Ironically, the final disintegration of CIAM took place at the Tenth Congress, held in Dubrovnik in 1956. Kulic proposes that “the rising tensions [in the organization] were perhaps also a reason why CIAM tried to avoid public-ity and insisted on limiting the access of Yugoslav architects to the meeting.”38 Consequently, the wider Yugoslav architectural and urban planning scene was not strongly influenced by Team 10. cus on functionalism and the rationalization of decorating. Architects directed some of their criticism toward the industrialization of housing construction, which was an important ingredient in the Athens Charter and figured prominently in Yugoslavia’s plans to resolve the housing crisis. Writing on the 1959 congress of the Conseil International du Batiment, one commen-tator reported that “when the slides were shown of buildings and apartments that were realized [on the basis of prefabrication], one experienced a real psy-chic depression.”39 He then went on to argue that innovative contemporary decorating was simply not compatible with prefabrication: “industrial con-struction in its essence negates the Aesthetic and Art, and we cannot bring these phenomena into being in the scope of a building. In industrially built settlements, we are limited to creating them through urban planning—the disposition of buildings and the gradation of their heights, and through sec-ondary factors such as green space, decorative plastic arts, kiosks, and other such factors.”40 While he believed modern technology had a role to play in the construction of new housing settlements, Aleksandar Djordjevic criticized a tendency toward “crane urbanism,” which happened when builders decided where to locate buildings on a given site based only on the most efficient use of cranes and mechanization.41
Architects and urban planners were also disappointed by the spatial and social experience of the settlements they had helped to build. In 1968, Ranko Radovic, who had studied decorating under Oliver Minic at the University of Belgrade and would later rise to prominence in Yugoslavia and Serbia as an architect, professor, and theorist, described the profound loss that cities suf-fered with the elimination of the traditional street. He blamed its elimination on groundless beliefs that had emerged in the 1930s and on the objective de-terioration of street conditions as a result of congestion. But the solution ur-ban planners chose, replacing streets with freestanding structures, profoundly impoverished their cities socially, culturally, and aesthetically. Radovic argued that Yugoslavia’s greatest cities had achieved their status as a result of im-portant streets—the Stradun in Dubrovnik, Mesni and Stari Trg in Ljubljana, Bascarsija in Sarajevo, Ilica in Zagreb. In postwar urbanism, the locus of so-cial life in a neighborhood was supposed to take place in the local community center (mesna zajednica), but as we have seen, these had failed to replicate the liveliness of the traditional street.42
But the good news, Radovic announced, was that, in the last decade, the street was slowly but surely making a comeback. He took pains to point out that this was because of architects and planners, not in spite of them. First, they had begun to design and designate certain streets for pedestrian traffic only, eliminating all the problems associated with the automobile: “The new street gives shade, opens and closes in the perspective. It dresses to the nines in the latest fashion of ash tree leaves and blue-green flowers, it frees itself of the grayness of asphalt.” As a result, the street “no longer violates the ‘radi-ant city’s’ idea of the ‘garden city.’ ” Radovic gave the example of the residential community BS-7 Bezigrad in Ljubljana, designed by Vladimir Braco Music, and noted that the return of the street was a global trend, referring specifically to Toulouse le Mirail and Espoo (presumably the Tapiola project) in Finland. He expressed the hope that reconstruction would soon begin on Yugoslavia’s postwar housing developments. A strong critique of postwar urbanism was implicit through his entire article, but Radovic was careful to avoid criticizing architects or planners for making mistakes, saying instead that “ideas about the city, like the city itself, are constantly changing.”43
Photo Gallery of 10 Baby Shower At Home Decorating Ideas
Click to on Photo for Next 10 Baby Shower At Home Decorating Ideas Images
Even architect-planners who had been firm proponents of the Athens Char-ter model began to lose faith in their convictions upon seeing its results. Mil-ica Jankovic is a good example of an architect-planner whose thinking evolved over time. As a newly minted urbanist, Jankovic had embraced the project of modernizing Yugoslav society, which to her, for a long time, was synonymous with building new settlements. She was an enthusiastic participant in the Bel-grade mission sent to help rebuild Skoplje after the earthquake of 1963 using prefabricated buildings. Her reports from the field sought to identify some les-sons that could be learned from this emergency reconstruction and applied to construction efforts in Belgrade.44
Modernizing Belgrade, for Jankovic, also involved erasing primitive settlements to replace them with modern ones. In an article in Arhitektura Ur-banizam published in 1966, she advocated the complete reconstruction of a settlement on the periphery of New Belgrade. Although the city could very well have brought new infrastructure into this village and filled in the interstices of existing buildings instead of knocking down these old village houses and replacing them with a modern, urban settlement, Jankovic argued that the changing character of its population justified total reconstruction. Because a large number were employed as workers, they should live in an urban settlement, not a rural one.45
Jankovic seems to have experienced a sort of conversion in the late 1960s. In 1971, she published an evocative piece in Arhitektura Urbanizam in which she described ambiance as essential to the individual’s well-being. Gone were the self-confidence and the faith in planners’ ability to create viable new settlements. Bravely, she asked whether socialist planning’s obsession with the functional city and with living environments that objectively mirrored social relations had not somehow missed the point: “can we call ‘humanist’ the ambiance that we sometimes encounter in new settlements, based on every kind of hygienic, technical, and other norms, in the wasteland and monotony of enormous beehives for living, on the playgrounds that have remained strange and foreign to children for whom they were planned? There is no humanity in such ambiances, although it cannot be denied that they are authentic.”46 These shortcomings were significant because they suggested that Bordevic’s vision in 1957, according to which New Belgrade and other new neighborhoods would become powerful symbols of a regime that elevated the common working-man and -woman, was a failure.