Difference between revisions of "Divlja Gradnja (Countries of Former Yugoslavia)"
Editor2018 (talk | contribs) |
Editor2018 (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
The shortage of housing was exacerbated by natural disasters, such as the earthquake of 1962, which destroyed much of the city of Skopje and left about 80,000 people homeless (UNECE & FIG 2015: 89 f.). The socialist city authorities were unable to provide enough housing units and thus, many of those, who became homeless resorted to ‘self-help’ by constructing homes without acquiring a construction licence (Grubović 2006: 101 f; UNECE & FIG 2015: 89 f.). | The shortage of housing was exacerbated by natural disasters, such as the earthquake of 1962, which destroyed much of the city of Skopje and left about 80,000 people homeless (UNECE & FIG 2015: 89 f.). The socialist city authorities were unable to provide enough housing units and thus, many of those, who became homeless resorted to ‘self-help’ by constructing homes without acquiring a construction licence (Grubović 2006: 101 f; UNECE & FIG 2015: 89 f.). | ||
[[File:Divlja Gradnja Malo Brdo.jpeg|thumb|300px|left|Informal settlement (Malo Brdo) in the heart of Podgorica, Montenegro. Source: Fynn-Morten Heckert. © Fynn-Morten Heckert.]] | |||
But besides the actual shortage, the authorities were also unable to accommodate the wish of many dwellers for individual housing in suburban areas. As collective housing was favoured by urban authorities, individual housing projects were pushed into illegality (Grubović 2006: 96 f, 101; Zegarac 1999: 366). Moreover, following the Skopje earthquake and flooding in the 1960s, the state reconstruction project was focused on the production of collective housing. As many Skopje residents were not willing to leave their local communities and to resettle in the newly built apartment blocks, residents engaged in an informal (re-)construction of property on the parcels, they had lived on before (UNECE & FIG 2015: 89 f.). | But besides the actual shortage, the authorities were also unable to accommodate the wish of many dwellers for individual housing in suburban areas. As collective housing was favoured by urban authorities, individual housing projects were pushed into illegality (Grubović 2006: 96 f, 101; Zegarac 1999: 366). Moreover, following the Skopje earthquake and flooding in the 1960s, the state reconstruction project was focused on the production of collective housing. As many Skopje residents were not willing to leave their local communities and to resettle in the newly built apartment blocks, residents engaged in an informal (re-)construction of property on the parcels, they had lived on before (UNECE & FIG 2015: 89 f.). | ||
| Line 43: | Line 45: | ||
On the other side of the spectre there is the informal construction of luxury objects. A notorious example is the ''Dedinje'' neighbourhood of Belgrade, where Slobodan Milošević moved to in the late 1980s. Throughout the 1990s, the elite of Serbia, including the political elite and ''nouveau riches'' followed his example with the intention to elevate their social status. It was estimated that half of the buildings in the ''Savski Venac'' area, to which ''Dedinje'' belongs, were built bypassing the official regulations (Grubović 2006: 176-179). Illegal construction of luxurious residential buildings also took place on the Adriatic coast. For example, an informally constructed villa at the coastal line in Dalmatia has gained significant media attention in 2019 (Klaić Saulačić 2019). | On the other side of the spectre there is the informal construction of luxury objects. A notorious example is the ''Dedinje'' neighbourhood of Belgrade, where Slobodan Milošević moved to in the late 1980s. Throughout the 1990s, the elite of Serbia, including the political elite and ''nouveau riches'' followed his example with the intention to elevate their social status. It was estimated that half of the buildings in the ''Savski Venac'' area, to which ''Dedinje'' belongs, were built bypassing the official regulations (Grubović 2006: 176-179). Illegal construction of luxurious residential buildings also took place on the Adriatic coast. For example, an informally constructed villa at the coastal line in Dalmatia has gained significant media attention in 2019 (Klaić Saulačić 2019). | ||
[[File:Divlja Gradnja A.jpeg|thumb|300px|right|This hotel is an example of "divlja gradnja" in the tourist sector in Montenegro. Source: Lajović (2015). Source: Fynn-Morten Heckert. © Fynn-Morten Heckert.]] | |||
In post-socialist Belgrade, politicians and administration massively profited from “tolerating” the erection of informal settlements. In the area of Zemun, for instance, the ruling party sold state-owned land, which was not residential according to the urban plans, without providing adequate infrastructure to residents (many of whom were refugees) (Grubović 2006: 223-225, 253). | In post-socialist Belgrade, politicians and administration massively profited from “tolerating” the erection of informal settlements. In the area of Zemun, for instance, the ruling party sold state-owned land, which was not residential according to the urban plans, without providing adequate infrastructure to residents (many of whom were refugees) (Grubović 2006: 223-225, 253). | ||
Business-related informal constructions became a widespread phenomenon in the last twenty years, ranging from small kiosks to hotels and shopping centres. These commercial developments were realised in defiance of urban plans through informal channels and personal connections (Babić 2004: 44; Grubović 2006: 228-233; Pobrić & Robinson 2019: 286f.; Verseck 2019). Tourism sector was especially prone to informal construction (for Bosnia see: Pobrić & Robinson 2019: 287, for Dalmatia: Klaić Saulačić 2019; Libero Portal 2020; for Montenegro: Verseck 2019; Der Spiegel 2019; Müller & Lješković 2008). One of the reasons is a ban on land acquisition for foreigners in Montenegro before 2009, which made interested foreign developers enter informal agreements with landowners to build on their lands. UNECE estimates that about 15% of all informal buildings in Montenegro, mainly in the coastal area, belong to foreigners (UNECE & FIG 2015: 74). A second category of illegal tourist construction is related to persons having connections to the long-standing Montenegrin president Milo Đukanović. These are characterised by grave violations of construction regulations, such as construction of hotels in especially protected areas (for example at the Bay of Kotor, a UNESCO World Heritage Site) (Verseck 2019; Der Spiegel 2019). | Business-related informal constructions became a widespread phenomenon in the last twenty years, ranging from small kiosks to hotels and shopping centres. These commercial developments were realised in defiance of urban plans through informal channels and personal connections (Babić 2004: 44; Grubović 2006: 228-233; Pobrić & Robinson 2019: 286f.; Verseck 2019). Tourism sector was especially prone to informal construction (for Bosnia see: Pobrić & Robinson 2019: 287, for Dalmatia: Klaić Saulačić 2019; Libero Portal 2020; for Montenegro: Verseck 2019; Der Spiegel 2019; Müller & Lješković 2008). One of the reasons is a ban on land acquisition for foreigners in Montenegro before 2009, which made interested foreign developers enter informal agreements with landowners to build on their lands. UNECE estimates that about 15% of all informal buildings in Montenegro, mainly in the coastal area, belong to foreigners (UNECE & FIG 2015: 74). A second category of illegal tourist construction is related to persons having connections to the long-standing Montenegrin president Milo Đukanović. These are characterised by grave violations of construction regulations, such as construction of hotels in especially protected areas (for example at the Bay of Kotor, a UNESCO World Heritage Site) (Verseck 2019; Der Spiegel 2019). Nevertheless, in recent years the governments in the region launched initiatives destined to legalise informal buildings (UNECE & FIG 2015). | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 09:41, 26 March 2021
| Bespravna Gradnja / Črna Gradnja / Divlja Gradnja / Ndërtim i paligjshëm 🇲🇪 🇭🇷 🇧🇦 🇲🇰 🇷🇸 🇽🇰 🇸🇮 | ||
|---|---|---|
 |
||
| Location: Former Yugoslavia | ||
| Definition: Construction of buildings, both residential and commercial without the prior acquisition of a construction permit, modification of a building in a way that it exceeds the originally issued licence, or unlawful change of the purpose of a building | ||
| Keywords: Slovenia – Croatia – Serbia – Bosnia and Herzegovina – Kosovo – North Macedonia – Montenegro – Western Balkans – Yugoslavia – Europe – Housing estate – Informal settlement | ||
| Clusters: Informal dwelling – Market | ||
| Author: Fynn-Morten Heckert | ||
| Affiliation: UCL SSEES Student (Alumnus) / Centre for Southeast European Studies, University of Graz, Austria. | ||
By Fynn-Morten Heckert, UCL SSEES Student (Alumnus) / Centre for Southeast European Studies, University of Graz, Austria.
| ‘Wild’, ‘black’, or illegal construction (bosn./hr./mtn./srb.: divlja or bespravna gradnja, slo: črna gradnja, al. ndërtim i paligjshëm, in the following: divlja gradnja) can be defined as construction of buildings, both residential and commercial, without the prior acquisition of a construction permit, or by modifying a building in a way, that it exceeds the originally issued licence. It can also refer to the unlawful change of purpose of a building (Zegarac 1999: 365). Divlja gradnja is widespread in the countries which comprised the former Yugoslavia and takes place in relation to nearly all types of buildings, including tourist accommodation, religious buildings (Xharra 2012) and other business-related buildings like shopping malls. |
Divlja gradnja can be traced back to the beginning of the twentieth century, as a reaction to the restrictive ownership rules in Belgrade, which put working class families in a situation, in which acquiring property in a legal manner was hardly possible (Grubovic 2006: 72 f.). Divlja gradnja however gained momentum as a countrywide phenomenon from the 1960s onwards, with not only individual houses, but entire settlements built informally (Archer 2018: 143 f.). This development can be explained with the urbanisation policy pursued by the Communist regime, as rural populations were incentivised to migrate to urban centres to seek employment at socially owned enterprises, which provided access to certain benefits, such as to health services, and free education. This led to a massive influx of rural migrants to the cities (for Belgrade see: Grubović 2006: 87; for Sarajevo: Kriegl 2011: 163; for Skopje: UNECE & FIG 2015: 89 f; for Zagreb: Zlatar 2014: 150).
The shortage of housing was exacerbated by natural disasters, such as the earthquake of 1962, which destroyed much of the city of Skopje and left about 80,000 people homeless (UNECE & FIG 2015: 89 f.). The socialist city authorities were unable to provide enough housing units and thus, many of those, who became homeless resorted to ‘self-help’ by constructing homes without acquiring a construction licence (Grubović 2006: 101 f; UNECE & FIG 2015: 89 f.).
But besides the actual shortage, the authorities were also unable to accommodate the wish of many dwellers for individual housing in suburban areas. As collective housing was favoured by urban authorities, individual housing projects were pushed into illegality (Grubović 2006: 96 f, 101; Zegarac 1999: 366). Moreover, following the Skopje earthquake and flooding in the 1960s, the state reconstruction project was focused on the production of collective housing. As many Skopje residents were not willing to leave their local communities and to resettle in the newly built apartment blocks, residents engaged in an informal (re-)construction of property on the parcels, they had lived on before (UNECE & FIG 2015: 89 f.).
The wars of the 1990s triggered large migration flows, causing the steep increase of illegal constructions(Grubović 2006: 114; Aquilue & Roca 2016: 155). In Belgrade alone, the number of illegal buildings reached 200,000 by 1996 (Grubović 2006: 131). This led to problems both for the environment and the heath of dwellers, as settlements often lacked basic infrastructure (Bajić et al. 2016: 3f), or were built on unsuitable lands, such as in areas prone to landslides (Martin-Diaz et al. 2015: 380; Grubović 2006: 223 f).
On the other side of the spectre there is the informal construction of luxury objects. A notorious example is the Dedinje neighbourhood of Belgrade, where Slobodan Milošević moved to in the late 1980s. Throughout the 1990s, the elite of Serbia, including the political elite and nouveau riches followed his example with the intention to elevate their social status. It was estimated that half of the buildings in the Savski Venac area, to which Dedinje belongs, were built bypassing the official regulations (Grubović 2006: 176-179). Illegal construction of luxurious residential buildings also took place on the Adriatic coast. For example, an informally constructed villa at the coastal line in Dalmatia has gained significant media attention in 2019 (Klaić Saulačić 2019).
In post-socialist Belgrade, politicians and administration massively profited from “tolerating” the erection of informal settlements. In the area of Zemun, for instance, the ruling party sold state-owned land, which was not residential according to the urban plans, without providing adequate infrastructure to residents (many of whom were refugees) (Grubović 2006: 223-225, 253).
Business-related informal constructions became a widespread phenomenon in the last twenty years, ranging from small kiosks to hotels and shopping centres. These commercial developments were realised in defiance of urban plans through informal channels and personal connections (Babić 2004: 44; Grubović 2006: 228-233; Pobrić & Robinson 2019: 286f.; Verseck 2019). Tourism sector was especially prone to informal construction (for Bosnia see: Pobrić & Robinson 2019: 287, for Dalmatia: Klaić Saulačić 2019; Libero Portal 2020; for Montenegro: Verseck 2019; Der Spiegel 2019; Müller & Lješković 2008). One of the reasons is a ban on land acquisition for foreigners in Montenegro before 2009, which made interested foreign developers enter informal agreements with landowners to build on their lands. UNECE estimates that about 15% of all informal buildings in Montenegro, mainly in the coastal area, belong to foreigners (UNECE & FIG 2015: 74). A second category of illegal tourist construction is related to persons having connections to the long-standing Montenegrin president Milo Đukanović. These are characterised by grave violations of construction regulations, such as construction of hotels in especially protected areas (for example at the Bay of Kotor, a UNESCO World Heritage Site) (Verseck 2019; Der Spiegel 2019). Nevertheless, in recent years the governments in the region launched initiatives destined to legalise informal buildings (UNECE & FIG 2015).
References
Aquilue, I., and Roca, E. 2016. ‘Urban development after the Bosnian War: The division of Sarajevo's territory and the construction of East Sarajevo’, Cities, 58: 152-163.
Archer, R. 2018. ‘The moral economy of home construction in late socialist Yugoslavia‘, History and Anthropology, 29(2): 141-162.
Babić, M. 2004. ‘Belgrad: Eine Multiple Edge City’, Stadtbauwelt, 163: 42-49.
Bajić, T., Petrić, J., and Nikolić, T. 2016. Fuel poverty and perception on housing and environmental quality in Belgrade’s informal settlement Kaluđerica’, Spatium, 35, 1-9.
Der Spiegel. 2019. ‘Gier und Korruption an Montenegros Adriaküste. Fotostrecke‘, 27 October, https://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-korruption-in-montenegros-tourismusbranche-fotostrecke-170911.html.
Grubović, L. 2006. Belgrade in Transition. An analysis of illegal building in a post-socialist city. Ann Arbor: Pro Quest.
Helleren, L. 2011. Formalization of Property Rights in Montenegro. As: Norwegian University of Life Sciences.
Klaić Saulačić, P. 2019. ‘A kažu da zakoni vrijede jednako za sve: Investitor gradnjom uništio pomorsko dobro pa nakon kazne - nastavio graditi’, Dnevnik.hr, 14 December, https://dnevnik.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/u-dubrovniku-ni-nakon-prijave-nije-rijesen-ozbiljan-slucaj-bespravne-gradnje---586965.html.
Kriegl, S. M. 2011. Stadtgeographie von Sarajevo. Persistente Entwicklung und aktuelle Strukturen. Graz: Karl-Franzens-Universität. Libero Portal. 2020. ‘Hotelska grupacija Royal Resorts morat će ukloniti objekt na Babinom kuku’, 22 July, https://www.liberoportal.hr/vijesti/bespravna-gradnja--hotelska-grupacija-royal-resorts-morat-ce-ukloniti-objekt-na-babinom-kuku-video.
Lajović, V. (2015): 'Hotel 'Admiral ” još bez dozvole za gradnju,' Vijesti, 20 April, https://www.vijesti.me/vijesti/ekonomija/184977/hotel-admiral-jos-bez-dozvole-za-gradnju
Müller, Y., and Lješković, S. 2008. ‚Illegal Construction in Montenegro’, Tech. Chron. Sci. TCG, 1(1-2), 105-110.
Pobrić, A., and Robinson, G. M. 2018. ‘Recent urban development and gentrification in post-Dayton Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina’, Cities, 89: 281-295.
UNECE and International Federation of Surveyors. 2015. Formalizing the Informal: Challenges and Opportunities of Informal Settlements in South-East Europe. New York & Geneva: United Nations, https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/hlm/documents/Publications/Formalizing_the_Informal_Challenges_and_Opportunities_of_Informal_Settlements_in_South-East_Europe.pdf.
Verseck, K. 2019. ‘Schönheit und Schandfleck. Profitgier an Montenegros Adriaküste‘, Spiegel Online, 27 October, https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/montenegro-gier-und-korruption-drohen-die-adriakueste-zu-zerstoeren-a-1289244.html
Xharra, B. 2012. ‘Kosovo Turns Blind Eye to Illegal Mosques’, Balkan Insight, 12 January, https://balkaninsight.com/2012/01/12/kosovo-turns-blind-eye-to-illegal-mosques/.
Zegarac, Z. 1999. ‘Illegal construction in Belgrade and the prospects for urban development planning’, Cities, 16(5): 365-370.
Zlatar, J. 2014. ‘Zagreb’, Cities, 39: 144-155.