Greenery does not surround the built-up part, but permeates it

Dean of Faculty of Architecture professor in Belgrade Vladimir Lojanica is the head of the "Proaspekt" team, whose solution won the first prize at the competition for the arrangement of the area of ​​the municipality of Čukarica, opposite the protected area of ​​the Košutnjak Forest.

The competition, which received 26 works, covered the area between the streets of Blagoj Parović, Knez Višeslav, Miloj Zakić and Vladimir Rolović, opposite the Košutnjak Forest, one of the most important green spaces in Belgrade, with an area of ​​about 85 hectares.

Apart from the mentioned award, the latest of many awards of Vladimir Lojanica, the reason for our conversation is also the events at Belgrade University.

"WEATHER" Your task was to create a programmatic and spatial concept for the urban and landscape revitalization of the built-up area, There are various institutions on it. - from Avala Film, RTS-a, to the Faculty of Sports and the Church of St. Luke. What happened, according to your concept, should be done with that part of the city?

VLADIMIR LOJANICA: In the very extensive materials of the thoroughly prepared, well-elaborated and documented call for tenders (really for every example of how it should be done), it is repeatedly apostrophized that the existing structure of the space covered by the tender contains various found and inherited "accidental neighbors" that you mention. One of the numerous, layered tasks of the competition was the solution of the interrelationship of these clearly profiled entities and their integration into the city flows in a sustainable manner, including their ecological revitalization.

Our competition solution recognizes the mentioned, different spatial zones - ambient units that include both already built and degraded areas. Asphalted approaches, abandoned warehouses and existing traffic infrastructure. These surfaces were treated as brownfield potentially interesting opportunities, suitable for reconstruction and new construction with minimal disturbance of the natural environment. With this proposal for the revitalization, reconstruction and arrangement of the existing spatial and functional sub-units, we propose, in fact, the return of the currently unavailable green space to the city, through its reprogramming according to the principle of an open urban module that would integrate this part of the city's public green environment with the existing and supplement it with new modern spaces for cultural content, life and work.

What are you?, for example, predicted with Avala film?

Of course, Avala film occupies a completely unique place in the collective consciousness and emotions of the material and cultural heritage of the former headquarters of the domestic film industry. Our proposal for its reconstruction does not aim only at the constructional renovation but also at the spatial interpretation of the heritage — as a modern response to the past, through an architectural expression that incorporates this inherited spirit of the place. At the center of the concept is the idea of ​​an open cultural center, conceived as the heart of a new urban complex. Its location, at the intersection of key pedestrian routes, makes it a natural place to meet, socialize and stay. The new spaces are shaped by the rhythm of movement and retention, defining the identity of the place and offering the necessary prerequisites for the formation of a lively, inclusive city scene. The revitalization of the building implies a multi-layered integration with the urban context: the building's contact with the ground is dematerialized and transformed into an extension of the square — a fluid public space that erases the boundaries between interior and exterior. The facade was reinterpreted through the concept of interactive digital greenery - a combination of technology, sustainability and biodiversity, and the purpose of the new multifunctional hub combines performing arts, a film center, co-working spaces for creative industries, open forum, new generation gallery space, etc.

The jury emphasizes landscape in its explanation-the architectural approach of your resulting work "launched" dimensions of objects. What it means?

This means that the new urban landscape is shaped unobtrusively and permeable, creating a soft transition between the natural and the built. The multi-layered vegetation would protect against wind and sun, create a favorable microclimate, and the orientation of the buildings and unevenness of the terrain would carefully control the air flow and quality all-day sunlight of the residential areas. Greenery does not surround the architecture, but permeates it, encroaches on its borders and shapes the experience of the environment from the outside-in. At the same time, the interior spaces open up to the natural landscape, creating a new spatial complex in which the usual divisions disappear and the space exudes a unique whole. The new structure, viewed from the outside, is barely noticeable in the dense canopy, and viewed from the inside, from the center of the grouping, the volumes of new buildings softly integrated into the morphology of the terrain "evaporate" towards the forest.

The part of Čukarica that was a project assignment is full of greenery. Citizens often protest against the destruction of greenery. Are they right?

They are. However, when mentioning this sensitive issue, there are a few things to keep in mind first, which can help prevent the essence from being misunderstood. First, the subject area is not included in the scope of the Košutnjak forest area. Secondly, during the last decades, this locality has come a long way from a wasteland, through the periphery to a spontaneously grown dense greenery, which is currently inaccessible, overgrown and neglected. However, even this is extremely valuable because it represents a potential transfer of the forest's green fund to the other side of the hill. That is why the citizens were right. Third, in the tender documents you can find a dendrological survey, with a cataloged evaluation of the creditworthiness and degree of importance for each individual tree (all 14.500), as well as a sharp line defined by an interdisciplinary team of reference experts in the field in terms of delimiting the potential construction zone and the zone of protected greenery. Then, as you stated in the first question, that area has already been built, so the zone of new construction is positioned next to the existing facilities and infrastructure without stepping on the aforementioned demarcation line. And finally, the citizens' protest for the reasons you mention from five years ago stopped the further progress of the plan based on the project at that time. This time, studies were made that were included in the documentation of the competition material, a renowned, nine-member, international, multidisciplinary jury was formed, 26 teams participated, the first-prized solution was chosen, which will serve as the basis for the development of a new plan. There couldn't be a healthier methodology for new urban planning, could there? These are the facts, any different interpretation, especially perhaps by some angry columnist who sensationally jumps out of the thick darkness with the slogan that the competition and the first-prized solution "urbanizes the forest area of ​​Kosutnjak" (not to paraphrase other too terrible metaphors from that text), is deeply malicious.

photo: marija janković

Since when the cities in Serbia are arranged by investors, architects are thought of as henchmen. Is that true??

Architecture could never do without investors. The problem is poorly negotiated agreements with investors that have devastating consequences for which no one is later held accountable (whoever makes those agreements). Architects are only one of the participants in the process. And in ideal circumstances, they should act professionally correctively. But what if the circumstances are not ideal, but the circumstances from the domain of politics and economy are imperatively mirrored in the profession? Add to that today's power of money, the model of architecture as a business, where it's like when you go to an aesthetic surgeon to beautify you, and he has nothing to do with aesthetics, but only wants to charge you, so you go to an architect and he has nothing to do with architecture, and then you get a cartoonish result in both cases. Unfortunately, insatiable greed dominates, banalization of the "right" to one's own choice and self-regulation, "interest oppression"...

When it's, roughly speaking, most to blame for the fact that our cities are arranged by investor urbanism? Are these investors?, profession, city ​​government, citizens...

Continuation of the previous question. If, as they say, architecture is a reflection of the time and society in which it is created, when we look around us, by all accounts, we have a huge road to recovery ahead of us. If it is even possible in our case, given that we have skipped entire eras in civilizational development. The bright future of architecture and the development of cities lies in raising the entire life framework and processes that surround us, first of all the value system, the level of culture, mutual respect, completely on the other side of the swelling immoderations in everything.

Who cares that Belgrade does not have a General Urban Plan?

It's not like there's nothing. We have the General Regulation Plan from 2016 with amendments from 2022, the decision to draft a new one from 2019, and the draft GUP in 2024 for early public review. I apologize if I missed something or made a mistake somewhere. So, whoever wants to can see a lot of useful things and guidelines there. The only question is whether some things should be looked at at all or can be done without looking... It also says which territories form the backbone of the city's development, so perhaps some answers can be found there.

The Faculty of Architecture declared for the preservation of the General Staff and the Belgrade Fair. How do you feel?, will your arguments, and all others who think like Architectural, be overpowered by private interests?

The process of integrating expert thought into planning processes is often overlooked. We have already mentioned the reasons. We also mentioned the preferred methodology for the return of expertise to a position that influences the planning and development of the city. The expert meeting held on that topic then united the trade union precisely in the appeal that the profession should return to such important processes in the right way. I don't know how far it went, can we talk more about it, will we hear each other, what will happen? It is necessary to improve the general image of the area, use every opportunity for a plus point, and not for another in a series of irreparable minuses. It's not looking good at the moment.

Public open architectural competitions have long been in deficit. Does the Faculty of Architecture, primarily because of colleagues who are at the beginning of their careers, can influence that practice to change?

Countless times I had the opportunity to speak about the importance of the competition. I do this regularly and in classes precisely for those who are at the beginning of their careers. Realizing the importance of the competition institution for the corrective qualitative profiling of the profession, the Faculty of Architecture in Belgrade, within its capabilities, very often organizes student competitions in external collaborations during the course of studies. It always gives excellent results; take, for example, the student competition for the reconstruction of the General Staff buildings, which was implemented a few years ago on the initiative and in cooperation with SANA, the Faculty of Philosophy and BINA, on the occasion of the 125th anniversary of the birth of architect Nikola Dobrović, the author of the General Staff building. This is where the spectrum of possible direct influence of the Faculty as an educational institution on this broader social practice would end. There remains an indirect influence through the membership of Faculty professors in competition juries, which can thus influence the formation of a critical attitude about architecture and beyond.

Recently, by changing the Rulebook on the procedure for drawing up plans, it was decided that public sessions will be held online. Please comment.

The online model is a tool and it can certainly help a lot in numerous situations, I believe also in situations where it is necessary to promptly gather a large number of people in the same place for the sake of discussions and agreements. We've all been doing it since the corona and we're still doing it successfully many times in many situations. But like any tool, it is not omnipotent and has limitations. The most important thing is how it is used, who uses it and for what. A priori, I do not have a negative opinion on this issue. But it is not news that even the noblest tool used in the wrong way can give bad results.

You won first prize and - what now? What is the fate of your work??

The first prize now enters the post-competition phase and its further life and fate follow. I had the good fortune and pleasure to find myself in similar situations several times. The first next step, when the laurels are laid aside and the criticisms are endured, is the preparation of a planning document based on the competitive solution, which implies serious interdisciplinary cooperation and dialogue. It will take some time. The dynamics depend on many factors and are not always predictable. I sincerely hope that the pace of development of this topic until the moment when the first steps become visible in the space, will be faster than in all previous experiences on similar topics, which sometimes managed to last more than a decade.

What is, in your opinion, solution for this university year?

The function that I am currently performing has kept me permanently for seven months, every day, deep in the heart of this issue. You know that the degree of complexity of this topic and the amount of problems surrounding it, if we wanted to open it up to the end and analyze it objectively and critically, could easily swallow the format of this interview. The public is oversaturated with this issue every day and everyone already has their own, often very hermetic and exclusive, formed opinions about it. I don't know if it's even possible to understand this topic in a complete way if you yourself are not so much in the first person there, but I know that I can expect very critical reflections of the mentioned opinions as soon as I accept to answer this question. However, quite succinctly, and I think I convey the unanimous opinion of a large number of my fellow deans, the first and most visible goal is the end of the school year for the success of all students and everything they stood for, and the enrollment of the new generation in the faculties. I don't have space now to explain why all this is so. Everything else is "dribbling" for a small lateral gain or a hazard with incalculable collateral damage.

You are, one could say, my whole life at university, you are constantly in contact with students and know them well. Have you discovered anything new about them in the last seven months??

I know them, but I meet them again and again every time. From generation to generation and forever, as you say. That work in teaching with students, exchange, maturation, motivation, for me there is no alternative, it is my calling. The fact that there is always something new to discover keeps that professional adrenaline inexhaustible and always at its maximum. The widespread, almost mythical narrative that arose around these generations in the glory of all that they managed to achieve without discussion in this period, has reached, it seems to me, the ultimate level. Everything they did resonated strongly, shook and motivated us all. The only thing is that, unfortunately, we are still in the vortex, and we are still getting to know each other. New impressions are still coming in. If the clouds clear a little and the winds calm down, the discoveries will be more visible to me.