From the Habsburg Era to Early Yugoslav Sarajevo

Context: The final stages of the Habsburg administration in the city of Sarajevo, which had a population of 52,000 in the first decades of the 20th century, were marked by the rise of secular nationalism among ethnic groups, when neighbouring countries used Bosnia and Herzegovina as a battlefield for their mutual extraterritorial aspirations (Donia, 2006). The political and social upheaval culminated in the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife Sophie on 28 June 1914, during their official visit to Sarajevo. This event led to World War I and put Sarajevo in the historical spotlight. The end of World War I was marked by the cessation of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, when Sarajevo and Bosnia and Herzegovina became part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.

During the Early Yugoslav period of Sarajevo’s development, the principles of the modernist architectural movement of the first half of the 20th

century were embraced. A group of Bosnian architects14 who graduated from prominent European architecture schools in Prague, Vienna and Zagreb designed the city’s first modernist public and residential buildings. They discarded the historical eclectic styles and ornamentation of the previous epochs, as well as the national, regional and ethnic architectural expressions of the past, and promoted the principles of functionalism and an international, ethnically unbiased, architectural idiom. The acceptance of modern architecture corresponded with the multinational identity and socio-political ideology of the Early Yugoslav period.

14 The most prominent architects from the interwar period in Sarajevo were Mate Bajlon, Helen Baldasar, Jahiel Finci, Leon Kabiljo, Muhamed Kadic, Reuf Kadic, Emanuel Samanek and Dusan Smiljanic.

Development in the interwar period was in decline in comparison to finde-siecle urbanisation. Austro-Hungarian regulations had provided the only legal framework and guidelines for the city’s development, and as a result, the urban and architectural developments of the time lacked a systematic approach, consisting mainly of building interpolations within existing urban blocks. The construction of public buildings in the early Yugoslav period was funded primarily by banks, endowment trusts and cooperatives. In general, architectural and urban spaces in the public realm were emphasised less due to the new political circumstances and reduced administrative authorities of the city of Sarajevo, which had become part of the Drina Banate of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. The most recurrent architectural typologies of the time included administrative/ office buildings, mixed-use (residential and public) buildings, banks and saving funds, schools and cooperative centres (present-day cinemas), and several youth centres for culture and recreation.

The urban development of Sarajevo in the interwar period was still dependent on Austro-Hungarian regulations and construction codes from 1893. Despite individual professional initiatives and architectural competitions advocating the need for an urbanism strategy, there was no consistent and constructive endeavour to develop new regulations or create urban public spaces in Sarajevo. This was mostly for financial reasons (Milosevic, 1997). Theoretical discourse on the architectural and urban perspectives of Sarajevo was initiated by Austro-Hungarian architect Josip Pospisil and continued during the early Yugoslav period, tackling key urban issues such as the city’s topography and the application of principles of modern movement, such as traffic, zoning and orientation. Statistics show that from 1918 to 1945, 57 new documented urban units (streets and squares) were built (Bejtic, 1973). The notion of public space, however, was only present as a topic in theoretical discussions and competitions, and not in the form of concrete urban realisation.

One of the era’s most controversial urban debates was generated by an urban design competition for Sarajevo’s former central square, King Peter Square (currently Liberation Square [Trg oslobodjenja – Alija Izetbegovic]) (Figure 5). This competition, organised in 1934, had 27 entries and was evaluated by two juries in two cycles, but the realisation of the winning design was impeded due to the outbreak of World War II (Milosevic, 1997). On the occasion of the competition announcement, Professor Marcel Martinis analysed the urban, social and cultural importance of public spaces to Sarajevo: “The city of Sarajevo lacks actual squares, especially the representative types of squares […] All places of worship and public buildings are scattered around the city, and are located at large distances […] Some of the most representative buildings are not accompanied by squares, nor do they have matching urban space, which would enable a proper distance and perspective, as well as a total architectural effect […] Squares are ornaments of the cities, their wonderful artistic constituents that reflect the cultural and artistic affinities of its citizens, and add a specific value to each city. The squares are closely related to the events of public, cultural and social life of a city” (Milosevic, 1997).

Although urban design issues were addressed in theoretical discourse, there were no actual contributions to the urban planning of the city during the Early Yugoslav period. Conversely, early modernist architecture had an indirect effect on the urban image of the city, as the visual identity of its public spaces (mostly streets, promenades and urban blocks) was filled with modernist facades, especially Sarajevo’s inner city. The modernist public buildings of the Early Yugoslav period were interpolated in the Austro-Hungarian urban matrix, complementing the medium- and largescale urban blocks in the central parts of the city.

Due to the socio-political context of the war and interwar times, in which the political authority of the city of Sarajevo within the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was in decline, only a small number of public buildings were

Figure 5. The retrospective overview of the transformation of Liberation Square / Trg oslobodjenja – Alija Izetbegovic. Top left: Historical photo of the Liberation square prior the WWII (previously known as the Ofizierkasino-Platz during the AustroHungarian period). Centre and bottom: Liberation– Alija Izetbegovic square today.

developed. Most construction was of residential buildings, with a few fully accessible buildings to host social and cultural activities, and some mixeduse buildings with public zones, which were financed institutionally by pension funds and trusts, as in the case of the Retirement Fund building. One of the first truly public buildings from the early modernist period was the FIS youth centre for sports, recreation and culture, which allowed the general population open access and hosted social activities, at which (mostly young) citizens could spend their free time.

With the exception of a few cases, the character of architectural and urban production of the time was introverted, and its architectural facades can be interpreted as tools of communication with citizens in open public spaces. These modern facades were inserted next to those of the historical secession and pseudo-Moorish styles, resulting in heterogeneous urban blocks. This new urban identity, in the form of a colourful collage of contrasting historical and modern facades, symbolises Sarajevo’s historical and socio-political transitions.

Because the Early Yugoslav era of Sarajevo’s urban development occurred between the two world wars, it can be characterised as transitory in cultural, economic and socio-political senses. Due to the city’s decreased political power within the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, there weren’t many significant or strategic urban contributions. Although architectural developments, especially in the public realm, were sporadic, the relevance of this transitory epoch is visible in the introduction of modern principles and the rise of theoretical discourse in Sarajevo’s architectural scene. Subtle insertions of modernist buildings into the urban matrix can be regarded as an attempt to continue the Austro-Hungarian legacy, while at the same time the contrasting architectural language of the two eras created an idiosyncratic urban image of the transition between the two socio-political regimes.