W4 beko factory

W4 Arena for agreement: The creation of social consensus Case study: Beko factory mentor: Marija Maruna PhD, Dubravka Sekulic participants: Sara Devic, Marijana Nikolovska, Lina Dimitrovska, Stefan Nesic, Nenad Stijovic Marija Milosavljevic, Dijana Kljajic, Sofija Tanaskovic, Djordje Jovic, Nebojsa Viloitc

Time Line

?

Disposition of the stakeholders

Power – Interest Matrix

Private Sector Stakeholders ZAHA HADID ARCHITECTS ARGUMENT: “The project focuses on urban regeneration of an important site at the intersection of key cultural artifacts. The master plan follows the region’s strong modernist traditions and has applied new concepts and methods that examine and organize the programs of the site; defining a composition of buildings with the elegance of coherence that addresses the complexity of 21st century living patterns. The design for BEKO is embedded within the surrounding landscape of Belgrade’s cultural axis and incorporates essential public spaces.”

PRIORITY: Constructing an object which represents Zahas’ architecture in south-eastern Europe.

ZISIMOS DANILATOS (Lamda Development)

ARGUMENT: “Our intention is to fully revitalize this important but neglected part of the city. The complex will not only represent a new place to live, but a completely new urban center suitable for pleasure, business, tourism, shopping, and culture. For us, this location is priceless, and that's why we hired the world's best architects such as studio Zaha Hadid Architects to create something really special and unique.”

PRIORITY: Investing in payable commercial content, without prolonging.

VUK DJUROVIC (Center for Urban Development Planning) ARGUMENT: “Everything the draft plan provides, is in accordance with the conditions given by The City and The Republic Institute for Preservation of Cultural Heritage. I wish it could be the park, but if The government wanted it to be green space, it wouldn’t have taken them 50 years to create it , nor should it have been sold to a private investor.”

PRIORITY: Making a Plan od Detailed Regulation for the contractor.

Public Sector Stakeholders VERA PAVLOVIC LONCARSKI (Director of the Institute for Cultural Heritage Preservation) ARGUMENT: “We have made the requirements for preservation for that area and according to that the Fortress and everything within it must be respected. Existing objects can not be demolished, nor can that area be transformed into an amusment park. The people that are against the project are the autors of the previous plans which are denied by the General urbanistic plan, and we can not do anything about that.”

PRIORITY: Working according to the law, in order of preserving cultural heritage.

ASSEMBLY OF THE CITY, CEP ARGUMENT: „The aim of the construction of the Plan is defining a concept of development, forming the urban form of the central towns’ block, and finding adequate instruments for its transformation, according to the character of the location, analysis of the existing possibilities and eventual limitations of spatial usage.

All of that is done by: Defining the public interest; Creating planned possibilities to improve the usage of existing objects and also for building the new ones; Providing the capacity of technical infrastructure for the existing and planned construction; Preserving and improving the environmental conditions.“ PRIORITY: Making compatible Plans of Regulation for the entire City of Belgrade.

Civil Sector Stakeholders I N D E P E N D E N T E X P E R T S

ALEKSANDRA BANOVIC (Former Director of the Institute for Cultural Heritage Preservation) ARGUMENT: “By changing the applicable plan of detailed regulation, from 1969, which is my labor, its concept changes too. Green areas which were planned to be the entertainment park, cultural contents and foothpaths between streets of Tadeusa Koscuska and walls are destroyed by new constructions. We are going to get new walls only 20 meters from existing, and the silhouette will be affected, which is unacceptable. Fortress’ space, because of its importance must get a unique solution adjusted to the particular investor.”

PRIORITY: Protecting her labor and pointing out the importance of adjusting the solutions of new Plans.

DRAGOMIR MANOJLOVIC (Architect) ARGUMENT: „General urban plan from 2003 didn’t get approval of Republic and City Institute for the cultural contents which means that it couldn’t allow changes in the plan of detailed regulation.“ PRIORITY: Questioning the legitimacy of the process of approving new Plans.

WHO BUILDS THE CITY ARGUMENT: “The idea behind this discussion, in one particular example, was to inquire and understand the mechanisms, relationships and processes that shape the development of the city as well as the opportunities that citizens have on planning and development of the environment in which they live and to demand greater responsibility of those who work in public institutions and who should represent the public interest. This whole project is contrary to accepted principles of integrative conservation and sustainable development, which treat cultural heritage as a non-renewable resource development. The new Plan is problematic because it only observed that particular block and not the whole surrounding of Belgrade Fortress.”

PRIORITY: Questioning the transparency of the process of approving new Plans – including the civil sector and independent experts in a decision making process for future projects.

1. RECOGNITION OF THE CONTEXT - Repositioning the legal regulations concerning the preservation of the cultural – historical heritage - Repositioning the rolls and the positions of the participants within the institutions for the preservation of cultural – historical heritage - Proposing the adequate methods of strategic planning in architecture and urban development

2. ACQUIRING THE TRANSPARENCY OF THE FUTURE PROJECTS - The media taking part in informing the civil sector about all the steps of the process - Involvement of the civil sector in decision making steps of the process - Questioning and repositioning the existing regulations, or forming the new ones to protect the public interest

3. REDUCTION OF THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF “STARHITECTURE” - Using the landscape architecture to create a transition between the Fortress and the new object - Special control of the future construction on the surrounding area

4. ENCOURAGING AND CONTROL OF THE POSITIVE EFFECTS - Forming new functions in the surrounding blocks - Creating the new identity of the area - Planned and controlled reshaping of the surrounding

GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!

ACT AND REACT!!!