Contributor, Editor, Supervisor
2,305
edits
Difference between revisions of "Divlja Gradnja (Countries of Former Yugoslavia)"
Divlja Gradnja (Countries of Former Yugoslavia) (view source)
Revision as of 09:41, 26 March 2021
, 09:41, 26 March 2021no edit summary
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== | ||