3
Masha Tatalovič
The Yugoslav Dream The architecture and economy of the neighbourhood unit in socialist Ljubljana
Yugoslavia was a socialist state, the middle point between total collectivisation and individualism. More collectivised than the West and more individualistic than the socialist East. Like other European countries, the prevailing building type of postwar urbanisation was collective social housing. It took up much of the architectural practice; however, numerous individual family homes were also built with private funds, often aided by loans from banks and enterprises.1 Social rented housing (slo. družbeno najemno stanovanje) was the key instrument of the socialist housing policy. It was primarily institutionalised as a component of total consumption in labour organisations, which formed housing funds that, independent from state authorities, decided on allocating funds. The state’s direct role in rental housing care was minor compared to municipalities and labour organisations.2 1. Vladimir Kulic, Modernism in-between: The Mediatory Architectures of Socialist Yugoslavia. (Berlin: Jovis Verlag GmbH, 2012). 2. Srna Mandič, Stanovanje in država, (Ljubljana: ZPS, 1996), 137-139. 3. Martina Malešič, “Pomen skandinavskih vplivov za slovensko stanovanjsko kulturo” (PhD diss., Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta, 2013), 4248. 4. Yugoslav dream: hybrid way of living, between individual and collective 5. Social inequality was empirically lower in Slovenia than in other parts of Yugoslavia - and also faded by the 1980s.
At the top of the list of priorities of the newly established second Yugoslavia (1945) was improving housing conditions. The fundamental reason for this was politically-ideological. Housing being accessible to everyone was one of the essential tasks of the social program.3 Paradoxically, attaining the “Yugoslav dream”4 was not accessible to everyone. Due to the constant lack of affordable social apartments, priority in the allocation process was given to more affluent classes. The more numerous blue-collar workers often had to expend their modest incomes on building their own houses.5 Therefore, in contrast to social housing in the West, which was primarily aimed at marginalised groups and subject to stigmatisation, in Yugoslavian socialism, it was considered an indicator of privilege. For all these reasons, it is precisely in the sphere of everyday life that Yugoslavia was most explicitly socialist and most peculiarly Yugoslav. That was the context in which the largest body of architecture was built. Although
The Yugoslav Dream
Opposite page: Figure 1: Scene from a Slovene movie “Sreča na vrvici”, 1977, Filmed at Soseska “Ruski car” BS7
4
5
constructed in a modernist tradition and limited by relatively strict material constraints, the architecture only briefly succumbed to the extreme utilitarianism associated with socialism - rather than ideological reasons due to poverty.
residents and toilets outside the building.7 The first post-war years were thus marked by a comprehensive (re)construction.8 The central state, based in Belgrade, played a decisive role in the formation and allocation of housing resources. Housing shortages were initially addressed by additionally inhabiting existing old bourgeois dwellings, apartment buildings, and castles outside the city. This was followed by housing construction guided by state administrative plans. In this first post-war period, it was envisaged that mainly all housing construction would be financed from social funds (in Ljubljana, mainly from the City People’s Committee, MLO).9 Rents were under social control, and the “housing right10” was enacted.11
Out of the six constituent republics of SFRY, Slovenia was the most “westernoriented”, economically stable and first to gain independence. Slovene architects maintained an enviable degree of autonomy and good connections with the architectural movement abroad. Their distinctive architectural expression stems from the work and teachings of architect Jože Plečnik (1872-1957). Due to his more classically oriented views deviating from functionalism, many of his students continued their work at Le Corbusier’s studio. From Yugoslav architects that worked in his studio before WW2, the majority, ten, were Slovene. Seven were Plečnik’s students - the central figure being Edvard Ravnikar. The fact that so many Slovenian architects worked with Le Corbusier is considered a phenomenon and represents one of the foundations for the justified selfconfidence of Slovenian architecture. What also distinguishes them from other Yugoslavs is that they, in the mid-1950s, turned away from Corbusier’s ideas - especially Ravnikar, whose work is most recognisable and developmentoriented among Yugoslav architects.6 The experience of Slovene architects was reflected in the architectural and urban works when the state began to modernise within the new socialist space.
i. 1945-1953: From reconstruction to a new financial system From the Second World War up to 1991, Slovenia’s housing policy development has been directly connected to economic reforms and the decentralisation of political power in former Yugoslavia. Several phases can be identified in the development of policy and provision, which correspond with the various periods of economic reform.
6. Mateja Panter, “Plečnik vs. Le Corbusier,” Dnevnik, accessed December 8, 2021, https://www. dnevnik.si/1042853496.
Slovenian settlements were severely damaged during the Second World War. More than 46,000 residential, commercial and infrastructural facilities were destroyed. The war damage only increased the pre-war housing shortage when workers’ housing was not taken care of. The intensive industrialisation, which caused a large influx of people from the countryside to the cities, further exacerbated the housing shortage. In Ljubljana alone, there was a shortage of around 2,000 apartments. The existing ones were too small and overcrowded, mostly without bathrooms, with one common faucet in the hallway for all
Masha Tatalovič
7. Breda Mihelič, Urbanistični razvoj Ljubljane, (Ljubljana: TOZD, 1983), 23. 8. The initial condition for reconstruction was abolition of private property - nationalisation, which enabled a reorganisation of social life and set ground for the implementation of the first five-year period (1947-52). 9. Mihelič, Urbanistični razvoj Ljubljane, 52. 10. The Yugoslav Constitution stipulates that a citizen is guaranteed to acquire a housing right, which is social property, under conditions determined by law - only on one apartment. (Tone Klemenčič, “Stanovanjsko gospodarstvo,” 117.) 11. Malešič, “Pomen skandinavskih vplivov,” 42. 12. Among the first are Litostroj in Ljubljana, TAM and Metalna in Maribor, settlements in Kidričevo and Jesenice. 13. Such blocks were form of collective construction of the created in similar or solutions.
the only housing country, identical
14. Influence of Le Corbusier’s model 15. Mihelič, Urbanistični razvoj Ljubljane, 52-53. 16. Ibid.
It soon became clear that there would not be enough funds for construction, so the state began to encourage companies and institutions to start building housing for their employees. In the first decade after the war, new housing estates were built mainly next to factories12, according to pre-war research (e.g. urbanism of German pre-war housing estates, Gropius’s housing study at the Bauhaus, and the CIAM doctrine). Litostroj was the first to respond to this action. As early as 1947, it began to build a housing estate for its workers next to the factory, and by 1953 built 15 apartment blocks with 357 apartments and 129 single rooms. The Litostroj settlement had all the characteristics of modern-functionalist urbanism.13 Its urban design consists of parallel rows of long, two- to fourstorey, single typed apartment blocks, built on the principle of free-standing buildings in the park. Within the given conditions, these blocks represented quality and rational design that far exceeded the existing minimum standards acknowledging sun exposure, airiness and sanitary requirements. The floor plans introduced innovative solutions of the kitchen niche next to the living room, a large living balcony, and connected children’s rooms to the central living space. The rich greening of the ground floor surfaces, which initially blended into each other under the buildings on piles14, created a continuous outdoor space and an exceptionally high-quality living environment. However, there was a large gap between the planned and the actual implementation, which resulted from difficult economic conditions. The social centre was never built, and the ground floors of blocks on piles had to be walled up for the most urgent collective needs, such as shops and the most necessary services.15 Despite all measures, the housing construction in the first post-war period could not keep pace with the growing needs. In 1955, there were 16,000 homeless families in Ljubljana.16
The Yugoslav Dream
Figue 2: Typical apartment block floor plan, Litostroj 1948, E.Mihevc, M. Gregorič
6
7
ii. 1953-1965: From a new financial system to economic reform
17. David Petelin, “Stanovanjske razmere v Ljubljani v letih 1945 - 1965,” in Kronika (1), 77-94. Accessed 8, December 2021, https://kronika.zzds.si/kronika/ article/download/518/757/ 18. Mandič, država, 137.
Stanovanje
in
19. Malešič, “Pomen skandinavskih vplivov,” 45. 20. In Slovenia during Yugoslavia, until 1965, the “district” (slo. okraj) was a broader territorial-political unit that connected several municipalities. 21. Mihelič, Urbanistični razvoj Ljubljane, 55. 22. Malešič, “Pomen skandinavskih vplivov,” 46. 23. After 1955 a more extensive organisation of individual construction was established and with it the first cooperatives. As economic organisations, they united individuals and legal entities in constructing and acquiring apartments with the help of the social community. (In 1956, there were 35 cooperatives in Ljubljana. By 1959, their number reached 177.) In 1960, the Institute for Cooperative Construction was established to accelerate the construction of larger and more organised settlements. However, the general typology of cooperative construction became the terraced house. (Ibid.)
The fifties were the years of a shift to workers’ self-management. Economic policy was redirected from heavy industry to other economic sectors. In the mid-1950s, when the period of accelerated industrialisation came to an end, living standards began to rise, peaking in the early 1960s. Homes were filled with household appliances, refrigerators, washing machines etc., contributing to a changed lifestyle and housing culture.17 In Yugoslavia, decentralisation in the allocation of housing resources began much earlier than in other socialist countries. In 1953 the responsibility for housing provision was taken over by individual republics. In the same year, with constitutional law, municipalities became fundamental socio-political communities responsible for housing construction. In 1955, a mandatory housing contribution was introduced by law, paid by all employees from their income. It enabled municipalities to establish housing loan funds, which became increasingly important, independent organisers and clients of housing construction.18 In parallel with the changes within the financing of housing construction, the first larger-scale residential constructions took place (e.g. Sava settlement in Ljubljana). The emergence of organised housing construction also triggered the development and introduction of new housing typologies. In the mid-1950s, they started building residential high-rises and introduced the first prefabricated constructions, triggered by the desire for faster and more economical construction.19 From the mid-fifties, local housing institutes were established in all major towns and districts20 to organise mass housing construction (1955, Institute for Housing Construction Ljubljana; from 1960 also the Urban Planning Institute).21 They collected money in housing funds and searched for suitable construction locations. To a narrower extent, they also dealt with the design and programming of housing and accompanying facilities.22 In the late 1950s, the housing problem was still unresolved. To obtain the largest feasible number of apartments as quickly as possible, the Federal Assembly in 1958 passed a law on the “third nationalisation”. Rental residential buildings and construction land were nationalised. In 1959, housing care obligations were transferred to municipalities that could now determine the manner and set the conditions of operation for the fund.24 23
In the early 1960s, Yugoslavia ran into severe economic difficulties, which prompted the introduction of the 1960 economic reform. It simultaneously
24. Ibid.
Masha Tatalovič
The Yugoslav Dream
Opposite page: Figure 3: Litostroj settlement (built between 1947-51), Ljubljana
8
9
emphasised the need for greater enforcement of self-financing in the housing sector. With the changes in the housing legislation, a new way of financing housing construction began to be introduced - the construction of housing for the market.25 Municipal funds have since 1959 increasingly become the primary source of social funds for housing construction. Their establishment formed a material basis for mass housing construction. At the beginning of the 1960s, the number of newly built dwellings increased, but social housing was still in short supply. Therefore, many solved their housing problem on their own. Due to favourable consumer loans, the number of detached single-family houses in the Slovenian suburbs grew immensely (in the 60s, 25% of Slovenes lived there; by the 70s, 40%).26
program was a supplement to labour organisations, aimed at those that could not benefit from “employment benefits” (the unemployed, disabled, young families).
iii.
25. Mihelič, Urbanistični razvoj Ljubljane, 52. 26. Malešič, “Pomen skandinavskih vplivov,” 46. 27. In 1966, such construction accounted for one-third of all housing construction. 28. Mihelič, Urbanistični razvoj Ljubljane, 52. 29. Mandič, Stanovanje država, 137-138.
in
30. They raised funds, mainly through rents from publicly owned ‘social’ housing and the general ‘solidarity programme’ tax at 1.65% of gross income.
1965-1972: Market-oriented housing construction
With the economic reform of 1965, housing construction financing changed - concluding a uniformly managed housing policy. Labour organisations and individuals took over the main burden of housing finance. There has been a further decentralisation of competencies, shifting from state to non-state organisations, to banks that took over commercial housing loans and companies that have taken over responsibility for providing their employees with loans and rental housing. Construction companies began to decide on the volume, quantity, and price of housing built and sell them freely.27 The distinctly economic logic in solving the housing problem showed shortcomings, such as the extremely high density of land use and the declining interest in the simultaneous construction of accompanying activities.28 The social side of housing policy has thus disintegrated. It was not relaunched until between 1972 and 1981 when solidarity housing emerged.29
iv.
Due to increasing economic problems and decreasing contributions to housing funds, which became optional at the end of the 80s, social housing construction began to decline. The self-governing housing policy model lost support and legitimacy as it failed to eliminate social inequalities in accessing housing. It was depleted in value and financial resources31. With the support of commercial housing loans, self-construction became the predominant way of accessing housing.32 This strengthened the “informal housing system”, especially during the crisis. A significant consequence was suburbanisation.33
1972-1985: Socially directed housing construction
After the housing sector reform in 1972, housing policy was directed through municipal self-governing housing interest communities.30 Through them, labour organisations participated in formulating policies and social and spatial planning. They ensured direct communication between municipal institutions, construction companies, and “buyers or co-investors” (regulated the demand for and the supply of housing) and funded the solidarity-housing program. The
Masha Tatalovič
v.
“Soseska”
In the mid-1950s, criticisms of existing housing construction became increasingly vocal, especially the vagueness of public space, the singlepurpose nature of the so-called “sleeping settlements”, and the inability to form communities in such residential areas. The critique led to two reflections. The first consideration was using spatial forms, which had a historically proven characteristic of a pleasant community environment, such as the street, squares, courtyards etc. The second, and even more critical, was a new topic in urban planning, the idea of a new way of spatial and organisational design of a housing estate, the so-called “residential neighbourhood”. 31. Companies did not adjust their interest rates on employee loans to the high inflation (inflation rates rose from 30% in 1980 to 130% in 1987) 32. 1984: 17.7% rented an apartment of a labor organisation; 24.6% selfconstructed a dwelling; 2.8% rented a solidarity apartment. 33. Mandič, država, 142.
Stanovanje
in
34. Martina Malešič, “Od naselja do soseske in od parka do ulice”, in Soseske in ulice: Vladimir Braco Mušič in arhitektura velikega merila, ed. Luka Skansi (Ljubljana: MAO, 2016), 33-44.
The concept of the neighbourhood stemmed from the idea that, in cities, it is necessary to create rounded residential settlements, which are at the same time notes of societal and social life. The spatial design of the neighbourhood and its size should promote social contacts and enable the individual to establish their own identity through the identification of the residential environment. More important than the spatial design itself is the program. It must meet the needs of residents and ensure a smooth daily life in the neighbourhood, accessible to pedestrians. The urban design is solely the spatial realisation of such a program. The neighbourhood thus becomes a spatially, functionally, socially, and symbolically complete unit.34
The Yugoslav Dream
10
11
vi. Historical development of the neighbourhood unit
Such typological diversity enabled the establishment of the visual identity of individual smaller neighbourhoods. The design encourages the integration of nature and ensures a clear separation of pedestrian and motor roads. All of the above contributed to the pleasantly designed residential neighbourhoods, which soon became a reference example for many imitators all over Europe, including in Slovenia.37
The idea of the neighbourhood as an organised social community was already being developed by English and American urban planners in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with an aim to revive the old way of community organisation in crowded and chaotic cities. The development of the neighbourhood was strongly influenced by Ebenezer Howard, who, as early as 1889, introduced the concept of the “garden city” as a self-sufficient area consisting of residential, industrial, and agricultural land. It was to be developed on the outskirts of an existing city, with which it would be connected by rail and road. The city, suitable for 32,000 residents, was divided into quarters for 5,000 people, supplied with all the necessary services. Following this concept, Letchworth and Welwyn Garden City were soon built in England.35
vii.
In the mid-fifties, the neighbourhood as a new form of organisation of residential settlements became one of the central themes of Slovenian architects. It began to be thoroughly discussed and studied mainly in the context of theoretical studies in Edvard Ravnikar’s seminar on architecture and urbanism at the Faculty of Architecture in Ljubljana. According to Ravnikar’s student Vladimir B. Mušič, two circumstances encouraged the seminar towards developing the neighbourhood concept. The first was the discovery of Perry’s neighbourhood principles, a good twenty years late - they became acquainted with the teachings of the neighbourhood through Perry’s book “Housing for the Machine Age” and Mumford’s “Culture of Cities” - and the second was following the development of the profession in Sweden.38 They conducted numerous studies that influenced the development of the neighbourhood concept. An important example is the 1952 study of the districts of school and pre-school institutions in Ljubljana by Branka Tancig, which dealt with sizing the distance between the apartment and the school according to the child’s capacity and emphasised that the school network must become the framework of the settlement structure.
The term “Neighbourhood unit” was first used by American urban planner Clarence A. Perry when he upgraded Howard’s idea in developing the 1929 New York Regional Plan, which defined the neighbourhood as a unit of the city. He proposed a primary school for its centre, which was at most 500m away from individual apartments. He limited the population to 5000, a community whose children could fill one primary school. He emphasised the important role of pedestrians and the elimination of transit traffic in the design of the settlement, which was also being developed at the same time by Clarence Stein and Henry Wright in their project for the city of Radburn (New Jersey, USA). English urban planners adopted both models in the program of post-war construction of new cities.36
35. Ibid. 36. Mihelič, Urbanistični razvoj Ljubljana, 56.
The English model was adopted shortly after the war in the Scandinavian countries, first in Sweden. In the early 1950s, a regional plan for Stockholm was drawn up, which provided the framework for “satellite cities”, self-sufficient neighbourhood units. The most resounding was the Vällingby neighbourhood (1952-1957). Compared to the “sleeping settlements” of functionalism, it reunites separated parts of the city with coning. The core of the settlement, which holds a church, school and kindergarten, community centre, jobs and shops, is connected to the city centre and other neighbourhoods by a subway. The centre is surrounded in concentric circles by residential buildings of various types, which allow for a diverse sociological composition of the population. The closest to the centre are high-rises, which, by concentrating the population, enable the proximity of central services to as many people as possible. Lower apartment blocks follow them, and in the farthest strip, single-family houses in greenery.
Masha Tatalovič
Ravnikar’s seminar
37. Malešič, “Od naselja do soseske,” 33-44.
Figure 4: E. Howerd, 1889 Garden city
38. The first Slovene architecture magazine “Arhitekt”, published in 1951, followed the international housing developments.
Figue 5: C. Perry, 1929 neighbourhood model
39. Mihelič, Urbanistični razvoj Ljubljane, 56.
Figue 6: B. Tancig, Study of the districts of school and preschool institutions in the city of Ljubljana, Arhitekt, 1952.
Under Ravnikar’s leadership, the neighbourhood concept was applied for the first time in a study project for the construction of the “Na Jami” area in Šiška. It was made by V. B. Mušič and A. Pibernik. With it, they participated in the 1955 Student Competition for the Neighbourhood unit, held at the Hague UIA Congress. In their project, following the Swedish model, they revitalised the idea of a street as an interior park area bounded in two lines by apartment blocks. The concept of the “green street” played an important role in the further development of Slovenian housing construction.39 In the project for The Hague, they mainly studied the spatial model of the neighbourhood, while a second group from Ravnikar’s seminar, consisting of Mitja Jernejec, Majda Dobravec, Janez Lajovic and Janja Lap, dealt with
The Yugoslav Dream
Figue 7: Marta Ivanšek and Edvard Ravnikar (1907-1993), in Vällingby, 1955
12
13
its organisation and program. The project, which presented the agenda of a residential neighbourhood for 5,000 residents, was made for the second exhibition, “Family and Household” (“Porodica i domaćinstvo”) in 1958 in Zagreb. The neighbourhood was designed as a geometrically correct scheme. It was organised on the basis of a tree structure that extends from the traffic centre along the main road and consists of smaller residential districts with 300 to 1,000 inhabitants, grouped around the centre with a larger playground, basic supply facilities, and an educational institution. Each is divided again into smaller quarters, in which residents are supposed to know and help each other.40 The main motor traffic is excluded from the neighbourhood - children must not cross any motor roads on their way to school or the playground. Blind roads lead to residential buildings, ending with parking lots and garages. There is a consistently planned concentration of population around the core of the neighbourhood, in five-storey high-rise buildings, which get with distance replaced by apartment blocks, and then terraced houses. In the centre of the neighbourhood are a school, shops, and other important institutions that must be within walking distance of all residential buildings.
The neighbourhood model
The social program of the neighbourhood is a response to alienation in the modern city - it offers integration into the community and, consequently, the establishment of identity through identification. The individual is supposed to transfer part of their activities from the closest family circle within the apartment to the common living quarters, which offer different services. This kind of activity of an individual, which relieves the apartment of certain functions, is also an excuse for smaller areas of new apartments. A neighbourhood generally does not require a specific form but a program of activities designed to meet people’s needs.41 In contrast to the employment- or socially homogeneous postwar settlements, the neighbourhood unit represents a settlement of people of mixed occupations, identities and social status, intending to achieve a more balanced population structure.
40. Ibid. 41. Andrej Mercina, Arhitekt Ilija Arnautović: socializem v slovenski arhitekturi (Ljubljana: Viharnik, 2006), 78.
Masha Tatalovič
The neighbourhood model, with calculations, schemes, and a program, served as an abstract blueprint, a basis for designing the first residential neighbourhoods in Ljubljana - it was supposed to ensure the planning of a reliably pleasant living environment. In 1958, by law, housing communities were defined as self-governing units for a specific urban area, and the neighbourhood became a spatial unit of the housing community. The residential neighbourhood development coincided
The Yugoslav Dream
GUP
Opposite page: Figure 8: 1954, Vällingby neighbourhood, Sweden
14
15
with two other tasks of spatial planning: the decentralised regional development and the general plan of Ljubljana (GUP). With the new legislation, in the early 1960s, all of the above encouraged the establishment of new main actors in housing planning - the Urban Planning Institutes in all major cities (e.g. LUZ, Ljubljana Urban Planning Institute) and the Urban Planning Institute of the People’s Republic of Slovenia (LRS, est. in 1955, operating from 1959). In addition to decentralised development, and in connection with it, the discussion on the regulation plan of Ljubljana continued after the war, especially at the Faculty of Architecture. As early as 1955, Ravnikar’s seminar developed a study of the branched development of Ljubljana, which envisaged the city’s expansion along the main entrances, with green wedges between them and the division into building islands with neighbourhoods. These studies of the city’s urban development formed the basis for General Urban Plan of Ljubljana (GUP), which was finally approved in 1966.42 The GUP formalised the morphological model of branched urban development and defined the neighbourhood as the fundamental spatial unit of residential areas. The plan identified a series of relatively vacant plots of land along the main city entrances and earmarked them for the construction of larger residential neighbourhoods.43 They became the foundations of the architectural and urban development of post-war Ljubljana.44
viii. The evolving Sava settlement
42. Malešič, “Od naselja do soseske,” 33-44. 43. Mihelič, Urbanistični razvoj Ljubljane, 30-31,59. 44. Luka Skansi and Matevž Čelik, Soseske in ulice: Vladimir Braco Mušič in arhitektura velikega merila (Ljubljana: MAO, 2016), 55. 45. Mihelič, Urbanistični razvoj Ljubljane, 57. 46. JLA (five-storey blocks along Šmartinska, 1954), Gradis (Gradis’ singles home between Linhartova and Savska street, 1954)
Masha Tatalovič
Although the first real residential neighbourhoods in Ljubljana were not realised until the 1960s, some elements of the neighbourhood concept had already been applied in Sava settlement, the largest organised construction site in post-war Ljubljana.45 It grew in the triangle between Linhartova, Šmartinska, and Topniška streets and was built by various investors.46 The original core of the settlement consisted of one-storey residential houses reminiscent of the first workers’ houses. It was the first settlement in Ljubljana (1957) to receive a supply centre. The settlement has been expanding spontaneously since the 1950s without a unified plan. For the construction and external arrangement, a building plan was drawn up in 1958, according to which this settlement acquired a more comprehensive character and identity. This resulted from the theoretical development of the residential neighbourhoods, which began to take root in Slovenia in the late 50s, and received a special emphasis and theoretical
The Yugoslav Dream
Opposite page: Figure 9: M. Jernejec, M. D. Lajovic, J. Lap; Model of a neighbourhood unit for 5000 people (1956-58); Presented at “Porodica i domačinstvo” Zagreb, 1956
16
17
program at the 1958 exhibition and publication “Family and Household” in Zagreb. At that time, the construction of the Sava settlement was already in an advanced stage, so it was impossible to remodel the settlement in an ideal way based on new knowledge and supplement it with all the accompanying facilities that such a settlement requires.47 Following the neighbourhood principles, the settlement first received five-storey blocks arranged north-south along the main perimeter and inner roads. The negative consequences of parcelled planning and construction, without a more complex initial urban plan, are mainly reflected in the architectural heterogeneity and inconsistent quality of the use-value of individual residential buildings. This confirms the belief that creating a wellarranged, functionally and formally appropriate settlement is more significant when the urban design is, as much as possible, combined with the conception of individual buildings.48
47. Ivanšek, France. Družina, stanovanje in naselje: anketna raziskava 195 stanovanj v Savskem naselju v Ljubljani (1961). Ljubljana: PP Ambient, 1988. 48. Mihelič, Urbanistični razvoj Ljubljane, 57. 49. Andrej Mercina, Arhitekt Ilija Arnautović: socializem v slovenski arhitekturi (Ljubljana: Viharnik, 2006), 41.
Masha Tatalovič
The introduction of organised housing construction and new technology have strongly influenced the typological development of housing architecture. Between 1958-62, the construction of one of the first residential high-rises was made possible, according to the plans of I. Arnautović and M. Mihelič. The new vertical focus of the Sava settlement consists of five 14-storey high-rises, which are clustered across the terrain and raised on piles. They are among the most elegant examples of this typology due to the elementary connection between the floor plan of the apartments and the external appearance. They are well integrated into the urban ambience of the surroundings and break the monotony of the boxy architecture of the apartment blocks. Each floor consists of four apartments arranged around a central staircase. The two- or three-room apartment, with its refined design, represents the culmination of the development of an essential type of residential floor plan. It introduces an important novelty, the central household-sanitary core (slo. gospodinjsko-sanitarni vozel), designed in 1955 by I. Arnautović, M. Mihelič. The whole apartment is designed as one large space with a centrally placed installation block, around which are arranged circularly connected niches. With such an array of spaces, relatively small apartments gain views along their entire length, which optically enhances them. Despite the minimal sizes of individual rooms, the design of the apartment allows a great deal of flexibility. The main parameters of the interior spaces directly define the external structure of the building.49 In the second half of the 1960s, prefabrication began to gain ground, enabling faster and cheaper construction and greater flexibility in urban space design.
The Yugoslav Dream
Figure 10: 1961 Urban plan of Sava settlement
Figure 11: 1955, I. Arnautović, M. Mihelič; High-rise floor plan of four apartments with sanitary-cores
Opposite page: Figure 12: Sava Settlement, 1960
18
19
The first system-prefabricated construction in Ljubljana is the blocks along Črtomirova street, designed by I. Arnautović in 1965 and completed five years later. Instead of a combination of different apartments in one building, themed blocks of studios, one-, two- and three-room apartments are lined up next to each other. From the outside, they are recognisable by the differently treated facades, on which two elements stand out; the common external corridors (north side of the one-bedroom apartment block) and large balconies (of the studio block). In both cases, they occupy the entire surface and form a light, honeycomb outer layer of objects.50 Despite their rigid orthogonal placement, the multi-apartment buildings create clearly defined external ambients and large central green areas. The layout of the ground floor apartments was a first attempt of “expanding” the interior living space into the external environment. The design features a halffloor level shift downwards and a pushed-back exterior green slope, resulting in private gardens within a public park.51
50. Ibid., 61. 51. The apartments are distinctly longitudinal, bilaterally oriented, with a centrally placed bathroom and kitchen. From the common outdoor balcony, the path leads past a less private dining area, past the sanitary core, to a completely private living room open to the quiet greenery. 52. Ivanšek, stanovanje in naselje.
Družina,
53. “Apartment for our conditions” - The intent was to coordinate sporadic post-war attempts at mass construction and adapt it to the changing needs of urbanisation, crowds, quality, comfort and hygiene standards. With its professional and didactic efforts, the exhibition marked the psychological change necessary to shift to quality, integrated housing neighbourhoods of the 1960s and 1970s.
Masha Tatalovič
The second half of the 50s and early 60s were a pioneering period of Slovene housing research. Studies sought, among other things, to address housing shortages and overcrowding. The identification of needs to be met by dwellings was carried out through surveys, observations, measurements and statistical data processing. In 1961, a survey of 195 dwellings of the Sava settlement was conducted.52 It was the first and only Slovene, and Yugoslav, survey of its kind, whose primary purpose was documentation and encouraging interest in new housing research. Since workers were paying contributions to housing funds, they were entitled to express certain requirements regarding new housing quality. Research results from the survey were used as guidelines for identifying ways of improvement and were especially valuable to the urban planners and municipality for the further development of the settlement - to supplement it with what is still missing. Furthermore, numerous congresses, exhibitions, and consultations were dedicated to the topic of housing, which shows strong state support for housing construction and the development of living culture. This was reflected in the 1956 national conference and exhibition “Apartment for Our Conditions”53 (slo. Stanovanje za naše razmere), followed by the aforementioned 1958 “Family and Household” exhibition in Zagreb. The turning point in housing construction was the mid-1960s, when, after previous experiments and, above all, theoretical research, the first major realisations of the “neighbourhood concept” took place.
The Yugoslav Dream
Opposite page: Figure 13: Sava high-rises, along Linhartova Street. Urban Plan (1958), B. Gvardijančič, M. Mihelič, Institute for Housing Construction. Built between 1958-62 (by GIP Gradis). Architecture: I. Arnautović, M. MiheličInvestor: Ljubljana Housing Institute Population in 1962: 8200 people - in 1,800 family flats, 46 studios, 278 single rooms - 3 single homes.
20
21
The basic methodology for constructing housing estates was a design competition, which allowed confronting different views on the problems of housing construction. They revealed two types of architecture and urbanism in the field of housing: the competition projects characterised by inventiveness and richness of program, and the realised housing estates, in most cases only a torso of initial ideas. The majority of the projects had to submit to economic possibilities, which often supported nothing more than the sole realisation of housing for subsistence minimum and accordingly robbed the project of all accompanying objects of social standard. In addition, the construction industry, which was fond of following established urban norms, often hindered the architectural initiatives. Nevertheless, the quality of residential housing construction has been steadily growing since the mid-1960s. The first real neighbourhoods in Ljubljana were built in the early 1960s and showed a very close connection with the model that was made in Ravnikar’s seminar at the Faculty of Architecture in 1958. As a first construction test of the theoretical model, developed in the seminar for the Zagreb exhibition, Bežigrad neighbourhood 6 (BS6) was built in the first half of the 1960s. It was a “scholar” implementation of the neighbourhood principle on a smaller scale. The design of the neighbourhood repeats the mistakes of older housing estates, with an unimaginative scheme of free-standing box blocks and high-rises in the open space.54
Survey
Figure 14: Urban plan of BS-6 Neighbourhood, Brinje, Ljubljana
ix. The first real neighbourhood, ŠS6 The first more ambitiously designed neighbourhood was ŠS-6 (slo. Šišenska soseska 6), built in the second half of the 1960s. The neighbourhood is of crucial importance because of the comprehensive architectural and urban concept and the advanced construction method. The urban plan from 1966, which clearly shows the influences of Ravnikar’s model, contains all the elements of the neighbourhood program. The fan-shaped neighbourhood was built for 10,000 people (2,800 flats) and organised based on more intimate quarters.55
54. Malešič, “Od naselja do soseske”, 41. 55. Mercina, Arhitekt Arnautović, 78.
Masha Tatalovič
Ilija
The centre of the neighbourhood was never fully realised due to the lack of funding. It is highlighted by five related high-rise buildings near the central city entrance, Celovška street. From there, it extends linearly inwards, towards Vodnikova street, along the footpath leading down the middle of the settlement. The footpath, which is one of the main features of the neighbourhood, represents
The Yugoslav Dream
Opposite page: Figure 15: Neighbourhood ŠS-6 (slo. “Šišenska Soseska 6”) Location: Area between Celovška and Vodnikova street, Ljubljana, Šiška Urban plan: 1966, A. Šarec in J. Vovk Built: 1966-1971 Architecture: Ilija Arnautović and Aleksander Peršin Size: 10,000 people (2,800 flats)
22
23
a dynamic element of the neighbourhood. In the 60s and 70s, we encounter the pedestrian street motif in almost all residential neighbourhoods as a central dynamic element.56
Street
The neighbourhood is bound by major traffic roads and has a separate internal road network. Inside, the movement of vehicles and pedestrians is consistently separated. The distance from any apartment to the school in the centre does not exceed 600m. The neighbourhood is built with a single type of prefabricated apartment block (I. Arnautović), which varies in height and length depending on its location. The height and density of the buildings with the distance from the Celovška street gradually decrease (P + 14, P + 10, P +8, P + 3).57
56. Ibid. 57. Mihelič, Urbanistični razvoj Ljubljane, 59-60. 58. Bedrooms and children’s rooms are separated from other parts of the apartment. One can move freely through other rooms (kitchen, dining room, living room, hallway, balcony, etc.). Special attention was paid to the kitchen, which is sometimes transient and sometimes designed as a blind bay of the apartment. 59. I. Arnautovič (1924 - 2009), was aware that the ideal of living culture is the singlefamily house, and persistently transforms its selected elements and tries to incorporate them into multi-apartment architecture. The red thread of his work is the unity of the dwelling floor plan and the structure of the building, construction, and urbanism. 60. Mercina, Arhitekt Arnautović, 78.
Ilija
61. Mihelič, Urbanistični razvoj Ljubljane, 59-60.
Masha Tatalovič
The lower residential buildings (P + 3, Jugomont system) with floor plan offsets of the lamellas are merged into horseshoe shapes that create an intimate, peaceful green space, adapted to the human scale. These limited ambiences of pleasant dimensions, small neighbourhoods within the neighbourhood, represent one of the most beautiful motifs in Ljubljana’s residential areas. Larger apartment floor-plans, clearly separate quiet sleeping- and more noisy living spaces.58 The living part of the ground floor apartments opens to the outside with a simple fenced garden. Great attention is paid to the design of common spaces, which represent an essential point of common consensus, and are especially important for the coexistence of many people in the high-rise buildings. Accentuated vertical communications are treated as a continuation of external outdoor footpaths. Quieter internal common corridors that lead to apartment entrances unite only a few of them, making for a more intimate, pleasant atmosphere. This group of buildings represents a step forward from the first realisations of prefabricated construction in Ljubljana. One of the main architectural motifs of the neighbourhood is the highly articulated building masses of all types of blocks, already seen at an urban level. With the horizontal articulation of the façade, passages, open staircases and stepped roof finishes, Arnautović’s architecture59 acquires characteristics resembling a single-family house.60 The ŠS6 neighbourhood marks a new period that began as a reaction to the functionalist “sleeping settlements”- it starts to reintroduce typical forms of traditional urbanism, such as the street, square and closed building block. With its program, and especially with its design approach, it is still one of the highest quality examples of residential areas in Slovenia.61
The Yugoslav Dream
Horseshoe
Elements of a house
Opposite page: Figure 16: ŠS6 Typical Low Blocks surrounding an intimate green space Figure 17: ŠS6 - School as the centre of the neighbourhood
24
25
x. The urban street, BS7 At the same time, the Urban Planning Institute (UISRS) was planning the BS-7 neighbourhood, with a similar goal - to establish a city within the city and revive the compact city construction with a street and a square. In BS7, the dynamic element of the pedestrian street appears for the first time as the leading urban motif and the focal element of the neighbourhood design.62 The neighbourhood plot was determined by the 1965 Ljubljana GUP, outlined by existing transport infrastructure (East -Titova/Dunajska street, west - Kamnik railway line). The competition project presented a series of pedestrian streets, defined by a pair of linear apartment blocks and placed above the level of the natural terrain below which garages would be located. Out of three planned, two residential streets were realised: the first, a true artery of the neighbourhood, in the eastwest direction connects two stops of city traffic (bus and railway), under it there are also realised garages; the second (realised but in a slightly different form) develops perpendicular to the first, in the direction of the existing settlements. The ground floors of the buildings were intended for public functions. Secondary connections lead to other vital functions that make up the neighbourhood complex (school, small shopping centre, garages63 etc.) The residential streets divide the neighbourhood into three smaller sections and merge smaller green surfaces into larger, almost forested areas - forming a large central park isolated from traffic and housing.
62. Ibid. 63. For the competition project they were designed as “Sever’s standard cylinders” garages unfortunately unrealised. 64. Distance from the main traffic road, was according to Mušič dictated by the experience of building the BS3 (M. Jernejc, UISRS), where the skyscraper groups expose residents to the growing noise of the city highway.
Masha Tatalovič
The project was subject to constant changes and gradual erasure of some architectural ambitions of the original project, mainly due to the financial capacity of the housing stock and the development of relations with the construction company. Nevertheless, the priorities remained unchanged - the realisation of the spatial concept of the “pedestrian street” and the established distance from the main traffic of the road.64 In high-density housing construction, the “street” successfully creates space for pedestrians and facilitates spontaneous interactions of the local community. The entire complex has a look of unity and a strong identity. This is because its designers (Urban Planning Institute) had great control over determining the architectural language (dimensions, colour scales, typologies of slats, etc.) in all construction phases. They paid close attention to the design of the public space of the project - this includes everything from the detailed plans of the
The Yugoslav Dream
Residential streets
Opposite page: Figure 18: BS7, First building plan 1968 Neighbourhood BS7, (slo. Bežigrajska Soseska 7; “Ruski car”), Bežigrad, Ljubljana Project competition: 1967 Definitive building plan: 1975 Built between: 1967-1980 (by SGP Grosuplje) Architecture: M. Bežan, V.B. Musič, N. Starc (UISRS) Investor: IMOS, Ljubljana
26
27
platforms and streets, arrangement of recreational areas, to the design of the urban equipment (playgrounds, benches, lights, stairs, fences, trash cans, kiosks etc.). For the 1967 competition, 3100 flats for 11,000 people were planned. Then the ambitions first diminished (1969) due to abandoning the idea of settling beyond Titova street. The neighbourhood is defined by the second building plan from 1975, made for 2946 apartments and about 9900 inhabitants, within the floor plan dimensions from the previous phase, which caused the residential lamellas to increase by one or two floors in height. The construction process was hindered by conflicts with the construction company SGP Grosuplje (which changed technologies during the various phases) and changes in the way solidarity housing was financed.65 The architects also complained about the resistance towards building underground garages. Furthermore, the investor kept postponing and altering their arrangement and was thus the main cause of the impoverishment and vagueness of the set concept of the BS7 neighbourhood.
65. The impact of changes in housing policy of the time can be observed in the fragmentation (of financing the project since its competition conception) - overall, there is large fragmentation in the financing of the socialist neighbourhoods; case studies lack clarity, especially in solidarity housing financing. 66. Luka Skansi and Matevž Čelik, Soseske in ulice: Vladimir Braco Mušič in arhitektura velikega merila (Ljubljana: MAO, 2016), 55-73. 67. Ibid, 55-73. 68. Mihelič, Urbanistični razvoj Ljubljane, 61.
Masha Tatalovič
The clarity of the architectural features, clear boundaries and shapes of vacant space, reflect the reasonably completed stages in the construction of the neighbourhood, which depended primarily on the inflow of investment and on the strategies agreed with the contractors.66 Together with the coordination of designers on various criteria and topics such as density, standardised urban equipment, colour scales, parks and landscaping, visual relationships with the landscape - BS7 is one of the most exciting examples of total urbanism, not only in Slovenia but in Yugoslavia.67 To this day, the pedestrian “street” is a generator of activity and circulation in the neighbourhood. In both neighbourhoods, ŠS6 and BS7, two morphological concepts were formed, which were later repeated several times in different variants: the linear concept of a city residential street, as realised in BS7 (the motif of several parallel residential streets was the basis of the BS3, Stožice), and the concept of building on the basis of a closed or semi-closed building block, which articulates the space of the settlement and creates a more intimate scale in it (well seen in ŠS6, Fužine).68 The use of new, more urban forms, such as the street and the articulated block, contributed to a higher quality of the residential environment and its attractiveness. Instead of the distinctly anonymous space typical of older housing estates, the new forms gave the settlements a greater identity. While especially the ground plans of residential neighbourhoods show a decisive shift towards higher quality, the density and the associated height dimension were
The Yugoslav Dream
Opposite page: Figure 19: “Bratovševa ploščad”, scene from “Sreča na vrvici” 1977 The neighbourhood as a whole consists of three streets, namely: “Bratovševa ploščad”, “Glinškova ploščad” and “Mucherjeva ulica”.
28
29
an obvious reflection of economic logic and the influence of modern foreign models. There was a parallel development of a different attitude towards highrise construction and a tendency to reduce the vertical dimension, as show in the BS3 neighbourhood.69 In the 1970s, the construction of neighbourhoods continued, which to some extent still followed the original principle. They included facilities of the accompanying program, maintained the separation of motor traffic from the pedestrian path, used different housing types, and included spacious common green areas. They preserved patterns, mainly adapted architectural forms, and gradually revived traditional urban elements, squares, streets, and courtyards.
xi. The green street, BS3 The motif of the residential street, used in BS7 as the main urban element, in the BS3 neighbourhood (1970-1982) evolves into the form of a “green street”. BS3 covers a 800m long and 250m wide building strip and lies by the Ljubljana northern ring road, near the Stožice sports park and green recreational areas along the Sava river. Approximately 10,000 inhabitants live in 2,364 apartments. It is one of the best housing projects with a high density of construction in Slovenia and, in many respects, represents the culmination of the work of Arnautović. It intertwines a developmentally mature prefabricated system, ambient diversity, rationality, and playfulness of formal derivations.70
69. In the 1960s, in addition to the traditional collective apartment block and singlefamily house - a terraced block became a popular type, combining the advantages of the previous two. In Ljubljana, the first were built in Koseze and represented a quality typological novelty. However, concentrated in one space and repeated countless times, they bring monotony to the housing estate. 70. Kaja L. Vehovar, “Soseska BS 3,” Ohranjanje stanovanjske dediščine, accessed December 5, 2021, https://kubusarhitektura. com/sl/soseska-bs-3/
Masha Tatalovič
The main guideline in urban design was intended to create quality and diverse outdoor environments. They were created with a rich articulation of buildings and open spaces and modernly redesigned classic elements of urban space, such as streets, footpaths, squares and parks, green areas, and playgrounds. Instead of the usually planned single central public space, several smaller ambiences with different characters were designed. The basic program of the residential neighbourhood is supplemented with activities of social importance (kindergarten, shops, library, post office, bakery, bars). The low-block area of the neighbourhood is divided into four parallel lines of articulated buildings, interrupted three times by large green areas. The public space between the lines of the buildings is organised into streets, along which there are children’s playgrounds and recreation areas, or into park arrangements, intertwined with walking paths and lush greenery. The main access routes to the building entrances run perpendicular to the primary lines of urban design.
The Yugoslav Dream
Streets and parks
Opposite page: Figure 20: BS-3 Neighbourhood (slo. Bežigrajska soseska 3), 1970-1982 The settlement contains a wide range of different outdoor ambiences, formed by units of blocks with their vertical and horizontal displacement.
30
31
The neighbourhood was completed in 1982 with the construction of two groups of high-rise buildings on the neighbourhood’s eastern edge. The original urban design envisioned two mega-blocks on that edge. Each cluster of iconic skyscrapers consists of three high-rise buildings, with four towers of different heights, which are offset in the floor plan, and interconnected by vertical communications and service balconies. Each group of skyscrapers is arranged around a central square that opens onto flat meadows on the east side. Because the squares are well-articulated, they maintain the human scale (despite the hovering high buildings) and are meaningful gathering spaces. With steep white roofs, reminiscent of snow-capped peaks of the Alps in the background, they soon became one of the most recognisable icons in Ljubljana’s silhouette.71 They represent a desirable object of identification for its inhabitants.
71. Vehovar, Soseska BS-3. 72. Over the years, it has become apparent that the dining space is a junction of an apartment and is in use for much more time and for a much larger number of different activities than initially indicated. On the other hand, in these apartments, the kitchen is finally hidden in a niche next to the outer wall, but it, therefore, has natural lighting and direct ventilation again. The apartments were relatively large (104m2107m2) for that time. The flexible “living” part is a single space of 48m2. (Mercina, Arhitekt Ilija Arnautović, 122.) 73. Vehovar, Soseska BS 3. 74. Mercina, Arhitekt Arnautović, 116-117.
Masha Tatalovič
Ilija
A varied image of open public spaces was created by articulating each row of blocks with horizontal offsets. Stairs in the longitudinal direction connect two adjacent living lamellas, and in the transverse direction, they connect to the footpath through the settlement. Special attention was paid to the design of ground floor apartments that interpret the idea of a house with a garden. Ground floor pavilions with gardens extending into the open space between the blocks are added to the ground floor units raised by half a storey above the ground. The main feature of the floor plans of the apartments is the large central space of the dining room, which extends to the balcony or garden and is distinctly intended for several functions.72 Privacy of ground floor apartments is achieved with height lags.73 The intertwining of apartments and outdoor ambiences as well as private and public green spaces is richer here than in earlier cases. Private green areas are well included in the public open space, which enables the identification of all residents with the entire space. The BS-3 public green areas include a trim track system with arranged rest areas, and the “Path around Ljubljana” also runs through them. Exactly such an external arrangement is often that missing last step towards a comprehensively arranged neighbourhood.74
xii. The self-sufficient city, Nove Fužine Neighbourhood MS 4,5 - better known as Nove Fužine, is one of Ljubljana’s last socially planned urban arrangements, built between 1977-1988. With 18,000 people, in 4,500 apartments (1991: 2,165 socially owned and 2,353 owner-occupied), on 61ha, it is certainly the country’s largest neighbourhood
The Yugoslav Dream
High-rises
Articulation and offsets
Opposite page: Figure 21: Residental blocks BS-3 Architecture and urbanism: 1970-1977 - M. Jernejec and V. Frluga (with I. Arnautović) The living areas of the ground floor apartments are located in pavilions on the garden side. Figure 22: (in the background) Highrises BS-3, Vojkova Street Architecture: I. Arnautović, 1980-1982
32
33
and most densely populated area. For the project’s design, the self-governing housing community of Ljubljana Moste-Polje cooperated with the Ljubljana Urban Planning Institute (LUZ) and the company IMOS.75 Although the first ideas about the settlement appeared soon after WWII, during the period marked by rapid industrialisation and urbanisation, this did not happen until the end of the 1980s.76 The first plans for the settlement in 1958 envisaged the construction of 570 flats for 1,900 inhabitants. The 1975 plan, however, already provided 4,500 apartments for 15,000 people. In that period, immigration to Slovenia was the most intensive. The extensive economy generated the need for many workers, who in the second half of the 1970s came from other republics of the former Yugoslavia, where there was a significant level of unemployment. Due to the expansion of industry on the city’s outskirts, their accommodation was planned in Fužine, consequently increasing the scope of the planned construction.77 A significant regulation and correction of Zaloška street into a new main road were essential.
75. Vidan, Dina. “Geografski vidiki kvalitete bivalnega okolja v soseski Nove Fužine.” Zaključna seminarska naloga, Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za geografijo, 2011. 76. “Fužine so nastale v času sosesk,” DELO, accessed December 5, 2021, https://old. delo.si/novice/ljubljana/fuzineso-nastale-v-casu-sosesk.html. 77. The good load-bearing ground capacity and little built-up of the area gave excellent predispositions for the construction of large buildings. 78. For many of the initially anticipated accompanying facilities of the residential buildings, they ran out of funds, which they were solving by including construction costs in the apartment prices. 79. The Castle of Fužine (16th c.), which today houses MAO, is beside the library, the only other cultural facility in Nove Fužine. Vidan, “Geografski vidiki”.
Masha Tatalovič
Growth
The neighbourhood is sensibly organised and characterised by rich and diverse public spaces - parks, playgrounds, sports and recreational areas. The majority of the public program is located in the northern and southern parts, leaving the intermediate space filled with residential buildings. The main traffic artery (with public transport) longitudinally divides the neighbourhood. Low apartment blocks (P + 3) on the perimeter of the neighbourhood form contact with the existing tissue. High blocks (P + 8, P + 14) together with public programs define three squares in the centre of the neighbourhood, from west to east: “Brodarjev trg”, “Preglov trg”, “Rusjanov trg”. Due to the scale, it was crucial to acknowledge the principles of self-sufficiency, so in parallel with the apartment blocs, they built accompanying social facilities, services and arranged open spaces. The oldest square, “Brodarjev trg”, with its surroundings, grew between 1980-84. The simultaneously-built accompanying facilities included a grocery store, a few craft workshops (florist, hairdresser, dry cleaner, smaller bars), a supermarket, a kindergarten and a primary school. Further, between 1983-1985, grew the apartment blocks on “Preglov trg”. The accompanying facilities included a library (1980), the central cultural space of Nove Fužine, a health centre and another primary school. The youngest “Rusjanov trg”, today also provides a home for the elderly.78 The urban layout considers the possibility of changing housing standards and the future needs of public buildings - it provides vacant spaces for such changes.79
The Yugoslav Dream
Self-sufficiency
Opposite page: Figure 23: Nove Fužine, built between 1977-1988 The neighbourhood is divided into three squares, the following from west to east: “Brodarjev trg”, “Preglov trg”, “Rusjanov trg”.
34
35
The neighbourhood was designed according to the Scandinavian, and a little bit German, model. In apartments, their influences are mainly reflected in the defined minimum-use-value of each space. Logical minimum requirements were set, which meant it was not allowed to design below this level.80 Nove Fužine is an excellent example of a highly greened neighbourhood - large trees cast pleasant shade on the neighbourhood streets, parks and playgrounds.81 The neighbourhood’s character may best be seen on benches in front of blocks, in cafes and playgrounds, under the canopy in the park, in the basketball courts.
80. The neighbourhood consists of several types of apartments, from single rooms and studios to three-room atrium ground floor apartments and duplex apartments with studios on the highest floors. All apartments have a loggia or balcony. Some are even two-side oriented. 81. Garages at the time did not follow the principles of selfsufficiency; they were built later, pinned to the inner road of all three squares. Underground garages remained unrealised due to high costs, allowing large trees to populate the neighbourhood, as underground floors would limit the height and amount of greening between buildings to grass and low shrubs. 82. “This was the time of neighbourhoods, and Fužine was built among the last in this respect. It is a typical example of socialist construction with great concentration and repetition of the same elements. It’s a product of a time that no longer exists, in all respects, technical, economic…” (Vladimir Brezar, one the Fužine architects, for DELO) 83. Ideal scale: families whose children fill one primary school and kindergarten 84. Ideal Layout: subdivided into smaller neighbourhoods (intimate, familiar environments)
Masha Tatalovič
Use-value
One might assume Fužine is not a pleasant urban space because of the large population, tall buildings, and lack of parking spaces. However, the neighbourhood has acquired a distinctly human and pleasant character. The stigma is mainly related to the neighbourhood’s misfortunate reputation, as Ljubljana’s “ghetto”. This mainly stems from the time of the large influx of workers from other Yugoslavian republics - making the population more ethnically heterogeneous. However, the neighbourhood was built with exceptional quality; blocks are clean and tidy, the hallways are spacious. The crime rate is the same or even lower than in other parts of Ljubljana. It is quietly located next to a river and nature and is suitable for families with young children as for the elderly. The majority of its residents are satisfied with the neighbourhood as a whole. Nevertheless, there have been several recent initiatives to revitalise it - better parking, maintenance of outdoor areas, and the urgent need to implement various activities in the neighbourhood.82
xiii. The socialist legacy Fragmented and unplanned housing construction, which proliferated at the end of the 1980s, completely changed the image of settlements and the way of use and social life, impairing connections between residents. In contrast, the construction of residential neighbourhoods illustrated a qualitative change, vital for the organisation of the city and the formation and integration of local communities. Neighbourhood units have a high impact on the development and well-being of their residents. With their scale83 and layout84, implemented program and public social spaces, they enable the individual to establish their own identity through the identification of the residential environment. The overall design forms a unique balance between “individual” and “collective” - as it enables a
The Yugoslav Dream
Opposite page: Figure 24: Fužine, April 1985
36
37
high degree of intimacy and forms a sense of belonging to the neighbourhood. This stems from the critique of large cities of industrialisation, where the resident was only an anonymous individual who could not find their identity within it. Ljubljana’s socialist neighbourhoods have a strong, distinct and clear urban and architectural design, good integration into the surrounding area and quality living conditions. They were designed to promote social contacts, strengthen connections between residents and weave genuine human ties. They used different urban gestures, such as the residential street (BS7, BS3) or articulated public space bound by compact buildings in the forms of squares or horseshoes (Fužine, ŠS6). 85. Open public spaces (parks, playgrounds, sports fields etc.) between the housing blocs are actively used. 86. Located along the main city entrances, near green recreational areas and equipped with modern infrastructure. 87. Inconsistency of realisation: ŠS6 never received a cultural and trade centre which was supposed to form the centre of the neighbourhood, BS3 underground parking spaces, BS7 the program of the street or platform. 88. One of the main reasons why most of these complexly designed centres remained only partially realised is the perception of the neighbourhood as a support for the urban organisation of the city, rather than as a structure that would prevent the impoverishment of social life. 89. Ljubljana was small compared to Zagreb, Belgrade, or Stockholm, where new neighbourhoods were built as “satellite cities”. This presented low urgency to realise the new neighbourhoods as completely autonomous (with a comprehensive ancillary program). They often became a continuation of the urban fabric of the city.
Masha Tatalovič
The inhabitants of the socialist neighbourhoods mostly came from the countryside and exchanged their tight communities in contact with nature for living in the cramped block of flats. For this reason, the open public spaces between blocks performed a vital role as the “extended living room”.85 Living within the neighbourhood goes beyond the apartment’s interior - it becomes the entire experience of inhabiting the neighbourhood unit. The “hybrid” housing policy, which despite leaning towards market principles, always emphasised the use-value of housing and promoted above minimal-standard conditions, played a significant role in ensuring that decent living standard was available to everyone. Quality standards and innovation within the neighbourhood dwellings, and well designed public spaces, are some of the reasons why they are still some of the best housing projects of Ljubljana.86 Shortcomings are common to the majority of the socialist neighbourhoods. A large problem is the significantly insufficient number of parking spaces compared to today’s needs. In the last thirty years, the number of cars in individual households increased dramatically due to rising living standards. The issue directly affects existing green spaces, which the vehicles invade and destroy. Today’s inhabitants also have to face the consequences of past compromises between professional solutions and political or economic demands - that is, the lack of community space and the lack of a public program.87 Essential for a neighbourhood to be an autonomous social unit is a wide range of various ancillary social facilities.88 From the moment the market model of housing construction was introduced, the community aspect was no longer at the forefront - the social note of neighbourhoods gradually faded away.89 In current social circumstances, the implementation of a good public program and development of open spaces are often represented only as a burden of investment .
The Yugoslav Dream
Between individual and collective
Extended living-room
Hybrid
Shortcomings
Opposite page: Figure 25: 1980s, Fužine blocks, hidden in greenery
38
39
xiv.
From socialism to capitalism
Until December 1991, the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia guaranteed citizens the right to housing in a socially-owned apartment. The new Constitution merely states the right to personal dignity and security, which is nevertheless only possible if basic human needs are secured, including adequate housing. The state is obliged to create opportunities for citizens to obtain suitable accommodation.90 Despite its constitutional commitments, Slovenia has been without an effective housing policy since its independence.91 Following the independence and the emergence of a market economy, the Housing Act (“Jazbinšek Act”), adopted in 1991, introduced a major reform of the housing sector. In addition to the systemic regulation, it contained the methods and conditions for the privatisation of social housing. As a consequence of the very favourable terms, 79% of social housing was sold to sitting tenants by 1993.92 The housing ownership structure changed radically - more than 90% of all dwellings became owner-occupied. Housing pricing was and still is, left to the free market. With such a policy, the situation in the housing market in the last 30 years has become unsustainable.
90. Ustava Republike Slovenije, 78. člen, (primerno stanovanje) 91. K. L. Vehovar, “Pravica do stanovanja, 2.,” Dnevnik, accessed December 5, 2021, https://www.dnevnik. si/1042977848 92. The average selling price was approximately 10% of its market value. 93. The unemployed and economically weaker residents pose a problem since they cannot afford to make financial contributions.
Masha Tatalovič
The 1991 law caused a large fragmentation of ownership in multi-apartment buildings and unclear ownership relations regarding public areas within residential neighbourhoods. Consequently, public green spaces often remain neglected and unmaintained, especially the accompanying urban equipment. In the last few decades, the image of neighbourhoods began to change noticeably. Uncoordinated individual interventions on the facades and mass renovations are mostly disrespectful to the original architecture, spoil the buildings’ visual image, and destroy the authenticity of the architecture. As a result, the coherence of entire neighbourhoods is collapsing, turning into unrecognisable complexes with ruined identities. The physical ageing of the neighbourhoods is impacting the living quality. Public, poorly maintained spaces suffer the most. Since most of these neighbourhoods were built more than 50 years ago, they require extensive renovation.93 Additionally, as the neighbourhood ages, so do its residents, meaning the age structure shifts and diversifies, from students and young families to the more elderly. Due to inefficient housing regulations stemming from the 1991 Act, Slovenia is currently at the top of European countries with the highest share of owner-
The Yugoslav Dream
Independence, 1991
Fragmentation
Opposite page: Figure 26: Children playing, 1970s, Sava Settlement
40
41
occupied housing, leading to increasingly difficult solutions to housing problems. There are practically no affordable apartments to buy for most of the population in Ljubljana and the surrounding area. Renting a market apartment has become a severe financial burden for the median income person. The demand for non-profit rental housing in public tenders of the housing fund far exceeds the supply.94 Managing a city solely according to market principles without listening to the population’s basic needs is detrimental. The rental market, which is mainly exploitative due to the lack of rental housing, needs to expand and promote longterm (non-profit) rental. Especially municipalities have many competencies and opportunities to improve the situation95 by creating a more balanced relationship between the equity and rental housing fund.
94. The fund awards them to young beneficiaries by lot. 95. They manage municipal property, plan spatial development, direct spatial interventions, and are obliged by law to create conditions for housing construction and increase the rental social fund of housing. 96. Starting at 4000eur/m2 and exceeding 8000eur/m2 in the city centre - the high prices do not prevent them from being sold even before construction is completed. 97. The fact is that today buying a home is primarily a profitable investment and an opportunity to enrich the capital. At the same time, the purchase price for most citizens who want to solve their housing problem is unaffordable. 98. Although this indicates an extraordinary lack of housing capacity, 2019 statistics (SURS) show that many existing flats in Slovenia remain unused. In January 2018, as many as 152,000 flats in Slovenia were vacant. One third of these were built before 1945, and many also lack basic infrastructure.
Masha Tatalovič
The majority of current active construction sites in Ljubljana are of luxury and above-standard housing. They occupy central city plots, are often funded with foreign capital, and set extremely high prices.96 On the other hand, public housing funds are building housing estates mainly on the city’s outskirts. Although some apartments are still for sale, more and more are intended for nonprofit rent. However, the non-profit supply is insufficient to solve the housing crisis in the short term.97 Following the basic principles of sustainable development, the renovation of the current housing stock should take precedence over new construction. At the same time, it is necessary to intensively promote regional development and create conditions for living and working outside Ljubljana. 98
xv.
Conclusion
The late 50s and early 60s were a pioneering period of Slovene housing research. The progress made in urban development during the times of Yugoslavia and dedication to evolving key typological elements, ensuring a quality social life of the population, is something that has not been present (enough) in the projects of the past 30 years. Therefore, despite certain shortcomings, we can gain a lot from the revaluation of Ljubljana’s modernist neighbourhoods and the housing policy of the time. The legacy shows that despite the market being a part of the equation, it was still possible to build housing of certain quality and prioritise use-value over exchange-value. By embracing such a mentality, we can create a framework that will ensure a more sustainable long-term architecture
The Yugoslav Dream
Opposite page: Figure 27: Scenes from “Sreča na vrvici”, 1977, Soseska “Ruski car” (BS7)
42
43
and a higher quality environment, and life, for all citizens. Solving the housing crisis must be put in the foreground. Additionally, the acute environmental threats only emphasise that now, more than ever before, is the time to carefully rethink further spatial interventions on the urban and typological scale. For that, we will need a more thought-out urban and social policy, creating conditions for sustainable living environments in which the future generations will prosper.
Opposite page: Figure 28: Children playing, 1970s, ŠS6
Masha Tatalovič
The Yugoslav Dream
