The role and importance of the city architect, once an essential element in the planning and development of cities both in our country and in comparable environments, has nowadays been lost in the complex legislation for spatial planning, which although redefines it, but does not define qualitative qualifications for it (other than a licensed architect and licensed spatial planner), or any executive powers and responsibilities. An overview of the situation especially in smaller municipalities (that is, excluding Ljubljana and Maribor), an overview of the legislation and the way municipalities operate in the planning of space in smaller cities in Slovenia shows the need to reconsider the introduction of this type of institute. Today, urban development takes place in the framework of differently structured and staffed departments for space within local communities (municipalities). The majority of decisions are left to the local community (in some cases even exclusively) by spatial planning professionals, selected in public tenders based on the criterion of the lowest bid price. Larger cities with a larger critical mass of the professional public take less risk in these decisions and are at the same time significantly better equipped in terms of personnel. The Spatial Planning Act (ZUreP) already in previous versions introduced the mandatory activity of a municipal urban planner, which was supposed to be synonymous with the previous definition of a city architect. In the article, a critical view of this institute is derived through analysis. The guidelines (as recommendations to the municipalities), warnings and references for further harmonization in this field also are given. For an easier presentation, an example of the organization of the institute of the city architect in the Municipality of Novo mesto, which was put into practice in 2014, well before the adoption of ZUreP-2, is added at the end.
|
