'Fleemarket' as a topic for urban and spatial planning

Abstract

The problem of management and balancing of city growth is more difficult to tackle under the circumstances of economic and social crises, poverty and different forms of the enhancement of development disparities and differences in quality of living between urban, peri-urban and rural areas. Because of uncontrolled and illegal development, especially in the last twenty years, there has been an emergence of the whole belts and agglomerations surrounding our cities, yet Serbia still doesn't have either a doctrine or an adequate practice for rehabilitation or at least certain territorial organization in such agglomerations. Most commonly, it is the case of individual dwellings which, because of the population density they support, are not rational enough in terms of communal and social infrastructure equipping and are in­corporating to city suffocation and loss of urban identity in urban-rural areas, i.e. in peri-urban zones. On the other hand, central city zones are formally developed according to the Regulation plans, but actually are being developed according to the particular interests based on political and economic power. Cities, and especially their central zones are being deconstructed, i.e. they are developed without a plan and without real public participation. Therefore, it seems properly to use the term 'urban fleemarket when speaking of unplanned and uncontrolled urban development in Serbia.

Neplanskom i nekontrolisanom izgradnjom, naročito poslednjih 20 godina, nastali su čitavi prstenovi i aglomeracije oko naših gradova, a da u Srbiji još uvek nemamo ni doktrinu, niti adekvatnu praksu kako je moguće rehabilitovati i, bar do nekog stepena, urediti prostor u tim aglomeracijama. U situaciji kada nema urbanističkih planova za gradove i njihove rubne zone, a ako ih ima niko ne garantuje zaštitu javnog i pojedinačnih interesa u korišćenju i izgradnji urbanog i periurbanog prostora, ne može se govoriti ni o neplanskoj niti o nelegalnoj gradnji. Čini se da je urbanističko planiranje svedeno na plansku formu i formalno pokriće gradskih i opštinskih vlasti, urbanista i arhitekata za faktičku razgradnju urbanog prostora prema partikularnim interesima zasnovanim na ekonomskoj i političkoj moći. U razvoju naših gradova, siromaštvu i drugim oblicima bede, ispravnije bi bilo govoriti o 'urbanom buvljaku' koji je kao oblik sive ekonomije zahvatio posebno periferne zone naših gradova. Problemu uređenja centralnih i periurbanih zona moralo bi se pristupiti na različite načine. Ako se kod centralnih zona radi o rekonstrukciji i očuvanju urbanog identiteta i kvaliteta, kod periurbanih zona je osnovni problem uspostavljanje minimuma urbanističkog i građevinskog reda i identiteta tih zona koji bi bio blizak urbanom.