Bulgaria [Social Stratification in Bulgaria]. Sofia, Bulgaria: Institut za Razvitie na
Demokraciyata.
Ray, L., 1997, Post-communism: Postmodernity or modernity revisited? The British
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 48, No. 4, 543560.
Relph, E., 1987, The Modern Urban Landscape. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.
Sarmany-Parsons, I., 1998, Aesthetic aspects of change in urban space in Prague and
Budapest during the transition. In G. Enyedi, editor, Social Change and Urban
Restructuring in Central Europe. Budapest, Hungary: Akademiai Kiado, 209231.
Scarpaci, J., 2000, On the transformation of socialist cities. Urban Geography, Vol. 21,
659669.
Schrenk, M., 1979, Yugoslavia: Self-Management, Socialism and the Challenges of
Development. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Scott, J., 1998, Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Serbia Investment and Export Promotion Agency, 2006, FDI Trace Records. Retrieved
October 10, 2007, from http://www/siepa.sr.gov.yu/investment/investor_guide/
fdi.htm
Sheppard, E., 2000, Socialist cities? Urban Geography, Vol. 21, 758763.
Staddon, C. and Mollov, B., 2000, City profile: Sofia, Bulgaria. Cities, Vol. 17, No. 5,
379387.
Stanilov, K., 2007a, Housing trends in Central and Eastern European cities during and
after the period of the transition. In K. Stanilov, editor, The Post-Socialist City: Urban

810

SONIA HIRT

Form and Space Transformations in Central and Eastern Europe After Socialism.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 173190.
Stanilov, K., 2007b, The restructuring of non-residential uses in the post-socialist metropolis. In K. Stanilov, editor, The Post-Socialist City: Urban Form and Space Transformations in Central and Eastern Europe After Socialism. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Springer, 73100.
Stanilov, K., 2007c, Urban planning and the challenges of post-socialist transformation.
In K. Stanilov, editor, The Post-Socialist City: Urban Form and Space Transformations in Central and Eastern Europe After Socialism. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Springer, 413426.
Sykora, L., 1994, Local urban restructuring as a mirror of globalization processes: Prague
in the 1990s. Urban Studies, Vol. 31, No. 7, 11491166.
Sykora, L., 1998, Commercial property development in Budapest, Prague and Warsaw.
In G. Enyedi, editor, Social Change and Urban Restructuring in Central Europe.
Budapest, Hungary: Akademiai Kiado, 109136.
Sykora, L., 2000, The geography of post-communist cities: Research agenda for 2000+.
Acta Facultatis Rerum Naturalium Universitatis Comenieanae, Geographica, Supplementum, Vol. 2 (II), 269278.
Sykora, L., 2007, Office development and post-communist city formation: The case
of Prague. In K. Stanilov, editor, The Post-Socialist City: Urban Form and Space
Transformations in Central and Eastern Europe After Socialism. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Springer, 117146.
Szelenyi, I., 1996, Cities under socialismAnd after. In G. Andrusz, M. Harloe, and I.
Szelenyi, editors, Cities After Socialism: Urban and Regional Change and Conflict in
Post-Socialist Societies. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 286317.
UN Economic Commission for Europe, 2005, Country Profiles of Housing Sector:
Serbia and Montenegro. Geneva, Switzerland, and New York, NY: United Nations.
Urban Institute of Belgrade (Urbanisticki Zavod Beograda), 2003, Slujebeni List Grada
Beograda [Belgrade Master Plan]. Belgrade, Serbia: Urbanisticki Zavod Beograda.
(In Serbian)
Vujosevic, M. and Nedovic-Budic, Z., 2006, Planning and the societal context: The case
of Belgrade, Serbia. In S. Tsekova and Z. Nedovic-Budic, editors, The Urban Mosaic
of Post-Socialist Europe. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer and Physica-Verlag, 275
294.
Vujovic, M. and Petrovic, M., 2007, Belgrades post-socialist urban evolution. In K.
Stanilov, editor, The Post-Socialist City: Urban Form and Space Transformations in
Central and Eastern Europe After Socialism. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer,
361384.
Wu, F., 2003, Commentary. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 35, 13311338.
Yin, R., 1994, Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zegarac, Z., 1999, Illegal construction in Belgrade and the prospects of urban development planning, Cities, Vol. 16, No. 5, 365370.