PLACEMAKING IN PROTECTED SETLEMENTS: BAC FORTRESS SUBURBIUM
Tatjana Mrdjenovic, PhD;
University of Belgrade – Faculty of Architecture, Bulevar kralja Aleksandra 73/2, 11000 Belgrade,
Serbia
e-mail: tmrdjenovic@gmail.com, tmrdjenovic@arh.bg.ac.rs
Abstract:
Quality of places has became one of the main issues in the process of sustainable urban and rural
development. Protected settlements are usually treated as museums on open space when physical
structures represents past values. Contemporary approach for integrating previous values into
everyday life assumes that not only physical artifacts are those who are berries of past identity. This
identity is hidden into heritable patterns of living, organizing, social-cultural production and should be
promoted and integrated into contemporary life. Previous cultural-social practice becomes one of our
main duties for preservation and transfer to future generations. This practice becomes one of the main
issues in placemaking of protected settlements, especially when it should be re-discovered and
integrated into contemporary ways of living. The paper will discuss integral urban design game as a
placemaking method in protected settlements specifically in Bac fortress suburbia in Serbia. This
settlement has various attributes: vernecularity in urban morphology, contemporary life in past
structures, variety of social and cultural structure, proximity to Bac Fortress. The main problem is how
to protect it in a manner that allows contemporary living patterns, new needs for social and economic
production as well as social integration. The problem was treated in the workshop and training:
Participative urban design for Bac fortress suburbium, which included relevant local and regional
stakeholders, both students at University of Belgrade – Faculty of Architecture and at the Summer
school of Architecture in Bac. The aim of the paper is to elaborate outcomes of the workshop in relation
to placemaking theory giving guidelines for treating similar cases in domestic and foreign practice.
Key words: placemaking, protected settlements, sustainability, methods
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In line with contemporary dynamic relations in the process of globalization the identity and quality of
places is crucial factor of place recognition in global network.The competition for global recognition
opens many chances to local cultures for socio-economic development, developing new relations in
global networking. According to Castells local community and local cultures becomes core factor in
cultural identity .Globalization as complex process carries plurality of cultures, interests and needs that
should be recognized and accepted in urban development process. The plurality carries conflicts and
contradictions that are balanced by concept of sustainability.
Sustainable development is a process of balancing plurality of cultures, interests and needs, integrating
them into coherent whole .Baker recognizes four models of sustainability according to their
philosophical orientation: anthropocentrism and eco-centrism. The models are defined as ideal (which
is on the extreme position of eco-centrism, where nature is intrinsic value), Strong model of sustainable
development (which is between eco-centrism and anthropocentrism), Weak sustainable development,
and Pollution control (which is on the outermost position of anthropocentrism) . This paper will stand
for the models that are more on the side of anrtopocentrism, as culture is a product of civilization,
taking into account environmental and ecological problems through integrated approach. Integration
of sectors of sustainability - economy, society, environment (both built and natural) is conceptualized
through different diagrams (models): The Venn Diagram, The Nesting model, The Mercury model and
The Swedish prism model. The last takes into account institutional development as fourth dimension
of sustainability. All these types shape a specific approach to regeneration.
Taking into account sustainability as a global concept, contemporary approach to regeneration means
creating sustainable places, integrating different developmental sectors, identities and interests into
place creation through decision making process, providing quality of life for citizens. In Serbia
regeneration is, according to Bazik:“Process of defining integral policies that integrates global and local
level, through inter-sectoral relations between economic, social, environmental and institutional
development”(Bazik,2006) Also, Vaništa Lazarević and Djukic say that regeneration in Serbia needs
multidisciplinary approach, which bounds architects, urban designers and planners, landscape
architects, spatial planers, economists, financial experts, sociologists, marketing experts. Apart from
interdisciplinarity, regeneration needs participation, wider social inclusiveness as well as public-private
partnerships that contribute to active regeneration. (Vanista & Djukic, 2006) This also, puts forward
urban decision making process as a carrier of quality of regeneration.
Sustainable regeneration and globalization and frame new context for urban design and its relation to
development. Theories of urban design vary in line with different socio-economic context and it is seen
more as a product or process. In line with complexity of regeneration and its focus on decision making,
I would say that urban design is a process of integration rational and collaborative paradigm of decision
making, mediating different realities through communicative action. Seen as a process of place
creation, urban design integrates different dimensions of space production.
Seen as a process of decision making, urban design can provide sustainable framework for
regeneration considering main principles of sustainability.EUrecognizesneed for developing European
methodology for managing cultural heritage in the frame of sustainable development, creating an
instrument for qualitative and quantitative assessment of public and private investments on
developing cultural heritage, defining the role of cultural heritage in providing new jobs, creating
preconditions for sustainable development through partnership between public, private and civil
sector. Serbia is in the process of expert and public discussion on the model of integration that is
appropriate for domestic context. Therefore, innovative methods and techniques for placemaking are
needed.
2.0 PLACEMAKING AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF PROTECTED SETTLEMENTS
Placemaking theory evolved over the time from the postmodernism movement to sutainable places.
On the other hand, We can seek roots on place notion in Aristotelle concept of space. According to
Aristotelle space reperesents a network of places that are mutually interconnected according to their
synergy potential. (Aristotelle acc. to Shultz, 1975) Euclid concept of space is just a content in the wider
setting of plural caracteristics in holstic rleation space-time-concept-cognition-man-needs-values.
Place has various dimesions that are not just spatial and temporal, but also social, economic, cultural,
imaginational, perceptive, iconographic, etc. Eventhough, modernism movement had its own concept
of space in representational manner it is more Euclid than multidimensional. However, integration is
the crutial word to all architectural constructs. It is present in Aristotelle - Relational, Euclid - Absolut,
therefore in modern and postmodern.
Integration is seen in CIAM Athens charter as necessary bounding factor among spatial distant and
segregated spaces/city zones. In comparison to Aristotele thought it can be concluded that modernist
space is a network of mutually synergized places. However, the main element is/was missing: everyday
life cycle of integration. Here we are: integration failed in modernist movement, therefore the whole
concept had a systematic mistake. The integrative layer was missing, I would say settled in the wrong
time. Traffic can not be an integrative element if it is not seen in sustainable concept as per se
represents non-place. The sustainable transport systems seek to redefine the role and caracter of
transport in the city, making it more mobile transferring to system of places. Sustainability has the
power of integration.
Sustainable development is a spatial development paradigm evolved over the years from the concern
for natural resources toward integrative approach among different rationalities and developmental
paradigms: “Sustainable paradigm aims to shape future places and spaces taking responsibility for
economic, social, natural, built, and institutional development. A conception of space is global, local,
and glocal, integrating plural meanings in holistic manner. ” (Mrdjenovic, 2014) Table 1 presents the
systematization of developmental paradigms regarding the type and level of integration that they
provide in urban regeneration (Table 1).
Table 1: Interrelations between paradigms with regard to urban regeneration, (Mrdjenovic,2014)
Urban design, planning and regeneration paradigm
Hall’s
typology
(Hall,
2002)
Garden
city
concept
Vision of
regional
city
Monumen
tal
tradition
Modern
city
Reeves’
typology
(Reeves,
20(conn
ection
to Hall)
Collaborati
ve, Social,
Economic,
Environme
ntal,
Physical
Collaborati
ve, Social,
Economic,
Public
administra
tion,
Environme
ntal,
Physical
Physical,
Economic,
Physical,
Public
administ
ration
Type of
integrati
on
Integratio
n of all
developm
ental
sectors
(economic
,
social,
environme
ntal).
Institution
al
horizontal
and
vertical
integratio
n,
Developin
g soft and
hard
infrastruct
ure
Integratio
n of all
developm
ental
sectors
(economic
,
social,
environme
ntal),
Institution
al
horizontal
and
vertical
integratio
n,
Developin
g
hard
infrastruct
ure
Vertical
integratio
n, Top –
down,
Developin
g
hard
infrastruct
ure
Social
Vertical
integrati
on, Top
– down,
Developi
ng hard
infrastru
cture
People
build for
themsel
ves
City of
infinite
mobility
Collabor
ative,
Environ
mental
Physical
Horizont
al
integrati
on,
Building
trust,
Boundin
g type of
social
capital,
Developi
ng soft
infrastru
cture
Physical
by
traffic
‘uniting
lines’,
Develop
ing hard
infrastr
ucture
Theory in
urban
planning
and
theory of
planning
Regeneration of
inner cities –
sustainable city
Physical,
Public
administr
ation,
Sustainable
paradigm
S Social
Intersect
oral and
interdisci
plinary
integrati
on,
Network
of
planning
agencies,
Instrume
ntal, Topdown,
melting
pot,
Developi
ng hard
infrastruc
ture
Integration of all
developmental
sectors
(economic, social,
environmental).
Institutional
horizontal
and
vertical
integration,
Developing soft
and
hard
infrastructure,
Developmental
social
capital,
Building
partnerships
Level of
integrati
on
Multidime
nsional,
Physical
towards
environme
ntal,
Economic
and social
Multidime
nsional,
Physical
towards
environme
ntal,
Economic
and social
Multidime
nsional,
Economic
towards
social,
Built and
natural
environme
nt
Onesided
Two
dimensi
onal,
Social
towards
environ
ment
Onedimensi
onal,
sectoral
Onedimensio
nal with
multiple
communi
cation
channels
Multidimensional
,Habermas’s
communicativeargumentative
consensus,
Integrative space
and place
Type of
the
process
Visionary,
Strategic
Visionary,
Strategic
Visionary,
Blueprint
Utopist,
Blueprin
t
Project
oriented
Visionar
y,
Bluepri
nt
Project
oriented,
Blue print
Visionary,
Strategic, Project
oriented
Domina
nt type
of
rationali
ty
Instrumen
tal, Topdown
towards
collaborati
ve,
Environme
ntal
Instrumen
tal, Topdown
towards
collaborati
ve,
Political,
Environme
ntal
Political,
Positivistic
, Quasi –
instrumen
tal
Positivis
tic,
Instrum
ental,
Political,
Normati
ve
Quasicollabor
ative,
Environ
mental
Positivis
tic,
Instrum
ental,
Political
Positivisti
c,
Instrume
ntal
rationalit
y
Castells’s
and
Baudrillard's 'New
rationality',
Instumental and
collaborative,
Habermas's
communicative
rationality
Type of
identity
Reminisce
nce
identity of
place
Emerging
identity of
place
Monumen
tal
identity,
City
Beautiful
New
identity
of
emancip
ated
modern
man in
Modern
city
Identity
of social
space
Identity
of great
designs
Identity
of
efficiency
and
effective
ness of
planning
agencies
Project identity of
place and local
community,
Glocal identity
Table 1 shows the interconnections between different approaches in urban regeneration related to
favored urban paradigm. We can conclude that Hall’s and Reeves’s comparison shows that the
sustainable paradigm has been always present. The main issue is that it was practiced fragmentarily
over the history, until the study “Limits of growth” has been done. As sustainability is a concept whицх
implementation varies due to cultural and socioeconomic specifies, the comparison is relevant for
making difference between the betterment notions as a subject of urban regeneration. In line with
this, the betterment was more or less “sustainable” in particular paradigm, and reached its full
meaning of integration starting from the study “Limits of Growth” until today.
Therefore, sustainable approach to placemaking creates a balance between the protection and
development of local identities, including them responsibly into the global trends as the pillars of socioeconomic development. The simultaneous need for the protection of inherited values, and the
development of new ones, stresses the importance of an integral approach. At the same time, it implies
the preservation of non-renewable resources, such as urban cultural heritage, as well as facilitation in
the development of new ambient values. Such an approach combines the concepts of space with
different development paradigms (economic, social, physical, divided space) and promotes a multidimensional glocal place. In that way, a glocal place becomes a subject of regeneration, and focuses
on the problem of global and local identities.
„Contemporary approach to regeneration refers to qualitative advances of multi-dimensional
characteristics of places (spaces) . In the context of sustainable development, a place is defined
through the totality of its manifestation. Thereby, a place embraces the qualities of urban environment
through the affirmation and establishment of spatial, functional, visual and symbolic patterns, as well
as the vitalities of socio-economic life in urban space. The vitality of place is the result of these
relations; therefore it is achieved in the sustainable approach to regeneration through participation
and collaboration, where urban design is the integral factor of multi-dimensional regeneration.“
(Mrdjenovic et. al, 2011a)
On the other hand, integrative protection as a discipline is in line with international documents on UN,
EU and ICOMOS level that seeks to “bring life” into protected urban areas according to the principles
of sustainability (UNESCO, 2005;ICOMOS, 1998; ICOMOS, 1994; ICOMOS, 1982; ICOMOS, 1972).This
means integrative protection, also integrates different sectors of sustainability: economy, society,
environment and institutions through encouraging public participation to be active in the promotion
of cultural heritage in line with contemporary concept of cultural tourism (Dojčinović 2005). This kind
of integration leads to promotion and protection of non-renewable resource like cultural-historic
heritage. This process also leads to social cohesion among local people, who brings life into physical
structure, carrying social and knowledge of past times. This is essential for holistic approach between
past, present and future and our responsibility to preserve past and present cultural practice for future
generations.
As it is seen in Table 1 Sustainable paradigm creates intergal spaces for project oriented, integral places
that are multicultural, both collaborative and instrumenatal. Nowadays, sustainable development
seeks to integrate the positive aspects of all paradigms creating glocal, integrative space. The space
becomes as an arena for mediating differences in plural society. This integration means making
linkages not only between the sectors of sustainability and different interests, but also linkages
between different levels of governance, both horizontal and vertical. Therefore, I believe that
sustainable urban regeneration is a process of creating glocal identities and places using integrative
space as an instrument for developing Healey’s “hard and soft” infrastructure (Healey, 1997) or
Giddens’s “structures and agencies” (Giddens according to Dovey 1999). Here, I stand on Dovey’s point
that mediation in integrative space should be more “power to then power over” (Dovey, 1999). In line
with that, my thought is that creating, developing, and maintaining integrative space becomes a main
subject of sustainable regeneration. Thus, the question: How do we create, develop, and maintain the
integrative space? The answer needs further elaboration on the model of integrative space as well as
methods for its achievement.
In my opinion the model should provide glocal identities, spaces, and places that are in between CIAM
and New Urbanism. Here, I lean on Castells’s attitude that individual, local and national identities are
“frustrated” by the process of globalization. According to Castells they should create “project identity”
based on memory, present moment, and dreams of the future. This identity makes them pro-active
actors in the global community. Such actors are ready to develop new attributes with care and
protection of traditional ones (Castells, 2004). Only in that way the ‘ratio’ can be renewed on solid
bases, integrating plural identities and values into a coherent whole: “I believe in rationality, and in
possibility of calling upon reason […] I believe in the chances of meaningful social action, and
transformative politics, without necessarily drifting toward the deadly rapids of absolute utopias.”
(Castells,2000:.4) I also believe in Baudrillard’s objective space (Бодријар, 2001), opposing the
‘legality’ of the mutual presence of relative rationalities that postmodern time favors (Harvey, 2007)
This ‘new rationality’ determines and supports a model of integrative space, as presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Model of integrative space and place. T. Mrđenović (Mrđenović, et al. 2011a)
The model is challenged by conflicts among different values, identities, interests, needs, while should
provide and develop the integrity of individuals, communities, and nations into a ‘new rationality’. This
rationality is more a hierarchical puzzle or dynamic, live-fractal than it is universal. These conflicts can
develop or destroy ‘the fractal’ and ‘New Unity’ regarding the ‘elements’ and ‘design’ of the urban
regeneration process. According to Tomić, the conflicts come mostly from communication barriers that
can be cultural, semantic, ideological, and psychological, related to power and to social and human
capital (Tomić, 2003). On the other hand, I believe the barriers can challenge the development of the
model. My attitude introduces the main issues in designing the process, stated as follows: In which
situations should the urban design process for regeneration be ‘guided’, ‘mediated’, or ‘facilitated’?
Should and can Landry’s “creative milieu” (Landry, 2005) overcome the obstacles in communication?
Can it create preconditions for open communication, an argumentative approach, and Habermas’s
“communicative consensus” (Habermas, 1984)?
Most authorities, such as Forester, Harvey, and Jacobs, believe that creativity and design can give
‘common meaning’ to the fragment society (Forester, 1989; Harvey, 2007; Jacobs, 1992). The ‘common
meaning’ develops ‘new rationality’ for the ‘New Unity’ of individuals, organizations, institutions,
communities, and nations. The imaginative dimension of urban design provokes urban designers to
become leaders in creating/designing the urban regeneration process. Furthermore, according to
Madanipour, urban design is a multidimensional discipline: subjective-imaginative, communicativecollaborative, rational-technical, interdisciplinary (Madanipour, 1996).
I would say that in the core of integration problem is elimination of barriers in communication. Guided
by this assumption, I have come to the conclusion that removing the barriers in the domain of physical
context and semantics is ethically justified. However, this poses a question of ethical justification for
removing the psychological barriers in the process of communication. Dare we influence the beliefs;
analyze differently the experiences, cultural differences, and question the assumptions, prejudices of
the interlocutor? Regarding the game theory in communication, the research will assess the new
method: “Integrative urban design game” as an open play that enables integration of differences using
different methods from artistic towards scientific.
3.0 URBAN DESIGN GAME AS AN INSTRUMENT FOR PLACEMAKING: BAC FORTRESS SUBURBIUM
CASE
The holistic thought of urban design integrates different crosscutting dimensions where it is produced.
Firstly, it is a space of imagination and creation of urban designers when it is subjective-expressive
process of creating specific identity of places. In the context of social production of space it is more
objective-rational or socio-communicative process of creating new socio-spatial relations and its visual
artifacts. Thirdly, it is an interdisciplinary process as a field for communication of different expert’s
view points through argumentation. This dimension emphasizes open communication and
argumentative approach in conflict resolution using creativity. Fourthly, urban design can be seen as
a technical process that represents politics and regulation form higher level . Therefore, urban design
as multidimensional process can provide creative solutions for different developmental sectors of
sustainable regeneration: economy, society and environment, overcoming communication barriers in
urban decision making through communicative action.(Madanipour,1996) This position should give a
holistic answer to the problems that standagainst sustainable regeneration in Serbia, both in theory
and practice, especiallaly in protected areas.
Integrative urban design game is an innovative method and integrates different processes of urban
design, such as the subjective-expressive, social-creative, social-communicative, technical-rational,
and interdisciplinary. The aim of this method is to develop different types of rationality in a community
by an adequate regeneration process and achieving the quality of place through a creative game in the
visualization of space. The method is rationalized in the key segments of the process, using
argumentative and expert methods. In this way, it creates the future of the place through its spatial
visualization, using three-dimensional and two-dimensional presentations, drafts, drawings and text,
different expert methods of polling, interviewing, context analyses, morphological analyses, as well as
collaborative methods that support argumentation by use of different diagrams such as problem tree
and tree of aims and measures. The essence of the urban design integral game is to establish а relation
between different types of rationality, as well as between the phases of the planning process. As a
method, it implies a continual procedure in the development of social creativity, as well as its
rationalization. (Mrdjneovic,2010a)
In the light of creating the conditions for communicative action in the regeneration processes and
integration of reality fragments, the method integrates the advantages and disadvantages of the two
most present paradigms in urban decision-making, the rational-comprehensive and collaborative;
changing the role of urban design in the integrative processes. The problem of the first paradigm is the
rationality limitation of stakeholders and experts in perceiving the totality of reality; therefore there is
a lesser probability for the generation of winning solutions and decisions for different dimensions of
regenerative processes. The problem of the second one can be the absence of a strategic approach in
generating solutions, i.e., responding to current problems, without insight into the possible
development program-spatial solutions in the regeneration processes. (Mrđenović, 2011b)
The method facilitates the practical command of integrating rational-comprehensive and collaborative
paradigms in urban decision-making and process oriented urban design, for establishing a relation with
sustainable principles of regeneration. The purpose of the method is in establishing the relations
between two paradigms. “ Position that I stand for is optimistic one, based on the assumption that
communicative action can integrate positive and overcome negative aspects of each, using creativity
as a mean for open communication, flow of ideas and thoughts . Therefore argumentative approach
use creativity to make linkages in strategy making crosscutting both paradigms providing particular
identities, interests and needs to be recognized as well as having an ideal picture of development as a
coherent whole.” (Mrđenović, 2011b)
Integrative urban design game has been applied as a method in the Summer School of Architecture in
Bač in 2010, in the workshop with the topic Participative Approach in the Shaping of Public Space - the
Bač Fortress and its Suburbium . (Mrđenović, Radionica: Participativni pristup u oblikovanju javnog
prostora - Podgrađe tvrđave Bač, 2010b). The students of the Faculty of Architecture in Belgrade took
part in the workshop, together with the students of the Summer school and stakeholders from the
local community: representatives of the Tourist Organization of Bač municipality, "Centuries of Bač"
Fund, Radio Bačka, and the local population. The process of integral urban design was created in such
a way that the process proceeded through the following phases: (1) Preparation of the participative
procedure, (2) Defining the desired future – visioning, (3) Analysis of problems and potentials, (4)
Defining strategic objectives and measures for improving public space, (5) Spatial solution testing. The
method, in a holistic way, has supported different phases of the process, which were built
incrementally an integrated into the ambient presented in Figures 14-21. In that sense, the method
has combined different fragmentary methods by passing through the decision-making phases depicted
in schema 3:
Schema 3: The path of the urban design integral process applied in the case of the regeneration of
public space Bač Fortress and its Suburbium (Acc. to UN-Habitat, 2005)
PHASE 1: Participative procedure preparation
In the first phase the participative procedure preparation was carried out by the students of the
Faculty of Architecture in Belgrade who had recorded the existing state on the terrain through the
identification of the needs and wishes of the local population (using polls and interviews), as well as
through the identification of spatial potentials and development limitations of public spaces (by visiting
the terrain and taking photographs, notes and sketching).
Figure 1. Students of the Faculty of Architecture in Belgrade while recording of the existing state
Figure 2.Making mock models of street fronts as the base for creating solutions throughout the entire
process, (Mrđenović, 2010b)
The remaining phases of the participative procedure were realized through trainings lasting a day and
a half as part of the Summer school of Architecture in Bač (Mrđenović, Radionica: Participativni pristup
u oblikovanju javnog prostora - Podgrađe tvrđave Bač, 2010). The training was conceived according to
the principles of adult education; the methodology and realization were adapted to the needs of the
Summer school. The training consisted of seven modules: MODUL 1 – Concept of sustainable
development and urban ambient of cultural-historical importance , MODUL 2 – Participative planning
and forming of urban ambients of cultural-historical importance: integral approach, MODUL 3 –
Rrealization of the integral approach – Defining the desired future – Visioning, MODUL 4 – Realization
of the integral approach – Analysis of problems and potentials, MODUL 5 – Realization of integral
approach – Defining integral objectives and spatial-physical dimensions, MODUL 6 – Realization of
integral approach – Solution creation, MODUL 7 – Realization of integral approach: Spatial solution
testing. Within the first two modules students gained knowledge and skills regarding the sustainable
approach to regeneration and identification of qualitative characteristics, which are in accordance with
the principles of sustainability. The remaining phases of the qualitative characteristics of places were
realized together with the above-mentioned stakeholders.
Figure 3. Participants of the Summer school in Bač, during training about participation in the
regeneration of protected urban ambients. (Mrđenović, 2010b)
PHASE 2: Visioning –creating an inspirational future
In the visioning process, among the participants besides the students, were also relevant stakeholders
from the local community: inhabitaants of the Street Bač Fortress, the representatives of the Tourist
organization of Bač municipality, „Centuries of Bač“ Fund, Radio Bačka. The process was supported by
brainstorming and nominal group techniques, as well as by creative techniques of visualization and
text. The vision was formulated on several levels: through key words, the slogan, drawing-image and
a sentence that describes the vision more elaborately.
Figure 5. Integral vision of the inhabitants of Street Bač Fortress (Mrđenović, 2010a,b)
Figure 6.Integral vision of the Tourist organization of Bač municipality
Figure 7.Integral vision of Radio Bačka
Figure 8.Integral vision of „Centuries of Bač“ Fund
PHASE 3: Problems and potentials
The following phase of the process was the identification of problems and potentials that hinder or
facilitate the realization of the vision, by using brainstorming techniques. The recognized problems
and potentials have been grouped and classified by hierarchy using the problem tree technique, which
has facilitated their rationalization and the realization of cause-and-effect relationships.
Figure 9 Identification of problems and potentials
PHASE 4: Integral objectives and measures
The problem tree served to formulate the strategic integral objectives and spatial-program measures
that contribute to the realization of the objectives. In this iterative procedure, individual visions have
been redefined so they could be adapted to real development needs and potentials.
Figures 10,11. Integral objectives and measures (Mrđenović, Radionica: Participativni pristup u
oblikovanju javnog prostora - Podgrađe tvrđave Bač, 2010), (Mrđenović, 2010)
PHASE 5: Spatial presentation through the integration of the previous phases, different global images,
values and interests
As the end result, with the creative and rational development of the mock model of the existing street
fronts, different phases of integral urban design, types of rationality and different global images were
combined into a coherent future. That way, an integral place with a specific identity was designed,
while respecting and affirming the inherited values, including the local population and other relevant
stakeholders in the development of cultural tourism.
Figures 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19: Integral presentation of urban design strategy for the
regeneration of Street Bač Fortress (Mrđenović, 2010b)
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
Cultural heritage with its unique values is a crucial factor in European identity, based on tolerance and
democracy. Wide knowledge of cultural diversity is a base for tolerance and respect, overcoming
differences and building bridges between different cultures as a unique part of European identity.
Cultural heritage is recognized as socio - economic potential and each country should develop
alternative strategies for sustainable regeneration. . As regeneration crosscuts different sectors of
sustainability in place creation it is best achieved through urban design process.
Urban design, considered as decision making and communicative process, as well as creative
imaginative and rational can provide framework for sustainable regeneration. Setting up a creative
milieu it becomes an instrument for integration of plural identities, interests and needs into a coherent
whole, incorporating different types of social arenas into multiplanningagency system. Such a model
enable and facilitate partnerships between public, private and civil sector on local, regional, national
and supranational level. Therefore, as a creative and communicative process it can be an instrument
of integration, providing specific identity and framework for development.
“Integrative urban design game” seeks to play among various interests and rationalities in fair manner
using Habermas’s “communicative ethics” (Habermas, 1984). In that play it integrates different
processes of urban design, such as the subjective-expressive, social-creative, social-communicative,
technical-rational, and interdisciplinary. The aim of this method is to develop different types of
rationality in wide community participation process towards achieving the quality of place using a
creative game in the visualization of space. The method applied on Bač Fortress Suburbium is
rationalized in the key segments of the process, using argumentative and expert methods. In this way,
it created ‘future image’ of the place through its spatial visualization, using three-dimensional and twodimensional presentations, drafts, drawings and text, different expert methods of polling,
interviewing, context analyses, morphological analyses, as well as collaborative methods that support
argumentation by use of different diagrams such as problem tree and tree of aims and measures.
Here I would point out again the role of integrative urban design (fusional disciplines) in this process,
which is assuring livable places with specific glocal identity making them recognizable on global map.
On the other hand, integrative protection should prevent the ‘dark side’ of globalization that is by Nara
document characterized as homogenization of cultural expressions. “In a world that is increasingly
subject to the forces of globalization and homogenization, and in a world in which the search for
cultural identity is sometimes pursued through aggressive nationalism and the suppression of the
cultures of minorities, the essential contribution made by the consideration of authenticity in
conservation practice is to clarify and illuminate the collective memory of humanity.” (ICOMOS, 1994)
Therefore, the Integrative urban design game is in line with the one of the document’s suggestion to
develop innovative methods and processes that will treat cultural heritage in integrative manner
according to local context. (ICOMOS, 1994).
The method integrates different types of methods and techniques supporting wide range of purposes
in the multidimensional process of sustainable urban regeneration. Integrative urban design and
integrative protection use different methods according to: Phase of integrative urban design, Level
collaborativeness, Type of rationality. Also, it creates spaces and place that are Multidimensional,
Visionary, Strategic, Project oriented. According to theoretical discussion, and its application on
practical example I would define main principles for creating sustainable places:
•
Providing strategic framework for regeneration in rational and collaborative manner,
•
Integration of different sectors of sustainability,
•
Integration of different levels of governance, policies and legislative,
•
Inclusivness for stakeholders on local, regional, national and supranational level,
•
Promotion and development of specific character and project identity of place.
5.0 REFERENCES
Baker, S. (2006) Sustainable Development. New York: Routledge.
Bazik, D. (2006) Iniciranje regeneracije javnih gradskih prostora. [book auth.] Ružica Bogdanović.
Urbani dizajn. Beograd : Društvo urbanista Beograda, pp. 259-272.
Castells, M. (2004) The Power of Identity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Castells, M. (2000) The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Dovey, K. (1999) Framing Places: Mediating Power in Built Form. New York: Routledge.
Dojčinović, V. Đ. (2005). Kulturni turizam: Menadžment i razvojne strategije. Beograd: Clio.
Elin, N. (2004) Postmoderni urbanizam. Beograd: Orion.
Forester, J. (1989) Planning in the Face of Power. London: University of California Press.
Habermas, Ј. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action - Volume One: Reason and the
Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.
Hall, P. (2002) Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design in the
Twentieth Century. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Harvey, D. (2007) The Condition of Postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. London: MACMILLAN
PRESS LTD.
ICOMOS. (1972). Resolutions of the Symposium on the introduction of contemporary architecture into
ancient
groups
of
buildings.
Преузето
11
6,
2010
са
http://www.icomos.org/docs/contemporary_architecture.html.
ICOMOS.
(1982).
DECLARATION
OF
TLAXCALA.
http://www.icomos.org/docs/tlaxcala.html.
Преузето
11
6,
2010
са
ICOMOS.
(1998).
The
Stockholm
declaration.
Преузето
http://www.international.icomos.org/charters/stocdec_e.htm.
11
6,
2010
са
Jacobs, J. (1992). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: VINTAGE BOOKS EDITION.
Landry, C. (2005) The Creative City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators. London: Earthscan.
Mrđenović, T. (2010a). Patent No. 01 / Integrative urban design game. Serbia, Belgrade.
Mrđenović, T. (2010b). Workshop: Participatory approach in designing pubic space - Bac Fortress
Suburbium
Mrđenović, T. (2011a). Urbana regeenracija zaštićenih ambijentalnih celina u kontekstu održivog
razvoja - Podgrađe Tvrđave Bač / Urban regeneration of protected ambients in the context of
sustainable development - Bač Fortress Suburbium. 1st Edition. Beograd : Univerzitet u
Beogradu - Arhitektonski fakultet, pp. 310-334.
Mrđenović, T. (2011b) Integrative Urban Design in Regeneration - Principles for Achieving Sustainable
Places. 2011, Journal of Applied Engineering Science No. 92, pp. 305-316.
Mrdjenovic (2014),
Teaching method: “integrative urban design game” for soft urban
regeneration, Spatium international Review, iss. 38, pp 9-16,
Norberg-Šulc, K. (1975). Egzistencija, prostor i arhitektura. Beograd: Gradjevinska knjiga.
Pavličić, D. (2010) Teorija odlučivanja. Beograd: Centar za izdavačku delatnost Ekonomskog fakulteta.
Reeves, D. (2005) Planning for Diversity: Policy and Planning in a World of Difference. New York:
Routledge.
Tomić, Z. (2003). Komunikologija. Beograd: Čigoja.
Vaništa, E. L. and Đukić, A. (2006) Urban regeneration as a tool of sustainable development.
Arhitektura i urbanizam, Vols. 18-19
UNESCO. (2005, October 20). Convention on the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural
expressions. Преузето 11 9, 2010 са http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/themes/2005convention/.
UN-Habitat, & SIRP. (2005). What is participatory planning? Belgrade: UN-Habitat.