Slovenian urban landscape under socialism 1969-1982

8/14/2019 Slovenian urban landscape under socialism 1969-1982

1/16

RADIIONES, 34/2, 2005, 722

O DEVELOP HE ACCEPABLY MODERN.SLOVENIAN URBAN LANDSCAPE

UNDER SOCIALISM, 196919821

VERONICA E. APLENC

INRODUCION

Professional ethnologist and rnovo local Mojca Otorepec ercelj opens her 2001 mono-graph rnovski tiarji in solatarce(rnovo Poultry Breeders and Lettuce-Ladies) thus:

Do we notice people that still today head out every day to the market,the same as people used to do eighty years ago? hese are the people fromrnovo that have a long tradition, that have been linked to Ljubljanathroughout history through the way they supplied food. [Otorepec ercelj2001: 910]2

Otorepec ercelj is describing her home neighborhood in Ljubljana, Slovenia. he rnovoneighborhood had long enjoyed a folksy reputation as the citys historic gardening districtlocated just outside the old medieval city center. Between the 17th and early 19th centuries,

1 A talk given by Veronica E. Aplenc at the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies(AAASS) National Convention, held in Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 47 December 2004.

2

All translations of Slovenian material are the authors.

The creation of an intrusive neighborhood developmentplan by state officials is not surprising for a socialist society.In the case of Trnovo, the states initial 1969 development

plan met with tremendous opposition, but after some give-and-take among professionals over the next 10 years wasimplemented in slightly modified form. Official urban

planners, professionally prominent individuals, and Trnovolocals each defined themselves and their version of Trnovo as modern, but in mutually incompatible ways. Theurban landscape that emerged was a physically diverse one,with old farmhouses competing with an expanding socialistsuburbia, and this reflected competing beliefs about Trnovo,Ljubljana, and modernity.Key words: Trnovo, Ljubljana, modernity, late 20th cen-tury, urban development, modern city residents.

Nasilni urbanistini narti za stanovanjske soseske, kiso bili plod dravnih uradnikov, za socialistino druboniso ni presenetljivega. V primeru Trnovega je prvotniurbanistini nart iz leta 1969, ki ga je izdelala dravnauprava, tril na silovit odpor. Po desetletju izmenjavemnenj in kompromisov med strokovnjaki je bila na podlagirahlo spremenjenega narta soseska konno dograjena leta1982. Uradni urbanisti, posamini ugledni strokovnjakiin pa prebivalci Trnovega so sebe in svojo podobo Trnovegaimeli za sodobne, uskladiti troje razlinih pogledov pa jebilo nemogoe. Urbana krajina, ki se je na koncu rodila,

je bila fizino zelo raznolika: stare kmetije so tekmovalez rastoim socialistinim predmestjem, celotna podoba

pa je odsevala razline poglede na Trnovo, Ljubljano in pojmovanje sodobnosti.Kljune besede: Trnovo, Ljubljana, modernost, pozno 20.stoletje, urbani razvoj, moderni mestni prebivalci.

trad_34_5_ozalidi.indd 7trad_34_5_ozalidi.indd 7 22.11.2005 12:33:0822.11.2005 12:33:08


2/16

8

rnovo developed into a commercially vibrant extension of Ljubljana that provided keyservices to the town, including commercial gardening. Although rnovo was incorporatedinto greater Ljubljana in the mid-1800s, it retained its outlying-village atmosphere, evenafter internationally acclaimed Slovenian architect Joe Plenik designed riverfronts andbridges for the neighborhood in the 1930s.

Otorepec ercelj continues:

Until the 1970s, rnovo was a village section of Ljubljana. he maintraffic vein, Karunova Ulica, was still graveled. How it rattled whenthe lettuce-ladies set off with their pushcarts to the market! Small andlarge houses still stood, and so did the gardens. In the 1980s it happened.Suddenly houses were knocked down, and the feverish construction of newhousing developments began. People moved away, some built new houses forthemselves in rnovska Gmajna [the rnovo commons], and others went todifferent parts of Ljubljana. Some found themselves in temporary housing,and then they moved into the new modern apartments with balconies[upscale] or without [less upscale]. For many old rnovo residents, rnovono longer exists. In its place stands an urbanized settlement. [Otorepecercelj 2001: 1415]

In this passage, ercelj Otorepec refers to the enormous physical, and related social, changesthat took place in rnovo in the 1980s, when high-rise housing was built in the area.From 1969 to 1982, state-appointed urban planners created a housing plan for the rnovoneighborhood in Ljubljana, then part of Yugoslavia, which called for the demolition ofhistoric housing in favor of high-rises and socialist suburbia. he creation of an intrusiveneighborhood development plan by state officials is not surprising for a socialist society. Inthe case of rnovo, the initial plan of 1969 met with tremendous opposition, and throughsome give-and-take among professionals over the next 10 years was slightly toned down,but built by 1982. he urban landscape that emerged was a physically diverse one, with

Figure 1: Historic Krakovogardens [Vrhovnik 1933].

RAZPRAVE IN RAZGLEDI / ARICLES



3/16

9

old farmhouses interspersed among high-rises and an expanding socialist suburbia, andthis physical landscape reflected a landscape of competing beliefs about rnovo and aboutmodernity. Official urban planners, professionally prominent individuals, and rnovo

locals each defined themselves and their version of rnovo as modern, but groundedtheir visions in incompatible definitions of the Other.

HE DEVELOPMEN PLAN

he eradication of rnovo clearly suggests an official desire to erase an undesirable ele-ment and reconstitute it appropriately into socialist ways of being. he first series of plansfor rnovo, begun 1969 and adopted in 1972, echoed contemporary trends in planning

that focused on creating new urban environments for the full development of the social-ist citizen. In particular, the plan for rnovo aligns with the declared Yugoslav planningvision of erasing the differences between urban and rural communities [Miheli 1983].hat rnovo was chosen for this is not surprising, because it figured as a very well-known,rural-like community within Ljubljana, and ethnographies of 1689 (Valvasor) and 1933(Vrhovnik) have dealt with its folk.

As planning historian Breda Miheli and fellow scholars have detailed [Miheli 1983;Mlinar 1978], by the early 1960s the push for modernization in postwar Yugoslavia hadcome to include the erasure of differences between rural and urban communities. In ad-dition, by the early 1960s a new planning profession had emerged and dedicated itself toestablishing guides for social and economic growth. A key concept that urban plannersdebated in the theorizing of the 1960s wasthe modern neighborhood (Sln. soseska) andits most appropriate forms [Mui 1980;Poganik 1984]. Sociologists, for their part,argued that within such neighborhoods eachindividual would be able to realize his orher full potential [Mlinar 1983]. In writtendiscussions among urban planners of this

period, the modern neighborhood alwaystook the form of architecturally modern,high density, multistoried buildings, which were grouped around services deemednecessary such as grocery stores, bars, andsmall shops. As is to be expected, none ofthese discussions note an engagement withthe built remnants of the past; rather, thefirst comprehensive plan for all of Ljubljana,

Figure 2: rnovo high-rises [Photo: J. Fikfak,2005].

V. E. APLENC, O DEVELOP HE ACCEPABLE MODERN. A SLOVENIAN URBAN



4/16

10

the 1966 Generalni urbanistini plan Ljubljane(General Urban Plan for Ljubljana), dealswith historic preservation issues by detailing an intricate plan of monuments to the PeoplesRevolution (Ljudska revolucija) [LUZ 1966].

Tis state-created socialist vision of modernity within urban planning is clearly re-flected in the first series of plans for rnovo, produced from 1969 to 1972. State-educatedurban planners of the Ljubljana Urban Planning Institute (Ljubljanski urbanistini zavod,LUZ) issued documents from 1969 to 1972 that outlined their vision of the new rnovo.Of these, the 1970 echnical Section of the Construction Plan and the 1972 Program Sec-tion of the Construction Plan have been preserved in archives. Tese documents focus on

all aspects of the plan, including architectural analysis, economic analysis, and proposalsfor new housing, social service centers, green spaces, and municipal services. In particular,they spell out the construction of a new rnovo neighborhood with groups of high-risesthat surround social services, such as schools, small shops, the equivalent of a communitycenter that could seat 200, snack baribars, and similar establishments [LUZ1970: 510]aimed to promote social life. According to these initial documents, essentially all of oldrnovo would be demolished to make way for high-rise construction and the expansion ofsingle-family homes into the open areas.

In their description of existing conditions, these documents portray the lifestyle and

architecturally unique housing as low-quality and mildly primitive. Tis is particularly truefor the northern portion of rnovo, were individuals lived in the architecturally unique,historic gardeners houses and worked adjacent plots of land. Te 1970 echnical Sectionof the Construction Plan notes that Te age of the housing stock, of some commercial-industrialjerry-rigged buildings, and of their furnishings guarantees only minimum conditions for living andwork to residents[LUZ 1970: 19]. Te area in the southern part of rnovo was understooddifferently, however, as noted in the slightly later 1972 Program Section of the Construc-tion Plan: Te southern portion, which in great measure has newer and better preserved housing largely individual[family] housing will in general be preserved[LUZ 1972: 7].

Figure 3: rnovo high-rises[Photo: J. Fikfak, 2005].




5/16

11

In listing the positive aspects of the neighborhood, the 1970 Program Section of theConstruction Plan underscores the potentially modernizable characteristics of the area asits best assets these being its location and potential to accommodate (new) high-qualityhousing. Tese features were all to be incorporated into the new plan, which was to em-phasize modern living in high-rise apartments and extensive individual housing. Tus,the declared criteria determining favorability in housing was newness, or modernist-ness,couched in questions of quality of life. Undeclared in this vision of the modern neighbor-hood was the clear consequence of this plan: all the historic housing and adjoining gardens,associated with folksy rnovo since at least the 1933 popular ethnographic study, would

be physically erased.However, these plans also contain an unexpected, passing nod of reverence for prewar,

early modern architecture, as well as prewar popular conceptions of rnovo. In its programsection, the 1970 echnical Section of the Construction Plan notes:

In addition, we wish to respect in full measure the significant qualities ofthe wider region and the area per se: its limited distance from the city center,the environment of the Ljubljanica and Gradaica Rivers, the strikingviews of the Ljubljana Castle, Krim Mountain, and the rnovo church....rnovo definitely has certain fundamental advantages over other locations

of such size in Ljubljana.... One quality advantage of the neighborhood iscertainly its oft-emphasized proximity to the city center, which with the newextension of itova Cesta will be brought even closer to the neighborhood, tounder one thousand meters away.... he Gradaica River on one side, andthe Ljubljanica River on the other, together with the church and Pleniksmuseum create natural boundaries for this already peaceful area, which,given the low quality of the existing housing, does not impart to Ljubljanaany particularly characteristic image, except insofar as it is underscored by

Figure 4: rnovo historichousing [Photo: J. Fikfak,2005].




6/16

12

Pleniks development of the Gradaica River, and perhaps by the littlevegetables gardens. [LUZ 1970: 5, 1819]

By acknowledging Joe Pleniks masterful riverfronts and the baroque church and buildings

around them, the Construction Plan makes an unexpected acknowledgement of the legacyof the early modern architect that settled behind the riverfronts Plenik designed and thebaroque rnovo church whose plaza he created and which his faithful attendance of led tohis being professionally ostracized after the Second World War, although he had establishedthe profession of architecture in Slovenia in the 1920s [Prelovek 1997; Krei 1993]. Inaddition, this document contains a similar nod to the little vegetable gardens, so greatlybeloved in all other narratives on the neighborhood. Perhaps this passing acknowledgementwas intended to explain why a minute area of historic gardens was preserved in the plan,as well as Pleniks urban designs, although these two physical features speak in direct op-

position to the narrative on modernity espoused by the urban planners and, instead, aligndirectly with the vision of modernity voiced by the plans opponents.

PROMINEN INDIVIDUALS NARRAIVES ON HE PLAN

Of those opposed to the plan, socially prominent individuals expressed a multivocal setof beliefs on what would constitute an acceptably modern design for rnovo, groundingtheir sense of modernity either in a Romantic vision of the folk or in a reverence for

Pleniks stunning early modern architecture. As the voices of individuals that successfullynegotiated socially prominent positions for themselves under socialism such as televisioncommentator, art historian, museum director, and university professor these narratives areinteresting for their political multivocality. In addition, this is the group of individuals thatwere able to affect change to the neighborhood plan, through discussions within informalprofessional networks that are not discussed in this article. When interviewed, these indi-viduals that were highly visible during the socialist period note the need for modernizationof rnovos housing stock, but ground their vision of an acceptable modern rnovo in anegotiated modernity constituted by pre-socialist and socialist-era beliefs.

One such individual is the well-known Joe Hudeek,3 a popular and regular televisioncommentator betwen the 1960s and 1990s. oday retired and a novelist, Hudeek has writ-ten extensively on rnovo, where he spent time as a small boy, and is a good representative

3 Following standard U.S. ethnographic practice and because all conclusions are my own, I use pseud-onyms for all my field consultants in this text, although they all gave me permissions to cite them byname. I make an exception for those consultants that are so well known to the Slovenian public thatthey would be recognized immediately by local readers. Because Joe Hudeek is one such very wellknown public figure, I use his true name in this text, but I refer to my two rnovo field consultants by

pseudonyms that I created for them.




7/16

13

of the narratives on rnovo frequently expressed by the socially prominent. Interestingly,in 20012002 he was recommended by everyone as theliving authority on rnovo al-though he only lived there as a child and is from a local gardening family of old rnovo

residents. Hudeek remembers rnovo as a refuge from the Second World War, and hisdescriptions of this neighborhood have a romantic tone that is reminiscent of early 20th-century ethnology:

Well ah, this rnovo, you know, this was the rnovo of one-story houses... because at every hour of the day, because they devoted their entire life,these farmers, actually, or, these near-city dwellers, every hour they went totheir garden and watered what needed watering, they put down a coveringif a storm or hail was threatening, they covered the lettuce so that the hailwouldnt destroy it, so on and so forth, in short, by these products, which

were truly excellent, the people of rnovo stood watch day and night. heywere there so that they could serve the land and its products. Carnationsgrew there, roses also grew there, whose gardens were actually a kind ofheaven on earth, with which the people of rnovo were in love.

Hudeek portrays a very 19th-century-folk-like picture of the rnovo locals, as peoplecompletely dedicated to their farming way of life, and yet somehow also able to producenationally significant sons, such as artists and engineers. Hudeek is quick to contrastthis traditional way of life with the American one which, to his eyes, lacks belonging(identity), sense of place, and sense of history. When pressed on the history of rnovos de-

Figure 5: Joe Pleniks Ljubljanica River riverfronts [Photo: J. Fikfak, 2005].




8/16

14

velopment, however, Hudeek concedes the need for the modernization of historic rnovo,noting ...those earlier, single-story, little houses which had, say, uninsulated foundations, wherepeople lived out their days in an unhealthy environment it was damp, for example. Hudeek,however, has no love lost for the new settlement that replaced the neighborhood of hischildhood. When speaking of rnovo, he frequently notes the suicides and disorientationthat followed the displacement of for him its special population, in an indirect critiqueof the necessity of this development:

A whole generation, essentially, or even two generations, fell into ruin, went

to their deaths, because it was necessary, in the place of those little, damp, butabove all friendly little houses, which were a part of man, it was necessaryto build there [cough] gigantic, sleeping-quarter [shipping] containers, ah,in which people no longer head home, but head to sleep.

In his vision of an appropriate rnovo, Hudeek references the romantic, folksy wayof life that the state-produced documents make a passing nod to, but primarily intend toeradicate and that, although not discussed here, figured as a powerful political thorn in bothSlovenian and Yugoslav communist discourse. For Hudeek, this folksy population isnot the nemesis of modernity, but is rather an integral element to his conception of himself

as modern, with the folksy rnovo residents as traditional, historicand pre-modern atbest. With this stance, Hudeek unknowingly echoes Slovenian professional ethnologicalconceptions of the folk foundation of the nation, which enjoyed a continuity from theearly 20th-century inception of the profession through the socialist era [ESEO1976;Kremenek and Bogataj 1980; Kremenek 1989; Kumer 1973; Matietov 1948; Kuret 1972;Muri and Ramak 1995; Stanonik 1989; erseglav 1990]. In fact, Hudeek opposes hisfolk-based modernity to the past-less, place-less modernity that is created bygigantic,dormitory[shipping] containersthat the socialist urban planners hoped would create an ideal,modern urban environment. For Hudeek, the folksy, old rnovo should be have been

preserved as the roots on which modern society could stand a belief very much shared

Figure 6: Krakovo gardens[Photo: J. Fikfak, 2005].




9/16

15

by pan-Western narratives on the nation-state [Handler 1988] and on heritage [Karp andLavine 1991; Karp, Kreamer, and Lavine, 1992].

LOCAL NARRAIVES ON HE PLAN

Local rnovo residents echo Hudeeks disapproval of the destruction of old rnovo but,in contrast to Hudeek, do not see themselves as folksy, pre-modern, or as the object ofthe plans destructive intentions. Like Hudeek, long-time rnovo residents from gardeningfamilies lament the loss of old rnovo, but in contrast their narratives underscore their lossof a way of life and the destruction of a beautiful environment.

Matej Polanec, a 70-year farmer explains, Tey built up everything on us, right, built up

everything. Tey made high-rise buildings here, they destroyed the old rnovo. Which I am verysorry about. His feelings are echoed by Renata Koelj, now in her late 40s and whose mothercontinues to garden commercially:

RK: And then, when we, ah, when they began I mean, which this con-struction, I mean, they destroyed rnovo that way.VA: Do you think so?RK: For sure. hey did.VA: What did RK: I mean, that, ah, ah, feeling, when you cam here, from, the rnovochurch, and then, over there, where [the neighborhood] rnovo begins,right? Right over that little bridge, right? It was the end. Now, you lookat high-rises, right? Before you came over that little Karunova Ulica, andthere were gardens on the left and right. I mean. It was, it was somethingyou could feel. You know. [short pause] But now, ah, .

Although rnovo locals clearly condemn the results of the urban plan, they view their lossas one of a former way of life, and not of a folksy environment of which they were a part.In fact, they locate the folksy elsewhere, specifically, in what are for them true farmingcommunities. hus, these local residents, professional gardeners or farmers, clearly definethemselves as modern, versus the true folk. Local farmer Matej Polanec clarifies why

rnovo is nota community of peasants or the folk:MP: You know, [the old residents of rnovo] they were the kind of peoplewho had a farm, but, ah, they werent really farmers. hey had somethingelse besides that, they were employed somewhere else. he wife worked inthe garden ... the husband went to work, say, there, or he was, say, here,[employed] on the tramway, or whatever, right?... he rnovo womenwent to the market, right? Um, with those carts.... But they werent reallyfarmers....VA: And who are really farmers? In what ?




10/16

16

MP: hose who only live from the land.... hey dont go to work, theydont have a job, right?... [he rnovo women] were housewives, at home,and they went to the market [to sell their produce], and they worked the

garden, right?In making this important distinction, Polanec is clarifying the meaning of the Slovenianword kmet farmer, peasant and it is this term that is used for the Herderian, mythicoriginators of the nation. he adjective kmekiof the peasantry, peasant is a term that isregularly used by non-local residents to describe rnovo, although the neighborhood hascontained very little of anything peasant since the 1700s. Polanecs distinction resonateswith the dictionary definitions ofkmetfarmer, peasant and kmetovanjefarming, versusvrtikarstvo small-scale gardening for commercial profit or pleasure. According to this

differentiation, none of the historically

renowned rnovo folk figures are peas-ants or farmers neither the stereotypicalrnovo branjevka reseller of produce orthe solatarica lettuce-lady that growsand sells products such as the well-knownljubljanska ledenka Ljubljana iceberg let-tuce. his distinction accounts for rnovosbeing classif ied by Slovenian ethnologists assemi-rural or semi-village, and not kmekirural [Bogataj 2002] and aligns withhistorical facts [uristino drutvo rnovo1991; Otorepec ercelj 2001; Valvasor 1689;Vrhovnik 1933]. hus, local rnovo resi-dents ground their vision of modernity in apersonal link with an environment, a visionthat resembles Hudeeks narrative on thefolk but fundamentally contrasts with itin the location of the Other.

CONCLUSION

Despite protests in the media and in professional circles, the plan for rnovo was fullyrealized by the late 1980s. Opposing voices that wished to protect the old rnovo weresomewhat successful in mitigating the plan, although these negotiations were made throughinformal professional networks and are rumored to have resulted in the loss of at least onecareer. Although these physical changes to rnovo were very real, narratives on the planand on the neighborhood reveal clashing conceptions of the folk that complicate what


Figure 7: Historic rnovo [Vrhovnik 1933: 11].



11/16

17

otherwise appears to be a simple story of neighborhood destruction by outside forces ofmodernization. In the official gaze of 1960s urban planners, rnovo held almost nothingmodern, a shortcoming that needed to be professionally corrected. o the sensibilitiesof successful, prominent, and well-educated individuals in socialist society, rnovo heldvery little of the modern and this precisely was what made it significant for Ljubljana,within Slovenia. However, in the eyes of the rnovo residents whose families had engagedin commercial gardening for several generations, they and rnovo had always been partof the modern. he landscape that resulted from the implementation of the 1960s plansmirrors these disparate notions of modernity: old farmhouses, high-rises, and a vast andstartling socialist suburbia sit next to one another, but do not mingle.

REFERENCES

Bogataj, Janez2002 Interview by author. Ljubljana, Slovenia, 28 June 2002.

Etnoloka topografija slovenskega etninega ozemlja [ESEO]1976 Vpraalnice 5(Questionnaire 5). Ljubljana: Raziskovalna skupnost slovenskih etnolo-gov.

Handler, Richard1988 Nationalism and the Politics of Culture in Quebec. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin

Press.

Karp, Ivan, and Steven D. Lavine1991 (eds.) Exhibiting Cultures. he Poetics and Politics of Museum Display. Washington, DC;

Smithsonian Institution Press.

Figure 8: rnovos mixedlandscape [Photo: J. Fikfak,2005].




12/16

18

Karp, Ivan, Christine Mullen Kreamer, and Steven D. Lavine1992 (eds.) Museums and Communities. he Politics of Public Culture. Washington, DC:

Smithsonian Institution Press.

Krei, Peter1993 Plenik. he Complete Works. New York, NY: Whitney Library of Design.

Kremenek, Slavko1989 Ob jubileju univerzitetnega profesorja dr. Vilka Novaka (Celebrating University Professor

Vilko Novak). raditiones18: 55.

Kremenek, Slavko, and Janez Bogataj1980 (eds.) Poglavja iz metodike etnolokega raziskovanja - 1 (Chapters in the Methodology of

Ethnological Research 1). Ljubljana: Filozofska Fakulteta Univerze Edvarda Kardelja v

Ljubljani.Kumer, Zmaga1973 (ed.)Zbornik 18. Kongresa jugoslavanskih folkloristov(Proceedings of the 18th Congress

of Yugoslav Folklorists). Ljubljana: Slovensko etnografsko drutvo.

Kuret, Niko1972 75-letnica prvega slovenskega narodopisnega programa (75th Anniversary of the First

Slovenian Ethnographic Project). raditiones1: 1926.

Matietov, Milko

1948 O etnografiji in folklori zapadnih Slovencev (On the Ethnography and Folklore of theWestern Slovenians). Slovenski etnograf1: 956.

Miheli, Breda1983 Urbanistini razvoj Ljubljane(he Urban Development of Ljubljana). Ljubljana: Znan-

stveni intitut Filozofske fakultete v Ljubljani and OZD.

Mlinar, Zdravko1978 Urbanizacija, urbanizem in sociologija (Urbanization, Urban Planning, and Sociology).

Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za sociologijo, politine vede in novinar-stvo.

1983 Humanizacija mesta. Socioloke razsenosti urbanizma in samoupravljanja v Novi Gorici(he Humanization of the City. Sociological Dimensions of Urban Planning and SelfManagement). Maribor: Obzorja.

Muri, Rajko, and Mojca Ramak1995 Razvoj slovenske etnologije od treklja in Murka do sodobnih etnolokih prizadevanj.

Zbornik prispevkov s kongresa Ljubljana, Cankarjev dom, 24. 27. oktobra 1995(heDevelopment of Slovenian Ethnology from trekelj and Murko to Modern EthnologicalEfforts. Proceedings from the Ljubljana Congress, Cankarjev Dom, 2427 October1995). Ljubljana: Slovensko etnoloko drutvo (Knjinica Glasnika Slovenskega etnolokegadrutva; 23).




13/16

19

Mui, Vladimir1980 Urbanizem bajke in resninost: zapisi na robu dvajsetletnega razvoja naega prostorskega

nartovanja (Urban Planning: Legends and ruth. Marginal Notes on 20-Years ofDevelopment of Spatial Planning). Ljubljana: Cankarjeva zaloba.

Otorepec ercelj, Mojca2001 rnovski tiarji in solatarce(rnovo Poultry Breeders and Lettuce Ladies).Ljubljana:

Preernova druba.

Poganik, Andrej1980 Urbanistino planiranje. Ubenik(Urban Planning: A extbook). Ljubljana: iskovna

komisija VOZD Gradbenitvo in geodezija Fakultete za arhitekturo, gradbenitvo ingeodezijo Univerze Edvarda Kardelja.

Prelovek, Damijan1997 Joe Plenik, 18721957. Architectura Perennis. ransl. from the German edition (Salz-burg, 1992) by Patricia Crampton and Eileen Martin. New Haven, C: Yale UniversityPress.

Stanonik, Marija1989 Slovenska razliica primerjalne slovstvene folkloristike: Oris raziskovalnega dela dr.

Milka Matietova (he Slovenian Version of Comparative Literary Folklore: An Outlineof Research by Milko Matietov). raditiones18: 754.

erseglav, Marko

1990 Ustno slovstvo in folkloristika kot predmeta univerzitetnega tudija (Oral Literatureand Folklore Studies as an Object of University Study). raditiones19: 233260.

uristino drutvo rnovo1991 rnovo in Krakovo (rnovo and Krakovo). Ljubljana: uristino drutvo rnovo.

Valvasor, Johann Weichard1689 Die Ehre de Herzogthums Crain (he Glory of the Duchy of Carniola). Nuremberg:

Wolfgang Moritz Endter.

Vrhovnik, Ivan

1933 [1991] rnovska upnija v Ljubljani(he Parish of rnovo in Ljubljana). Facsimile of 1933edition, issued for the centenary of the arrival of Ivan Vrhovnik in rnovo. Ljubljana:

Akademska zaloba.

Maps and Plans

Ljubljanski urbanistini zavod [LUZ]1966 Generalni Plan Urbanistinega Razvoja Ljubljane(General Plan for the Urban Develo-

pment of Ljubljana). Ljubljana: Ljubljanski urbanistini zavod.1970 ehnini del zazidalnega narta VS1 in VS102 rnovo (echnical Section of the




14/16

20

Construction Plan for VS1 and VS102 rnovo). Ljubljana: Ljubljanski urbanistinizavod.

1972 Zazidalni nart VS1 in VS102 rnovo: programski del(Construction Plan for VS1 andVS102 rnovo: Program Section). Ljubljana: Ljubljanski urbanistini zavod.

1983 Dopolnitev zazidalnga narta za severni del VS1 rnovo (Supplement to the Construc-tion Plan for the Northern Part of VS1 rnovo). Ljubljana: Ljubljanski urbanistinizavod.

1988 Dokumentacija za realizacijo zazidalne zasnove za del obmoja urejanja VS 2/2 (rnovo) Eipprova ulica (Documentation for Carrying Out the Construction Project for theSection of the Area Covered by VS 2/2 (rnovo) Eipprova Ulica). Ljubljana: ZIL,OZD URBANIZEM LUZ Ljubljanski urbanistini zavod.

KAKO RAZVII SPREJEMLJIVO MODERNO.SLOVENSKA URBANA KRAJINA V SOCIALIZMU, 19691982

Soseska rnovo v Ljubljani je dolga leta slovela kot preprost vrtnarski predel mesta, ki leitik zunaj starega srednjevekega mestnega jedra. Med 17. in zaetkom 19. stoletja se je rnovorazvilo v ivahen trgovski podaljek mesta, ki je Ljubljano oskrboval s kljunimi uslunostnimidejavnostmi, vkljuno z doma pridelanimi poljinami za prodajo mestnim prebivalcem. e-prav je bilo sredi 19. stoletja rnovo prikljueno iremu obmoju Ljubljane, je obdralo svojeprvotno vako ozraje tudi e potem, ko so po nartih mednarodno uveljavljenega slovenskega

arhitekta Joefa Plenika v 30. letih 20. stoletja na tem obmoju preoblikovali rene bregove inpostavili mostove.Med letoma 1969 in 1982 so od drave nastavljeni urbanisti zasnovali urbanistini nart zasosesko rnovo v Ljubljani, ki je bila tedaj e del Jugoslavije. Nart je zahteval, da se zgodoviskidel soseske porui, na njegovo mesto pa postavi stolpnice in socialistino oblikovano predmestje.Nasilni urbanistini narti stanovanjskih sosesk, ki so bili delo dravnih uradnikov, za sociali-stino drubo niso ni presenetljivega. V primeru rnovega je prvotni urbanistini nart iz leta1969, ki ga je izdelala dravna uprava, tril na silovit odpor. Po desetletju izmenjave mnenj inkompromisov med strokovnjaki je bila na podlagi nekoliko spremenjenega narta soseska konno

dograjena leta 1982. Urbana krajina, ki se je na koncu rodila, je bila fizino zelo raznolika:stare kmetije so bile razkropljena med stolpnicami in po rastoem socialistinem predmestju.Odsevala je nasprotujoa si mnenja o rnovem in o tem, kaj je sodobno. Uradni urbanisti,ugledni strokovnjaki in pa sami prebivalci rnovega so imeli sebe in svojo vizijo rnovega zasodobne, vendar so svoje poglede izoblikovali na osnovi izkljuujoih si definicij o tem, kdo sotisti drugi, preprosti ljudje.Unienje rnovega jasno kae na elje drave, da bi izbrisala nezaeleni element in ga obliko-vala na novo, v skladu s socialistinimi naeli. Prva serija urbanistinih nartov, ki so nastalileta 1969 in bili potrjeni leta 1972, je odsevala sodobne urbanistine tenje, da bi oblikovali

nova urbana okolja, v katerih bi socialistini dravljani lahko razvili vse svoje potenciale. Zlasti




15/16


16/16

22

skega, preprostega, ki so ga navedli drubeno uveljavljeni posamezniki, vendar pa se njihovopojmovanje tega, kje je mo najti one druge, preproste ljudi, bistveno razlikuje od prvega.eprav so bile nastale spremembe v rnovem zelo otipljive, pa pripovedi o urbanistinih nartih in

soseski, ki bi bila drugae videti kot preprosta zgodba o soseski, ki so jo uniile sile modernizacije,odkrivajo nasprotujoe si koncepte ljudskega, preprostega. Po mnenju uradnih urbanistov v60. letih 20. stoletja v rnovem ni bilo skoraj ni modernega, to pomankljivost pa je bilo trebastrokovno odpraviti. Za uspene, pomembne in visoko izobraene posameznike socialistinegaobdobja je rnovo vsebovalo le malo modernih elementov, prav to pa je bila po njihovem po-membna prednost za Ljubljano. Nasprotno pa so imeli prebivalci rnovega, katerih druine sose e nekaj generacij ukvarjale s prodajo pridelkov s svojih vrtov, sebe in svojo sosesko od nekdajza sodobno. Krajina, ki so jo konno zgradili po nartih iz estdesetih let, lepo odseva te povsemrazline poglede na sodobnost. Stare kmetije, stolpnice in razseno socialistino predmestje tako

stojijo drug ob drugem, pa vendar vsak zase.


Dr. Veronica E. AplencUniversity of Pennsylvania, 303 Logan Hall/6304 Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA

[email protected]

Documents

Slovenian urban landscape under socialism 1969-1982