WE WOULD LIKE TO SINCERELY THANK our friends and family who have supported us on our borderline insane journey. We love you all so much and a sentence at the back of our blog certainly can’t express it enough. To Suzanne, Madge and the entire team at Gibbs Smith, who never doubted that we could make something amazing. To Meta Coleman and Chaunte Vaughn, who worked tirelessly to make everything look so amazing with their very particular commitment to beauty and art. Thank you to Kirk and Eva Jorgenson for keeping all of us alive and happy and to the many assistants and helpers who were there for us when we were overwhelmed, particularly Zina Bennion, Caitlin Watson Boyes, Jennifer Paul, Cammy Fuller, Kandyce Carroll and Emma Ellis.
A special thanks to Bohem, The Green Ant, Tomorrow’s House, Urban Vintage, Kerstin Grimmer, Michael and Jacqueline Coleman, Nicholas Coleman, Anthony’s Fine Art and Antiques, Treasures Antique Mall, Sandberg Wallpaper, Rebel Walls, Hygge and West, Dwell Studio, Design Within Reach in Pasadena, Sun River Gardens, Sarah Winward, Mary Lee, ARQ, Kelly White, Helle Grimmer and Brittany Watson Jepsen. Also, a sincere thank-you to those who opened their homes to us: Ronnie and Mikael Squire, Lee and Maurine Meredith, Sally Snow, Chris and Allison Anderson, Garbett Homes, the Goss Family, Joe Jackson, the Kleiners, the Morgan family, Otto Mileti, the Thatchers, the Barker family, the Smoot family and the Liddiards. We love you all! And finally, thank you to our old homies, our fans. Without your support none of this would be possible.
What brought about the rise of the modernist functionalist urban planning model, often attributed to Le Corbusier, in Yugoslavia and elsewhere in the world, particularly in the 1950s and 1960s? Why was it eventually abandoned and replaced by other approaches? In our search for answers, we need to cast our net wider than just the architectural and planning profession. As Stanislaus Von Moos proposed in his seminal study of Le Corbusier’s work, “the growth and form of cities is not determined by the will of architects, let alone that of one single architect, but by socio-economic forces and interests, institutional patterns, and a conception of progress and efficiency shared by the prevailing elites. Architects merely propose recipes that represent these forms and interests.”2
The Yugoslav socialist regime endorsed modernist functionalist urbanism both because it was compatible with its values and its project for economic and social modernization and because it bolstered Yugoslavia’s global image. A shift in the regime’s modernization strategy ultimately combined with dissatis-faction with the model locally and its obsolescence internationally, leading the regime to abandon this approach and adopt new, cutting-edge methodologies.
10 Home Coffee Bar Design Ideas Photo Gallery
Two excellent monograph-length studies and a number of journal articles have already begun to address the influence of modernism in socialist Yugo-slavia. Architectural historian Ljiljana Blagojevic’s detailed study of modernist decorating and urban planning in Belgrade, Novi Beograd: Osporeni Mod-ernizam, has documented in detail and critiqued the development of a new modernist settlement in the heart of the capital, Belgrade. In their beautifully illustrated volume Modernism In-Between: The Mediatory Home Designs of Socialist Yugoslavia, Vladimir Kulic and Maroje Mrduljas have situated Yugoslav modernism in a broader context, arguing that Yugoslavia innovated a unique interpretation of modernism, blending socialism with a formal vocabulary developed in the West. Kulic has further explored Yugoslav modernism and its relationship to the state’s unique geopolitical context in his dissertation and several articles. These are valuable contributions to the history of modernism as an architectural movement in Yugoslavia. This study seeks to build on this foundation by relating it to the political, economic, and social development of Belgrade and Yugoslavia more broadly. Historian Predrag Markovic has sought to capture the political, social, and cultural life of Yugoslavia’s capital after the Second World War. Like Kulic and Mrduljas, he frames his analysis in terms of Yugoslavia’s “in-betweeness,” balancing between an ideological model crafted in the Soviet Union and a diplomatic and cultural attraction to the West. While much of his analysis relates to the issues discussed in this study, he only briefly addresses decorating and urban planning. Thus, in a way, the present study seeks to engage these two different approaches in a productive dialogue and to examine the implications for Yugoslavia’s built environment of a variety of factors: the economic priorities and policies adopted by its lead-ers, demographic pressures, the ways in which inhabitants experienced and re-acted to this environment, the influence of cultural trends on their aspirations, and new trends in urban planning.
Consequently, this monograph engages both with the history of socialist Yugoslavia and with the global history of planning and modernist decorating. It reveals an unknown decorating of modernism, whose history in connection to socialist states is only starting to be written. While many case studies of modernism in different national contexts have been published, few have fo-cused on urban planning in the postwar European socialist states.3