Architecture, Power and Politics in New Zagreb

Vranić, Dubravka (author), Glažar, Tadej (mentor), Kaminer, Tahl (comentor)

This research aimed to uncover how New Zagreb came into being. The Brodarski Institute, the Zagreb Fair, and New Zagreb’s mikrorayons had already been constructed when New Zagreb was authorized by the 1971 General Masterplan. I hypothesize that New Zagreb was created as an informal plan for Zagreb’s southern expansion, which was carried out through decision-making enabled by informality. Without a statutory plan after 1945, Zagreb fell within an informality gray zone in which power relations, rather than legal frameworks, governed contestations between two visions for urban development. The main adversaries in post-WWII Zagreb were the fierce opponents in the Conflict on the (Literary) Left: the ruling Party line led by Josip Broz Tito versus the faction of Zagreb's intellectuals, led by Miroslav Krleža, who pursued opposing ideologies: centralist and decentralist. Tito’s Politburo dominated the power structures, while Zagreb’s intellectuals, who were non-partisans, were marginalized and worked as low-level officials. Documentary data and oral history interviews showed that some decisions regarding the development of New Zagreb were made by low-level officials linked to Krleža’s circle. A central vision for Zagreb’s development made within urban planning structures anticipated Zagreb as a regional center and limited its growth to 600,000 inhabitants in thirty years. Krleža’s group’s alternative informal vision for southern expansion envisioned Zagreb as the Yugoslav economic center. Zagreb’s authorities, led by mayor Većeslav Holjevac, devised the informal plan to grow the city to 950,000 inhabitants in thirty years. A finding showed that Krleža leveraged Zagreb’s authorities through Holjevac. Centralists distributed their ideology vertically through power structures, and Krleža’s intellectuals used their official agency enabled by informality to make decisions for southern expansion, opposing the centralist ideology. The informal plan for New Zagreb was an outcome of ideological conflict that took place within formal power structures, which may seem contradictory.

• Language: English
• Keywords: Novi Zagreb, Brodarski institut, Zagrebški velesejem, mikrorajoni, odločanje, neformalnost, governmentality, udejstvovanje arhitekta, politična nasprotovanja, neformalne prakse, Miroslav Krleža, zagrebški levičarski intelektualci, Jugoslavija
• Work type: Doctoral dissertation
• Organization: FA - Faculty of Architecture
• Year: 2023
• PID: 20.500.12556/RUL-144289
• COBISS.SI-ID: 215448835
• Publication date in RUL: 11.02.2023

Secondary language

• Language: Slovenian
• Title: Arhitektura, moč in politika v Novem Zagrebu

Abstract

Cilj te raziskave je razkriti, kako je nastal Novi Zagreb. Brodarski inštitut, Zagrebški velesejem in mikrorajoni Novega Zagreba so bili že zgrajeni, ko je bil Novi Zagreb odobren s splošnim glavnim načrtom iz leta 1971. Domnevam, da je bil Novi Zagreb ustvarjen kot neformalni načrt za širitev Zagreba na jug, ki je potekala z odločanjem, ki ga je omogočila neformalnost. Brez zakonskega načrta je po letu 1945 Zagreb spadal v neformalno sivo cono, v katerem so razmerja moči urejala spore med dvema vizijama urbanega razvoja, ne pa pravni okviri. Glavna tekmeca v Zagrebu po drugi svetovni vojni sta bila hudi nasprotniki v konfliktu na (literarni) levici: vladajoča partijska linija pod vodstvom Josipa Broza Tita proti frakciji zagrebških intelektualcev pod vodstvom Miroslava Krleže, ki so sledili nasprotnima ideologijama: centralistični in decentralistični. Titov Politbiro prevladoval v strukturah oblasti, zagrebški intelektualci, ki niso bili v partizanih, pa so bili marginalizirani in delali kot nižji uradniki. Dokumentarni podatki in ustnozgodovinski intervjuji so pokazali, da so nekatere odločitve glede razvoja Novega Zagreba sprejemali nizki uradniki, povezani s Krležinim krogom. Centralna vizija razvoja Zagreba, oblikovana v urbanističnih strukturah, je predvidevala Zagreb kot regionalno središče in omejila njegovo rast na 600.000 prebivalcev v tridesetih letih. Alternativna neformalna vizija Krleževe skupine za širitev na jug je Zagreb zasnovala kot jugoslovansko gospodarsko središče. Zagrebške oblasti pod vodstvom Većeslava Holjevca so si zamislile neformalni načrt za povečanje mesta na 950.000 prebivalcev v tridesetih letih. Ugotovitev je pokazala, da je Krleža preko Holjevca vplival na zagrebško oblast. Centralisti so svojo ideologijo širili navpično prek struktur moči, Krleževi intelektualci pa so svoja uradna pooblastila, ki jih omogoča neformalnost, uporabili za sprejemanje odločitev o širitvi na jug in s tem nasprotovali centralistični ideologiji. Neformalni načrt Novega Zagreba je bil rezultat ideološkega konflikta znotraj formalnih struktur moči, kar se morda zdi protislovno.

• Keywords: Novi (New) Zagreb, Brodarski Institute, the Zagreb Fair, mikrorayons, decision-making, informality, governmentality, the agency of the architect, political contestations, informal practices, Miroslav Krleža, Zagreb leftist intellectuals, Yugoslavia