Page 1 of 10

Journal for Studies in Management and Planning

Available at http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/

e-ISSN: 2395-0463

Volume 02 Issue 8

August 2016

Available online:http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/ P a g e | 51

Documenting initiatives on urban transformation in

South-East Europe

Florina Jerliu1

and Bujar Bajçinovci 1, *

florina.jerliu@uni-pr.edu, bujar.bajcinovci @uni-pr.edu

1 Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Prishtina, Kosovo

* Corresponding author

Abstract

Rapid transformation of cities and urban

spaces in South-East Europe (SEE) since

1990s is closely related to the common

experience of post-socialist and/or post- war challenges in the region. Among

pressing issues identified as a common

challenge in the region is the trend of self- regulation or unchecked urban

development, which contrasts the pre- 1990s conventional central planning and

development format. This has drawn the

attention of a wider Europe, which resulted

in a number of initiatives, both

governmental and nongovernmental, been

created to jointly initiate regional projects

that aim at developing urban solutions. The

emerging criticism developed by such

initiatives has played and important role in

raising the awareness about the complexity

and the need to address the SEE context

within the context of Europe as a whole.

This paper introduces the nature of urban

transformation in SEE through the example

of capital cities; it further documents

commonly identified urban development

challenges by two regional initiatives,

NALAS and Archis SEE Network, from the

perspective of authors, the first being a

member in both networks. Results suggest

that the way forward is to foster national

legal frameworks in SEE by taking into

account the contextual inputs for urban

interventions, in terms of both urban policy

and case study projects, developed through

regional and international cooperation.

Keywords: South East Europe, regional

initiatives, urban transformation, self- regulation, unchecked development, urban

intervention

1 Introduction

As of 1990s, former socialist countries that

make the region of the Southeastern

Europe (SEE), and especially those that

emerged out of wars in the former

Yugoslav Federation have gone through

rapid political, social and economic

transitions. The most visible effects of

such changes are found in capital cities

while most complex emerge those being

subject to the operations of international

processes carried out by the UN.[1]

Despite contextual differences, the

European agenda ranked high in newly

formulated state policies, as it guarantees

support in overcoming challenges of

multiple transitions and investing in

Page 2 of 10

Journal for Studies in Management and Planning

Available at

http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/

e-ISSN: 2395-0463

Volume 02 Issue 8

August 2016

Available online:http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/ P a g e | 52

economic growth, social wellbeing, as well

as acquiring the free movement within

European Union countries. As alleged by

the EU, all these countries “share the

European perspective”,[2] which leads to

the thought that with all SEE countries

becoming candidate, and consequently,

member states, the synonym of regional

transition would nominally come to an

end. However, the ever-growing regional

cooperation and networking in SEE has

disclosed the fact that the transitional

period takes longer, and that the

fulfillment of the EU accession criteria

doesn’t guarantee the aspired linear,

uniform, and successful transition from the

former single communist party system and

centrally managed state-owned economy,

towards a democratic society and market

based economy. [1] What is certain is that

the development benchmarking and the

EU support in this process is highly

needed given the fact that the delay in

overcoming transitions in SEE shall by

default affect European agendas in issues

which are crucial to the common

institutional, physical and cultural

environments.

Among challenges identified through

networking initiatives in the region is the

rapid transformation of physical

environment. Descending practices in

shaping urban areas, in many cases to the

detriment of agricultural lands, and misuse

of natural resources, remain a common

denominator for the SEE, regardless of the

EU membership status. More specifically,

the unchecked urban development has

been identified in almost all post-socialist

and/or postwar countries in the region, and

as such, it has drawn the attention of a

wider Europe. Commitments that the SEE

countries have taken in this respect, have

been addressed and are gradually being

met through model projects and initiatives

coming from governments and the civil

societies. Examples of such engagements

are given in this paper in order to

document findings and common

challenges of urban transformations in

SEE.

2 The context of urban transformation

in SEE

Although the geographical division of the

South-East Europe (SEE) itself is not

formally defined by UN *

[3] the term

itself has been widely adopted to identify

the project designation area by co- financing initiatives and regional networks

as a substitute to the geographical and

historical term for the Balkan, with the aim

of coming closer to the united Europe’s

cultural and political orientations. Despite

of the number of countries (see: Figures 1-

4) that do fall under this region, which

commonly varies depending on the

cooperation projects or networks, SEE

shares rather common challenges in terms

* There is no formal recognized geographical

division of the Southeaster Europe. The Division

provided by the United Nations defines regions

in Europe into Eastern, Western, Southern and

Northern Europe. The division created in late

1990s is programmatic and is linked with

development co-funding such is the EU initiative

called the Stability Pact for South Eastern

Europe. The use of this term has grown and is

gradually substituting the historical and

geographical term of Balkan by the pretext of

diminishing the negative connotation that has

been generally associated with by the western

European countries.

Page 3 of 10

Journal for Studies in Management and Planning

Available at

http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/

e-ISSN: 2395-0463

Volume 02 Issue 8

August 2016

Available online:http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/ P a g e | 53

of urban regeneration and development

issues.

Unchecked urban development has been

identified as an issue in majority of SEE

countries. The urban self-regulation,

commonly referred to housing

development without seeking building

permit, has been associated with urban

growth caused by massive migration of

rural population to urban centers. In the

case of Kosovo, it is estimated that only

during the first two years of the post-war

period (between 1999 and 2001) the

percentage of urban population increased

from 37% to 44%. [4] The increasing

demands for land for housing in major

cities have therefore subsequently affected

their outskirts, landscapes and

environment in a larger scheme.

This trend has been notable in almost all

SEE capital cities. Variations derive

depending on the inherited context, mainly

being attributed to pre-socialist

development level, and infrastructural

capacities of cities to accommodate the

needs of migration flux, as well as their

latter institutional maturity to manage

rapid urban changes.

Figure 1. Informal settlements in Tirana

From the left: urban sprawl in the outskirts, unplanned densification of the inner-city

Figure 2. Urban self-regulation in Prishtina

From the left: unchecked development in the outskirts, and urban densification / unplanned construction of the

inner-city

While the Adriatic coastline is

experiencing new spatial metropolitan- rural interaction and the public space is

suffering as a result of this development

process, Tirana (Fig. 5) is struggled with

consequences of newly formed informal

settlements in public land, and Prishtina

(Figure 6), Belgrade and Sofia with

buildings erected without construction

permit. On the other hand, Bucharest is