Urban Palimpsest_reconstruction and the Politics of Memory

8/11/2019 Urban Palimpsest_reconstruction and the Politics of Memory

1/41

Urban Palimpsests:

Reconstruction and the Politics of Memory

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the MSc Urban

Development Planning

Maya Malas

Development Planning Unit

University College London

2 September 2013 Word count: 10,970


2/41

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements i

List of Figures ii

List of Acronyms iii

Introduction 1

Part One: Urban palimpsests: geographies of a critical relationship 5

Urban palimpsests and present pasts 6

Memory and the politics of planning 10

Re-placing memory 14

Reconstruction and inhabiting post-conflict memoryscapes 16

Part Two: Mostar, a city of divide and difference 20

Mostar - A historical overview 22 Conflicting perceptions of one city 23

Conclusion 30

Bibliography 34


3/41

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work is dedicated

to my parents May and Walid, for their un-conditional love, devotion andencouragement

to my brother Khaled, for his inspiration and helping me fulfil my long-heldambition of pursuing a graduate degree

to my sisters Aya and Dana, for filling my days with laughter and smiles

to my husband Fadi for his support, patience and all the beautiful things he

brings into my life

and to Damascus, the city where eternity begins... and ends...

Maya Malas

London 02.09.2013


4/41

ii

LIST OF FIGURES

Description Page

Figure 1. Damascus Eastern Gate (Bab Sharqi) (between 1890s and 1920s) 7

Figure 2. Photograph of the reconstructed Stari Most Bridge (2012) 26

Figure 3. Photograph of Mostar with the bell tower of the newly constructed Franciscan

Church (2012)

27


5/41

iii

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ARBiH Armija Republike Bosne i Hercegovine (Army of the Republic of Bosnia and

Herzegovina)

BiH Bosnia and Herzegovina

ICG International Crisis Group

IDP Internally Displaced People

JNA Jugoslovenska Narodna Armija (Yugoslav People's Army)

OHR Office of the High Representative

PRA Participatory Reflection and Action

UM Urban Movement

UN United Nations

UNESCO United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization

WWII World War Two


6/41

INTRODUCTION

For decades, scholars and practitioners have attempted to establish linkages between memory

and the urban environment. This interest in analyzing memories originates not only from a

concern of how the past was formed, framed and constituted, but also a general interest in

developing methods of unravelling the transformation of a given urban landscape. As such, this

work may be seen to include several areas of overlapping interest: the constant unfolding

nature of memory; collective memory and its significance in the constitution, contestation and

dissolution of political and social identities; how interpretations of the past serve biased

objectives of the present; and in turn the intricate links between memory, place and planning.

As such, critical and analytical work of and in cities brings to light the central themes of these

concepts this paper seeks to explore more deeply

Addressing the notions of memory both of and in cities, in addition to the evolution of

specific urban sites, are essential to trace the socio-spatial manifestations of change within

built environments. The built environment is a politicized landscape of contradictive meanings

grounded in history, in which sites of memory tend to serve as repositories that collect andaccentuate struggles (Yacobi, 2004). This is amplified in war-torn cities, as these sites provide

sharp examples of pivotal parts of divisions of the city by means of their strong symbolism and

the emotional wounds they evoke.

Indeed, wars redefine urban spaces and tr ansform the citys hybrid process of producing and

reproducing spaces; this change is not limited to the material constructs of the city and its built

environment but also extends to its meanings and memories. The authors own interest inengaging with the visible and invisible linkages between the reconstruction of both memories

and urban landscapes - especially those in divided and conflict-ridden cities - stems from being

deeply affected by the on-going war in her home country - Syria. Identifying with Colliers

understanding of war as development in reverse (2003), this paper explores the social and

political understanding of war-torn cities through the lens of the planner. The aim is to dissect

the spatial representations of the notions of history, identity, trauma and memory, and explore

the role of planning in a wider reconstruction and reconciliation project. This exploration is in


7/41

2

no way an attempt to identify solutions to rebuild the authors homelands cities, or reverse

the urbacide (Bublin, 1999, Coward, 2002, Bollens, 2006) taking place in Syria. Rather, this

self -reflexive journey through space and time investigates the culmination of a model of

urban planning that aims to achieve, or at least facilitate the productions of social justice,which would be relevant beyond specific geographies and regions of war. It is critical here for

the author to assert her own personal biases on the topic, and that she is a bundle of

emotions, desires, concerns and fears all of which play out in both of her professional and

social life (Harvey, 2000b, p. 234). However, since the personal is always political; it is critical

to understand that planners as architects of change should not repress the personal but

rather situate it in a reflexive process. As such, this understanding opens up new spaces to

think and act where memory, identities and other such social and personal constructsposition both what we perceive and how we act during particular events.

Explicitly, the ultimate backdrop of this study is Syria. However the complexity and fast-

evolving nature of the on-going war in the country makes it almost impossible to validate often

contradictive and incomplete data of war-torn Syrian cities such as Aleppo or Homs. Instead,

this study aims to examine the potentially enlightening and perhaps vaguely comparable case

of Mostar; the former Yugoslavian city and today a city in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Over thepast two decades, the city of Mostar has become a well-documented case that has attracted

multiple scholarly and popular interests. Specifically, it provided an informative perspective as

a major urban centre subjected to destruction by a civil war followed by processes of nation-

building and reconstruction planning. Additionally, it provides valuable learning opportunities

for cities that experienced similar cycles of war and destruction around the world - including

Syria.

To unpack the relationship between space, on the one hand, and the process and politics of

reconstructing social memories, on the other, this study aims to explore the following

questions: Are commemoration sites produced by or productive of specific narratives of social

memory? How are struggles over urban spaces linked to particular memorialisations of their

past? And how is this linked to forming their alternative futures? And ultimately: Can the re-

construction of certain memories and narratives of the city play a positive role in a post-war

reconciliation planning project?


8/41

3

Confronted with such questions, and aiming to extract transferable lessons for the case of Syria

from the case of Mostar on the politics of reconstruction and reconciliation, this study employs

the metaphor of the palimpsest. This paper views that this metaphor may successfully

elaborate the reciprocity between the politics of commemoration sites, on the one hand, andthe ensuing process of forming fresh social memories which shape the city, on the other

(Huyssen, 2003). Furthermore, aiming to make visible the seemingly invisible relations which

exist within space, the author seeks to attempt two simultaneous forms of exploration:

The first form is a brief overview of existing multidisciplinary discourse that articulate the

intricate and interwoven politics of memory and space, on the one hand, with the changing

materialities of war-torn and contested cities, on the other. Part one originates in situating the

urban within the metaphor of the palimpsest, in which the city emerges as a storyteller of its

past, present and future. Secondly, as situations of war and conflict present major catalysts for

change, the author seeks to engage directly with the case-study of Mostar by attempting a

socio-political analysis of spatial manifestations of memories within this city. Such urban

moments may shed light on the existing relationships between the politics of post-war

reconstruction planning processes and the arguably failed attempts to enhance a national

reconciliation process within the city itself, if not the entire nation state.

Additionally, this study views critically scholarly and practitioners attempts at homogenizing

the local with little concern to the embedded power relations and politics. Whilst seeking to

be most careful in this papers assumptions regarding the city of Mostar, this author has neve r

visited the Balkans, and as such has no immediate memory of Mostar prior to this research

interest. Therefore, the data was collected through various mediums and media, ranging from

examining - in addition to scholarly publications - documentary film material, photography,

maps, blogs, online articles, personal narratives of the citys inhabitants, newspaper articles,

descriptions of planned and materialized urban projects, producing the authors own

palimpsest for the city of Mostar; a method most useful for highlighting the temporality and

ever-changing palimpsest nature in which elements are drawn together at a particular

conjuncture, mixed and composed in a momentary state of affairs (Boano, 2011, p. 38).

The spatial production of memory sites underline specific narratives and themes which provide

a point of departure to further explore the critical memory and the urban linkage. As they are


9/41

4

among the pre-eminent spaces in which dynamic relationships between that which is forgotten

and remembered, between history and identity, are simultaneously confirmed and contested

(Dwyer, 2000, p. 663).


10/41

5

PART 1

URBAN PALIMPSESTS: GEOGRAPHIES OF A CRITICAL

RELATIONSHIP

Olinda is certainly not the only city that grows in concentric circles... a totally

new Olinda which, in its reduced dimensions retains the features and the flow

of lymph of the first Olinda and of all the Olindas that have blossomed one

from the other; and within this innermost circle there are always blossoming--

though it is hard to discern them--the next Olinda and those that will grow

after it

Italo Calvino, Invisible Cities (1978)


11/41

6

URBAN PALIMPSESTS AND PRESENT PASTS

There is an established practice of interpreting urban environments as texts that are frantically

written, read, written over and erased by authors and/or readers (Dwyer and Alderman,

2008, Osborne, 1998, Mitchell, 2003, Duncan and Duncan, 1988). This metaphor is significant

since it underlines that urban geographies while initially authored, are in turn reproduced by

the myriad social actors who subsequently interpret these sites (Dwyer and Alderman, 2008,

p. 169). In this sense, urban environments are not irreversibly instilled with meanings but

rather these meanings are created intertextually and recursively in and through discursive

social order (ibid). Here it is critical to draw attention to the hermeneutic nature of this on-

going writing process. Cities and built urban environments, complete with public buildings,

museums, monumental structures and public spaces embody overlaying traces of a historical

past that are present in the present.

Reminiscent of the times when parchments and paper were sparse and more valuable, in which

it was common for the material to be reused many times, urban landscapes can also be seen as

palimpsests. Here, layers of history are merged with traces of identity, nationhood and

belonging that are written, re-written and erased in an on-going process of forming the city. In

them the present mixes with traces of the past. Mitchell notes that as the spectacle changes,

social memories connected to monuments and hence the built environment are transformed

(2003).

Reading the built environment as a palimpsest does not transform its existing buildings and

spaces into merely a form of writing, nor does it deny place from its materialities. In addition,

this metaphor entails that certain parts of the present merge and blend with parts and layers of

those of the past, making it impossible for the constituent elements of a place -memory tosustain a constant equilibrium or frequency of resonance in time (Bloomer, 1987, p. 30). This

is crucial as suggested by Huyssen, who describes as palimpsests of history, incarnations of

time into stone, sites of memory extending both into time and space (2003, p. 101). In his

study of the politics of memory in the city, Huyssen situates spatial, political and literary

debates over the tr ope of the palimpsest. He states that it is rather the conviction that literary

techniques of reading historically, intertextually, constructively and deconstructively at the


12/41

7

same time can be woven into our understanding of urban spaces as lived spaces that shape

collective imaginaries (2003, p. 7).

Illustration 1 Hand-coloured Photograph of Bab Sharqi (The Eastern Gate of Damascus) taken between

the 1890s and 1920s 1 . The original Roman gate has a triple entrance two of which have been closed off

with bricks from the Seljuk Era. The observation tower is Mamluk with an added Ottoman Minaret.Zaitoun Church (Church of Olives) is also observed to the left of the photograph.

Wide-ranging works on memory, place and cities by Till (1999, 2001), Johnson (1994), Yacobi

(2004) and Nagel (2002) contribute to the argument that portrays the city as a text in an

ongoing discourse about the shape and meaning of... nationhood and id entity (Nagel, 2002, p.

718). Applying a similar conceptual lens, this paper argues that the city resembles a multiplicity

of overlapping texts, in an on-going process of being written, re-written, modified and erased.

As such, processes of destruction and reconciliation associated with war further accentuates

existing, and often contradicting narratives to the citys past, present and envisioned future.

Urban environments remain the main arena in which social and political groups enunciate

their past an d present. This concept is evident in Dwyers study of memorial landscapes. In his

article Interpreting the Civil Rights Movement: Place, memory, and Conflict he envisages built

1 Unknown, Damas : porte de la rue Droite, Bab-Charki. Photographs and prints of Egypt and Syria, The New York Public

Library. Photography Collection. http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/id?88480 [Accessed 25-Aug-2013]
http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/id?88480http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/id?88480http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/id?88480


13/41

8

environments and cities as materialized discourses... that embed and conduc t meaning

through their representation of social identities and their politics memorial landscapes are

shaped by and in turn influence the society that produces them (2000, p. 661). As such,

endeavours to bolster and conserve collective memory will inevitably involve interventions inpublic spaces and the built environment.

Edward Said is another scholar who saw memory as an exercise far from neutral both in facts

and basic truths. In this exercise social and political groups employ memories as instruments

for both their constitution and their dissolution. As a Palestinian, he had first-hand knowledge

of such processes and their abuse and describes the study of history as the underpinning of

memory (2000, p. 176). Huyssen reasserts similar views and states that at stake in the current

history/memory debate is not only a disturbance of our notions of the past, but a fundamental

crisis in our imagination of alternative futures. (2003, p. 2). The resulting controversies raise

the question not only of what is remembered but how and in what form. It is critical here

to note that although commemoration is the act of capturing memories and protecting them

from being forgotten, this process can also be seen as exclusive since it provides an opportunity

to highlight specific collective rights and identities while neglecting and forgetting others. Thus,

there is a tension between memorial sites that attempt to capture a certain memory(potentially at the expense of others and their memories), on the one hand, and the openness

of these sites to different interpretations on the other.

Recollections and memories are not limited to content but also heavily laden with the nature of

representation, Nagel takes this concept further and writes: like many texts, th e built

environment is significant not only for what it says, but for what it neglects to say about the

past and the present (2002, p. 718). The interweaving of urban representations of memory

with notions of identity, nationalism, power and authority makes it essential to explore

memory and its representations through what Lefebreve christens the neglected sieve of

space (2003, p. ix). This critical exploration involves the ways urban landscapes have been

formed, recorded and reconstructed and how buildings and architecture operate as part of a

network of socio-urban relations where remembrance of traumatic events seem less

susceptible to the vagaries of memory. Memory thus has a chance to inscribe itself into history,

to be codified into national consc iousness (Huyssen, 2003, p. 101).


14/41

9

According to the historian Pierre Nora (1989, 1996) sites of memory are "created by a play of

memory and history... The lieux de mmoire only exist because of their capacity for

metamorphosis, an endless recycling of their meaning and an unpredictable proliferation of

their ramifications" (1989, p. 19, emphasis in original). Thus, the metaphor of the city as apalimpsest illustrates that memorial sites are not only about the event itself or its material

representation, but rather how these sites can unfold new or old meanings and erratic

interpretations that are malleable to the politics of power. It is therefore integral to the process

of understanding the politics of urban change and planning in cities, to unpack the tensions

between memory and amnesia that exist alongside each other and read the often

contradictory claims of overlaying memories of a place as part of the on-going political struggle

to shape the city.


15/41

10

MEMORY AND THE POLITICS OF PLANNING

For in its afterlife which could not be called that if it were not atransformation and a renewal of something living the original undergoes a

change.

Walter Benjamin, The Task of the Translator (1923)

Collective recollections constantly partake in the formation, contestation and dissolution of

social and political identities in a complex process that is intricately woven with power and

domination. As such, controlling memories in societies ultimately governs power hierarchies

(Connerton, 1989) where memory battles are waged through the control of museums,

memorials, historical sites and public spaces.

The positioning of urban planning as a instrument of domination has been echoed by various

scholars such as Hoelscher and Alderman (2004), Holston (1989), Sandercock (1998), and

Flyvbjerg et al. (2002). This reinstates both Watsons (2006) and Sandercocks (1998) views that

portray planning as a process which is deeply politicized in which notions of identity are

constructed in space, and highlights the dominant role urban planners can play in this process.

Recent literature has also criticized the non-progressive, or even more critically the negative

role planning can play in memory; for example: Sandercock and Lysiottis (1998), Healy (1997),

Cupers (2005) and Forester (1999). In practice, planners can commemorate, perpetuate, smash

or destroy memories through reshaping urban spaces: Modernist planners become thieves ofmemory... embracing the ideology of development as progress, [they] have killed whole

communities and destroyed individual lives by not understanding the loss and grieving that go

along with losing ones home and neighbourhood and friends and memories (Sandercock and

Lysiottis, 1998, p. 208). Here, urban planning processes and policies frequently provide an

instrument of rule by dominant individuals and groups, in a society in which the interpretations

of the past serve biased objectives of the present.


16/41

11

In their study of memory and space Hoelscher and Alderman also make a strong argument for

planning as an intensely politicized process that has the power to legitimize or delegitimize

sites of commemoration and the sense of belonging and identity embodied in those places

(2004, p. 351). Here, it is key to highlight that the planners role should be to guide the planningprocesses rather than dominate and control them. Furthermore planning practices should

ensure inclusivity and participation of all socio-political groups to counter exclusive claims to

the city.

In her study of shifting socio-spatialities of modern planning, Fainstein depicts participation as

the vehicle through which that power asserts itself (2000, p. 467). Therefore to contribute to

a more inclusive engagement with space and commemoration it is crucial to restructure the

decision making process from top-down planning practices to Miraftrabs situated practices of

citizens (2004, p. 211). This is also demonstrated by Hillier (1998) through the struggle of two

knowledge forms: the first being local which embodies notions of both memory and

belonging; the second, a professional type of knowledge that evacuates local notions. Hillier

highlights how both types of knowledge (and consequently planning) are amalgamated then

defines the role which planning can play either by respecting certain sentiments of belonging or

destroying them.

Here it is critical to note that in the same manner that palimpsests rewrite new possibilities,

urban planning can also present a positive opportunity to open up room for manoeuvre

(Safier, 2002, Levy, 2007) for memory to reconfigure the social constructs of cities. The direct

linkages between notions of citizenship, participation and inclusive engagement with spaces

are not only demonstrated by accessing quality public spaces but also the right to shape and

make the city (Purcell, 2002). This view is especially essential for minorities and typically

marginalized groups in conflict-ridden cities to become citizens through their participation in

the conception, construction and management of the city, and particularly through the

negotiations of the use of public space (Irazbal, 2008, p. 18). Indeed, marginalized groups

and the socially and politically disempowered people have been able to challenge

subordination by making use of memory through various urban interventions (ibid).

This process in turn, opens up spaces of public negotiation and illustrates the relevance of a

inter-subjective urban image... because it places us at the centre of a network with other


17/41

12

subjects, providing us with new cultural horizons of shared identities and a feeling of belonging

in a society (ibid, p. 98). This paper adopts a similar view arguing that one of the objectives of

progressive politics and modern planning is to liberate it from both the elite (socio-political and

professional) and dominant interests through pluralism and the demystification of planning.However to do that, it is essential to find, preserve, open up pages and write narratives though

the palimpsest of the city to address homo genous spaces and encourage pluralism and

multiplicity. This in turn, will allow for negotiation and resistance leading to the discovery of

new spaces that exist outside the power differential binaries of us/the other, inside/outside,

centre/periphery and friends/enemy.

Cupers (2005) and Irazbal (2008)stress the link between extraordinary events such as wars

and urban- conflicts and the a citys hybrid production and reproduction of spaces. As highly

transformative moments wars (re)define spaces within the city, relationships between its

citizens, and consequently how the built environments is both perceived and used (Bollens,

2012). Furthermore, wars introduce new urban planning structures in which planning

authorities are shifted, and parties other than those already present in the city itself became

critical actors in forming not only urban planning processes but also shaping the city itself and

the collective memories linked to it.

As conflicts have a tendency to weaken existing local planning administrations, this often

allows the international community, private companies, religious institutions and other local

elites to hijack the role of the planner (Bollens, 2006, 2012). Additionally, changes in

demographics resulting from violence, IDPs and refugee migration can often result in new

inhabitants in the city. These new stakeholders have different memories and connections to

the city, and consequently different priorities related to the re-appropriation of its urban

spaces. Furthermore, new planning coalitions are arguably motivated by different interests that

can range from instating stability and peace, attaining private wealth to bolstering groups

identities and divides. Not only do these different agents utilize the past to secure divergent

memories in place, but this complex process is constantly appropriated and re-appropriated in

both social and urban spheres.

The significance of commemorating sites of memory in disputed and conflict-ridden urban

geographies is two-fold: on one hand it further highlights to what extent urban planning is


18/41

13

politicized, as these sites provide a conflicting past which can still be lived and experienced

(Rossi, 1982). And on the other, they illustrate the deep extent in which memory is a socio -

spatially mediated political process (Dwyer and Alderman, 2008).

As elaborated by many, memory is a notion that is crucial to building a sense of belonging,

especially since it plays a significant role in creating (and recreating) both personal and

collective identities (Sandercock and Lysiottis, 1998, Hillier, 1998). Yacobi, on the other hand

sees memories and belonging as sentiments that either exist or not, with no direct connection

to the role of the planner (2004, p. 297). However this paper illustrates a view in agreement

with Sandercock, Lysiottis and Hillier: planners have the power to legitimize certain claims to

the city through making sites of commemoration more visible and explicit. This accumulation of

past experiences and events can create a sense of belongi ng to the place where these took

place, highlighting how memory, belonging and attachment are intricately interwoven and

spatially oriented.


19/41

14

RE -PLACING MEMORY

The basic error of all materialism in politics... is to overlook the inevitability

with which men disclose themselves as subjects, as distinct and unique

persons, even when they wholly concentrate upon reaching an altogether

worldly, material object.

Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (1958)

As the creation of urban spaces is an essentially a collective enterprise, one may be able tocompare it to the equally collective nature of remembering. It is thus possible that such

understandings of the collectivities of our practices and our memories may spark novel

understandings of the productions of space, place, and time. The previous section outlined how

planning (like memory) is deeply rooted in the spatial constructs of the city, this is reflected in

the political and social compromises its processes shape. As such, another dimension in the

existing debate about space, place and planning presents them as mechanisms that can honour

sites of memory and commemoration.

Sandercock and Lysiottis depict cities as the repositories of memories, and they a re one of

memorys texts (1998, p. 207). Here, it is essential to understand both the geography of

memory, and the role that various social and political actors play in charging the city and its

urban spaces with new meanings. Irazbal underlines this and identifies the local geography as

a structure for remembrance that organizes the manner in which historical referents are

conceptualized (2008, p. 173). Also, etymologically, the word geography is derived fromgeo (land) and graphy (description), so geography is the describing of land, making

geography both, in theory and origin, a social product.

The intractable link between social space and collective memory conjoins to construct much of

the base for modern identities, and in turn the dissolution and contestation of those identities.

On this topic Huyssen writes: if in the early twentieth century, modern societies tried to define

their modernity and to secure their cohesiveness by way of imagining the future, it now seems


20/41

15

that the major requir ed task of any society today is to take responsibility for its past (2003, p.

94).

In the seminal book What time is this place? (1972) on the subject of sites of memory, Kevin

Lynch defines landscapes as points of reference considered to be external to the observer.

According to him, the value of these landmarks increases when they are more identifiable,

and present a contrast to their urban background in addition to being situated in a strategic

location. Their significance increases when they have a collective memory attached to them

that functions as spatial coordinates (ibid). Thus, the urban fabric can be both experienced

and changed in times of conflicts, especially since the preservation of recollections rests on

their anchorage in space (Wachtel, 1986, p. 216).

Here, it is important to acknowledge, as Cupers points out that urban landscapes can thus be

envisaged as a palimpsest of historical layers, some of which have disappeared while others

remain active in constituting identities (2005, p. 734, emphasis in original). In this respect, the

notion of war-torn cities as urban palimpsests emerges again, in which many traces of history

are erased while others remain and affect the present. As such, not all of the layers or traces of

history are of equal importance in shaping the city (ibid).This deepens the metaphor of these

conflict-ridden cities as a text in a on-going dialogue about the forms and connotations of

identity, belonging and nationhood.

Furthermore, the ensuing reconstruction in war-torn cities occurs both in the physical

landscape and in the imagined and imaginary landscapes of minds and memories. This can raise

a mixture of reactions to any one conflict or act of destruction according to time, place and

circumstance. Thus, the destruction and reconstruction of commemoration sites linked to

memory and identity affects relations between individuals and societies on all of the local,national and international spheres. This in turn illustrates the significance of time and space in

determining the long-term impact of war in addition to its destruction and reconstruction of

nationhood and identity. Viejo- Rose et al. depict this impact eloquently as at once global in

spread and individual in how it is experienced (2011, p. 54).


21/41

16

RECONSTRUCTION AND INHABITING POST-CONFLICT MEMORYSCAPES

To Damascu s, years are only moments, decades are only flitting trifles oftime. She measures time, not by days and months and years, but by the

empires she has seen rise, and prosper and crumble to ruin. She is a type of

immortality."

Mark Twain, The Innocents Abroad (1869)

Whilst the more immediate reasons which lead to large scale warfare are multiple and often

superfluous, garnering maximum attention from political analysts and newsroom editors, it is

the authors belief that many contemporary conflicts are the results of struggles over the

meanings of space: whether its meaning in the past, present or desired/imagined futures.

Indeed, urban conflicts are repeatedly related to competing claims to the citys past, as the city

remains both the site and stake of struggles over meanings of belonging, identity and

nationhood (Nagel, 2002, Nasr et al., 2003).

In post-war circumstances the built environment becomes a politicized landscape of

contradictive meanings grounded in history in a much more active way than usual (Bollens,

2012). Thus, urban polices are greatly imposed and implemented as tools within such

strategies, over the construction of meaning. Furthermore, the way a war-torn urban

environment is reconstructed and shaped is a dynamic process open to tension, subversion and

negotiation. This process renders visible the power relations and struggles between different

actors and agents that shape the city. Reconstruction in war-torn cities is not limited to

monumental landmarks of identity, religious institutions and symbols of socio-political

dominance but also extends to infrastructure, public spaces such as squares and parks in

addition to various constructs of everyday practices of building such as the production of

affordable housing. The importance of the facilitating the latter is to encourage the post-war

return of the citys inhabitants to their communities and restoring a sense of normality in the

city.


22/41

17

Sultan Barakat depicts post-war reconstruction as an arrangement of holistic activities in an

integrated process of a corrective nature that focuses on plannings duality in righting the

pasts wrongs while focusing on the future (2005). This paper shares a similar view and argues

that to accomplish this, the three element PRA approach should be taken into consideration:First, accepting responsibility and embracing error; second, a commitment to equity and

empowerment of those who are marginalized, excluded and deprived; and third, recognition

and celebration of diversity (Chambers cited in Blackburn and Holland, 1998). Furthermore,

during the process of urban reconstruction of the city, it is essential for the political power of

social memory to be reconfigured in all reconciliation and conflict resolution attempts. This is

especially critical, since social memory is arguably one of the main actors in forming and

contesting notions of identity, belonging and nationhood.

Sites of memory, such as meaningful monuments and public spaces tend to serve as

repositories that collect and accentuate struggles, and can become pivotal parts of divisions of

the city by reason of their strong symbolism and the emotional wounds they inevitably evoke.

Indeed, monuments and commemoration sites should be thought of as living parts of the local

political ecologies with connections to the landscape and everyday practices (CinC, 2012b,

p.1). It is worth noting that while these sites can be used to broadcast specific meanings of thepast that might be of an ethnically or nationally exclusive nature, they also have the potential

to reveal pluralistic pasts that can encourage positively shared futures and enhance co-

existence in conflict ridden cities (CinC, 2012b, p. 3). Establishing what is remembered and

forgotten in a city through planning processes can in many cases overwrite complex and

traumatizing pasts with reductive images of nostalgia and belonging.

This paper argues that to ensure the corrective aspect of employing the past to serve the

present is encouraged in post-war reconstruction; the following measures need to be taken

into consideration:

1. Recognizing pluralism and emphasizing the diversity and multiplicity of both the city and

its inhabitants: The promotion of inter-subjective urban images can enhance networks

between conflicting groups and battle various forms of xenophobia (fear of the other).

Furthermore, in the case which multiple groups have claims to the same

commemoration sites, this contested nature should also be brought into light. (CinC,


23/41

18

2012b). Effectively, considering events and memory sites that provide pluralistic

readings of the citys past, can in turn reveal the possibility of a shared future thereby

evoking the realization that urban space equals difference, not merely coexisting

differences and different perspectives, but contesting differences and unequal powerrelations. (Cupers, 2005, p. 735). This process should then be scaled up through

strategic highlighting, selecting samples and multiplying examples. (Nora, 1989, p. 17).

Here, it is worth noting that religious sites can easily be manipulated in conflicts,

especially since their funding comes, to a large extent, from international bodies and

diasporas. Although usually coupled with politico-religious agendas, there is a possibility

to manoeuvre these towards addressing poverty and inequalities.

2. Resisting managing the conflict-ridden city as a means of control and manipulation;

but rather encouraging co-existence by sharing spaces: This may simply insinuate

people from different ethno-nationalistic groups and religions to come in direct contact

with one another, hear another language different from their own, and observe

customs and religious acts within their everyday. Even in the case of limited or lack of

social interaction, the subtle experience and memory of such cohabitation within spaces

can help establish a common ground and open up cracks in stereotypical perceptionsand fear of the other (CinC, 2012a). Thus, sharing and inhabiting the same urban spaces

helps battle claims of exclusivity and the politics of alienation in the city (Harvey,

2000a). These spaces are usually neutral and public spaces, such as parks, sidewalks,

schools in addition to service oriented spaces and shopping malls where informal

activities can take place. Often in cities suffering from violent conflicts, conflict

management might involve segregation and spatial policing policies. It is critical to note

that these spatial divides change the structure of cities, and how people mix in urbanenvironments. In the long-term this can lead to the rupture of urban life and prevent

fragmented cities from flourishing (Sandercock, 1998, CinC, 2012a). Reversing the

effects of even temporary divides is extremely difficult, and in many cases these last in

the minds and memories of the citys inhabitants long after they have been removed

(Huyssen, 2003, CinC, 2012c).

3. Participation and inclusivity of all groups in the city in the reconstruction processes:

Inclusivity of all groups (including marginal and typically excluded groups) is key to


24/41

19

giving local bodies and citizens a stake in the reconstruction of their neighbourhoods

and cities, which in turn leads to expanding their role in addressing their own conflicts.

In many cases, planning dynamics in post-war cities depict the process as international

experts helping locals. Here the local inhabitants are stereotypically portrayed aspassive victims whose participation is seldom more than co -option (Barakat, 2005).

Therefore, this paper embraces the view for a need to implement egalitarian

multiculturalism (Rex, 1996, p. 2) in post-conflict reconstruction planning. This concept

acknowledges group diversity while simultaneously promoting the equality of

individuals in the decision making process. The opinion of local groups and

organizations must be taken before decision making decisions on commemoration sites

and monuments. Expanding inclusive claims to the city through historical memory canhelp address ethno-national conflicts, as it encourages diverse groups and communities

to recognize what divides and unites them.

The discussions and argumentations outlined in the first section of this paper conclude with

highlighting the extent which the practices and politics of urban forms (especially those that

are designed to/are meant to chronicle historical pasts) play a role in constructing and

sometimes deconstructing memories. Weaving together various urban spaces and artefacts,the following section of this paper presents the case of the city of Mostar to underline the

narrative role of urban elements (Rossi, 1982) in the post-conflict city, and render their

importance in depicting collective memory, historic pasts, doubtful presents and envisioned

futures. A concluding section follows where transferable lessons may be extracted, with war

torn cities in the on-going Syrian conflict in mind.


25/41

20

PART 2:

MOSTAR, A CITY OF DIVIDE AND DIFFERENCE

In war, the city becomes precious, each inch mourned, each stone

remembered. The city's sights, smells, and tastes haunt you. You cling to every

memory of every place you had ever been to and remember that this is what it

was like before. But memories are deceptive. You weave them into images,

and the images into a story to tell your child about a city you once knew,

named Aleppo.

Amal Hanano, The Land of Topless Minarets and Headless Little Girls, 2012


26/41

21

In built environments whe re xenophobia and fear of the other are perceived to shape and

divide the city, recognizing the richness of the notion of social memories and their spatial

manifestations through monuments and similar commemoration sites is essential. This enables

exploring whether and how urban planning can be positively transformational in post-warreconstruction projects. The city of Mostar - formerly of Yugoslavia but today part of Bosnia

and Herzegovina - presents a number of urban memory sites that open up avenues of

frameworks in which social memory and forgetting perform both concurrently and

disjunctively.

Thus, the development of the citys monuments into Noras lieux de mmoire are explored

before expanding on their socio-political symbolism and the physical manifestations they may

evoke. Examining these spatial elements opens up a myriad of questions about the built

environment and its symbolism as a palimpsest underlining what Krishnamurthy sees in the city

of Mostar as [the] multiple layers of association from the space as a historic site to its current

role as a space for reconciliation (Krishnamurthy, 2012, p. 83).

Through tracing the changing urban geography of the city within its trajectory of socio-spatial

development and identifying the main shifts in the Mostars demographics, the author aims to

reach conclusions about the palimpsest nature of the spatial production of the post-war

fragmented city and how its identity (or identities) were created based on the various reactions

to the conflict.


27/41

22

MOSTAR A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW:

Historically, Mostar was known to be a cosmopolitan city, it was also recognized both locally

and internationally as a quintessential Balkan city with one of the most important historic

urban ensembles in the region (Makas, 2006, p. 1). Located Southwest of the city of Sarajevo,

its population was roughly 126,000 according to the census in 1991 was culturally diverse with

34% Muslims, 29% Croats and 18% Yugoslavs or other(Pai, 2005). The multiplicity of the city

was not limited to its demographic constituents, this also extended to its urban forms; in which

Mostars layered urban structures reflected its rich history and its situation as a cultural

meeting point.

Mostars urbanization began when the Ottomans absorbed it into their cosmopolitan empirein 1468, after which it became under the Austro-Hungarians rule in 1868, this rule lasted until

the aftermath of the first world war. As a result of these subsequent absorptions, the citys

landscape is dotted with many multi-faith establishments. During the time of the Socialist

Federation of Yugoslavia under President Tito the city flourished economically and became one

of the most productive regions both agriculturally and industrially.

In 1992, after Bosnia and Herzegovina seceded from Yugoslavia, the town was subjected to a

siege by the Yugoslav Peoples Army (JNA). This was followed by a counter action by the

Croatian Defence Council (HVO) and Croat and Muslim forces (ARBiH) forcing the JNA out of

the city. However the HVO attacked the Muslim/Serb community a year later and announced

the city as purely Croat. Reports by the WMF (1999) and the UNESCO (1997) describe the

deliberate urbacide of Mostar in which 90% of the citys urban centre was shelled, 75% of the

housing stock was destructed and the subsequent exile of 60% of Mostorians. This conscious

destruction of the city and its resources transformed Mostar into the most damaged city in theBiH conflict (Glenny, 1992, Danner, 1998).

CONFLICTING PERCEPTIONS OF ONE CITY:

In Mostar as in elsewhere in during the Balkan Wars, civil war and competing ideologies and

associated communities depicted a vengeful catalyst for change on many levels, from the citys

political and demographic division (Ruggles, 2012), to urban planning regimes (Djurasovic,

2012) and to visions of the citys identity (Makas, 2006). Indeed, the various attacks on Mostar


28/41

23

led to the expulsion of the Bosnian Muslim inhabitants and the few remaining Serbs to the

severely damaged Eastern side of Mostar in what was seen as the cleansing of non -Croats

from the Western part of the city. The urban identity in a war-torn city such as Mostar, is often

linked to competing claims to the citys past with its multiplicity of layers of pre-Ottoman,Ottoman, European and Mediterranean architectural character. Here, memory sites -such as

the Stari Most, and the Franciscan Church- can be seen as pivotal points highlighting the

linkages between civic identities, urban geographies and the layer of physical transformations

within the city. Building on Pierre Noras lieux de mmoire (1989, 1996) these monuments

present both a place and site of memory, outlining how people define their relationship with

form, space and location, their influences surpassing spatiality into the socio-political make-up

of the post-war city, clearly becoming the sites in the struggles of meaning.

The contradiction between international symbolism, local veracities and the impact both have

on the development of the meanings associated with memory sites can be seen in the case of

Mostar. Indeed various voices and contradicting conceptualizations of Mostars urban identity

have emerged in the aftermath of the Balkan war. The following part of this study will focus on

the socio-political entities advocating such contradictions. These conceptualizations respond to

numerous explanations marked by conflicting narrations of memory and forgetting, theyextend from a model unified city, to the purely Croat city, to a fragmented city of divisions.

Each of these interpretations of the city position specific monuments as sites of collective

memory conveying selected messages of yesterday to tomorrow (Rossi, 1982).

Mostar The united model city:

The 1990s Balkan wars grasped the international communitys attention, with Mostars

meaning and symbolism largely attached to the iconic Stari Most bridge and its deconstructionpresented a cause clbre s and one of the poignant imag es of that conflict (Makas, 2006).

This was clearly evident when in 2003 the OHR (which is the international communitys chief

administrator in BiH) placed the reunification of the city of Mostar as one of their main

objectives. Additionally, this was especially made a timely priority since the citys reunification

was meant to keep up with the symbol the international community was building to represent

it: the new Old Bridge (Makas, 2006, p. 5). The reconstruction projects taken on by the OHR

presented a top- down approach, in which the locals were excluded for the collective good
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cause%20c%C3%A9l%C3%A8brehttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cause%20c%C3%A9l%C3%A8brehttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cause%20c%C3%A9l%C3%A8bre


29/41

24

(Barakat, 2005, p. 16), and planning was viewed as an exercise of technically rebuilding selected

parts of the physical construct of the city. Excluding the local inhabitants from the planning

processes led to a communal division in reading the bridge, illustrating inter -group dynamics

and processes of identity formation. In the largely Bosniak East, the image was visuallyrepresented in various forms (graffiti, posters, street signs etc.). There, many appropriated it as

exclusively Bosnian connected to the Ottoman and Muslim identity. To a large portion of the

Croats in the West of the city, the image of the bridge is almost non-existent. Additionally,

some see it as a symbol of resistance against nationalism, others as a site and symbol of inter-

ethnic existence in BiH (CRIC, 2012).

To the international community, the bridge was in many ways key to how they wanted to

shape what is remembered and forgotten and how they thought the city of Mostar should be

perceived. The OHR, various international bodies that supported and funded the project and

peacemakers assumed that the rebuilding of the bridge would communicate meanings of a

shared future both locally and internationally and remind the citys inhabitants of the pasts

good times (Krishnamurthy, 2012). Additionally it was assumed that the bridge would

encourage mobility between the Eastern and Western sides of the fragmented city enhancing

meanings of co-existence. Indeed, following the grandiose opening of the reconstructed bridge,the entire old bridge area was included in the UNESCOs World Heritage List in 2005. As a rule,

this exemplary status is to acknowledge the universal value of architectural history which was

arguably not the cases here; since much of the architecture in the old bridge area was

destroyed in the carnage and was in dire need of reconstruction. However, according to the

reports Mostar was added to the list because it presented an outstanding exampl e of a

multicultural urban settlement and a symbol of reconciliation, international co -operation and

of the coexistence of diverse cultural, ethnic and religious communities (UNESCO, 2005). Therebuilding of the old bridge presents a stark example of what Mitchell (2003) calls a

spectacular memorial event reinstating the bridge as a specific container of individual and

collective memory. By invoking sites of a heightened sense of memory, this event is

performed at the scale of the city, if not the wo rld, and is in harmony with the international

communitys projections of producing the unified post -conflict city.

Another interesting example of a monument to represent a shared and unified city is the Bruce

Lee statue erected in 2005. As opposed to the Stari Most that was funded by the Agha Khan


30/41

25

Foundation, UNESCO and other prominent international bodies, this monument was

constructed by a small local NGO called Urban Movement (UM). Looking for a memory that all

the population connected with, UM argues that they had to look outside their fragmented city

to find a part of Mostorians identity that was not associated with the conflict (Raspudi, 2004) .As such, they chose a popularly identifiable heroic character whose roles in his films often

result in his physical participation in the reconstituting justice and struggling oppressors.

However, even this statue could not fight off malice; it was vandalized a few days after it was

unveiled in 2005 and was only returned to Mostar after repairs in May 2013. Highlighting the

semiotics of space, the statue sat in the centre of the city exactly where the dividing frontlines

lay with Bruce Lee oriented towards the North to neutralize any possible hostile interpretation

of the statue attacking the East or West of th e city.

Mostar The Croat City:

Many have argued that the once multi-confessional city with the highest rate of interfaith

marriages in BiH (Charlesworth, 2012) became polarized and divided in what was seen as an

exclusively Croat city both during and since the conflict (Makas, 2006, Krishnamurthy, 2012,

Bollens, 2006, 2012). This image was especially evident in 1995 and the immediate post-war

period, and was further enhanced with the Croats maintaining an economic and military

blockade against the Muslim Eastern section of the city (Behram, 2005).

The vision of a city as purely Croat with a Muslim enclave/ghetto continued after the blockade

was lifted, especially since the demographics of Mostar had changed significantly, with the

percentage of the Croats in the city increasing to 60% of the population by 2002, as opposed to

45% in 1998 (ICMPD/RIC, 1998). The evident shift in the post-war city demographics with and

pre-dominantly Croat newcomers led to lesser attachments to the urban environment. This in turn, initiated a major change on two entwined levels: The first was in the agents of re-writing

the citys memories, and the second in planning priorities shifting towards an arguably non -

progressive nature. The dominant Croat group utilized exclusive institutions not only to

highlight their identity and cultural uniqueness, but also situated monuments strategically to

mark their boundaries (Makas, 2006, Ruggles, 2012). As such, their use of memory as a method

to clearly dominate meaning and consolidate power reflects the on- going struggle between

local city-based meanings and memories, and those associated with collective memory


31/41

26

formation at the scale of the nation (Mitchell, 2003, p. 449). Mostars Muslims communities

and much of the international community saw the highly visible monuments constructed by the

Croats as aggressively confrontational challenging the citys status quo for the worse, seizing

the urban environment and taking over its identity with visible symbols of power anddomination of memory (Makas, 2006). These conflicting views depicted an unfortunate

outcome of the war for the citys Muslims and other minorities. However, in contrast this was a

desirable development for the nationalist components of the Croat community.

Figure 2: Photograph of the reconstructed Stari Most Bridge or the New Old Bridge in 2012 2, with the cross

on Hum Hill overlooking Mostar.

The limited inter-confessional exchange in Mostar was further highlighted by building and re-

building large-scale and symbolic monumental religious projects that were directly and

indirectly used to inflict emotional wounds on the other and enhance ethn ic hostilities (ICG,

2000). An example of this non-progressive de facto planning is the new Jubilee cross on Hum

Hill, erected by Mostars Bishop in 2000. Arguably the most prominent post-war monument inthe city, the thirty three metre tall structure can be read as a flag planted upon a liberated

territory and a dramatically looming symbol of authority of the Catholic Croats over Mostar

reinstating it as a purely Croat city. This is further highlighted by war-time memories

associating whoever controlled Hum Hill with control over the city. Another reference to the

past is its prominent location, from which the Bosnian Croats militia and Bosnian Serb

2 Images taken from CRIS. 2012.Mostar: Heritage Reconstruction in a Divided City, March 2012. YouTube. . [video online] Available at:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1Cz6UzwDrg [Accessed: 25-Aug-2013]


32/41

27

paramilitaries shelled the city, resulting not only in hundreds of deaths but also destroying the

Stari Most and much of Mostars urban fabric (CD, 2009).

Another illustration of controversial projects is the Franciscan Church in Mostar. Following the

war the local Franciscans tore down the destroyed buildings and erected a larger church with a

soaring bell tower (the tallest in BiH). All groups in the city agree (including its supporters and

critics) that the principal effect of the bell-tower is celebrating the dominance of the Catholic

Franciscan Croats over the citys skyline - previously dominated by many but much smaller

mosque minarets (Ruggles, 2012, ICG, 2000). The redesign of the church is arguably an attempt

to obliterate any traces of Ottoman, and by extension Muslim constituent of the old churches

memory - since the Ottomans originally helped build it. Additionally, the location of the Church

by Bulevar Narodne Revolucije (the Boulevard), reinforces and marks the main urban division

line in the city.

Figure 3: Photograph of Mostar in 20123, with the bell tower of the newly constructed Franciscan Church

dominating the citys skyline.

Both examples highlight how the Croats in the city acted on space by appropriating it through

creating an exclusive identity. The reconstruction examples here illustrate that they not only

spatialized urban practices, but also reproduced the power struggles that underline them by

unravelling the citys past in addition to forming fresh collective memories in a political process

of asserting the Croat power and domination over the city.

3 Images taken from CRIS. 2012.Mostar: Heritage Reconstruction in a Divided City, March 2012. YouTube. . [video online] Available at:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1Cz6UzwDrg [Accessed: 25-Aug-2013].


33/41

28

Mostar The Divided City:

The International Crisiss Groups report titled Reunifying Mostar: Opportunities for Progress

begins with the following ominous pronouncement Mostar is a city divided (ICG, 2000, p. 1).

This was further underlined by the Dayton Accords institutionalizing de facto ethnic conflicts

by creating parallel institutions in the East and West of the city. As a result voluntary

segregation in transport, education, post offices and theatres arose within the city

(Charlesworth, 2012). With an ideal of providing security and stability, the post-war

government split the city into seven municipal divisions (three Bosniak, three Croat and one

jointly controlled central zone). This however lead to creating ethnically homogenous and

unstable divisions in the city (Calame and Pasic, 2009) and resulted in the city being nicknamed

The Balkan Berlin(ICG, 2000). However instead of a wall, Mostar was divided by the

Bulevar, the Repatriation Information Centre reported in 1998 that the East of the city was

98% Bosniak with less than 1% Croat and 1% Serb, and the West was 84% Croat, 11% Bosniak

and 3% Serb (ICMPD/RIC, 1998). This contrasts starkly with the pre-war multi-ethnically mixed

city, and provides a stark example of how spatial boundaries are in part moral boundaries

(Sibley, 1995, p. 14). Furthermore, it is worth noting that although the central zone was

imagined to lay the basis for reunifying the city, it in fact resulted in further enhancing Mostarsdivision, as this pushed both the Muslims and Croats to build their exclusive buildings solely on

their side. And by the time the city was reunified, institutions had already been constructed or

shifted to the distinct East/West parts of Mostar limiting reasons to visit the other side.

Although a small change, the Croats redesigned the street signs on their side to a red

background (red being the predominantly national Croat colour). Observing the street signs in

fact made it possible to know who dominated you were on. These signs also confusingly

referred to two different city centres, which rendered the partition between East and West

more visible.

Reconstruction patterns have underlined the existing ethnic divisions of Mostar, especially with

Croats constructing their cultural and religious institutions in the West of the city and the

Muslims doing the same in the East. However the shared central zo ne was considered neutral

and protected from buildings exclusive to one group. As such, many significantly large-scale

projects sponsored by the Croat community were stopped by the citys planning administration


34/41

29

because of their exclusive disposition. For example, in 2002 construction works on the Croatian

National Theatre were halted, and substituting the barely damaged the Catholic Cathedral with

an imposing monumental building was stopped in 1996, since both cases were seen as a

violation of the zones neutrality (ICG, 2000).In the above mentioned examples of memory sitesit is possible to observe the following: Firstly, the commemoration in the city of Mostar is a

process in which memory is a socio-political construct; its connotations fixated through the

repetition of a specific narrative (such as the dominance of Croats on the city). Secondly, the

significance of the monuments semiotics of space, place and site. And thirdly, employing

memory as what Sherman calls a practice of representation tha t enacts and gives social

substance to the discourse of collective memory (1994, p. 186) and most critically fourthly,

using memory as an agency to legitimize both authority and social cohesion.

However, the reconstruction processes in Mostar disassociated the local citizens from

participating in making their city. Thus, it failed to contribute to the creation of an urban

citizenship that is diverse and multi -ethnic in nature, but rather quite uniform and exclusive in

difference. Furthermore, the lack of planning strategies for reconstructing both the physical

and socio-political aspects of the city led to the failure of creating spaces of neutrality, social

cohesion and inter-group relations, on the one hand, and the relegation and subordination ofgeneral city-wide interests to those of specific political interests. Presenting a means for

international and local elites to solidify their power and reinforce ethno-national divisions in

the city through exclusive urban images; this reinstated that the reconstruction of spaces in

Mostar not only can manifest injustices; but more critically they can also produce and re-

produce these injustices in various socio-spatial and political forms.


35/41

30

CONCLUSIONS

Memory is a dynamic force in collective identities, intricately woven into communities

productions of space. War is also a collective practice in which resulting landscapes are those

that emerge subjected to trauma and destruction, on the one hand, and a resultant

manifestation to its individual and collective meanings, on the other. Here, the city is revealed

not only as the site of struggles between memory and amnesia, but also as the stake of these

struggles and battles over territory. Hence, the process of urban memorialization is but a

collective response to this trauma; resulting in a post-war city clearly a palimpsest in which

layers of history are merged with traces of identity, nationhood and belonging. These are

written, re-written and erased in the on-going process of city formation.

As such, divided and conflict-ridden built environments present stark examples comparable to

literary transcripts; that are critical not only for what they choose to portray, but also for what

they refuse to render visible from their pasts and presents. Ruins created by war, which have in

turn become sites of commemoration, invariably involve struggles between layers of histories,

memories, and meanings associated with the ruins and their production. Thus, planning

practices in all war-torn cities present particularly clear examples of the socio-political

appropriation and re-appropriation of the city. Here, the practices and politics of planning play

a great role in constructing, negotiating and performing memory - and its associated amnesia -

especially in chronicling certain claims to the citys past. In this process, commemoration can be

seen both as an agency that seeks to legitimize social cohesion, and also as a symbolic

victory of the authority of a particular community over the other.

The various meaningful sites in Mostar are a series of multiple overlapping texts. Exploring

the various cases of construction and reconstruction in the city illustrates how the re -

presentation of memory (constructing a present), and how invisible pasts, which have been

written over, obliterated and sometimes forgotten, are re -presen ted in the visible urban

fabric of the city. This in turn, cannot but produce several contradicting narratives to Mostar by

the various groups involved (including the omnipresent planning practitioners) who have clear

stakes in the production of the city in their image. Again, the metaphor of the city as a

palimpsest is evident, in which various memory sites highlight how the urban environment
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1TEUA_enAE496AE496&q=memorialization&spell=1&sa=X&ei=5j4jUrP1C83M0AXC9oHAAQ&ved=0CCkQvwUoAAhttps://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1TEUA_enAE496AE496&q=memorialization&spell=1&sa=X&ei=5j4jUrP1C83M0AXC9oHAAQ&ved=0CCkQvwUoAA


36/41

31

plays a role in storytelling (Sandercock, 2003) that is not limited to the past and present, but

can also project alternative visions for the future.

Furthermore, Mostar provides a clear example of some of the difficulties and possible

outcomes when commemoration is used by various actors to attempt, and force, social and

political transformation This is further complicated when international organizations, NGOs

and local population stakeholders are involved. All bringing their own agendas for

reconstruction; these may in many cases go against the dominant desires of some of the

communities affected. Also, it is critical to note that religious monuments are integrated in the

citys everyday in ways that can both reinforce patterns of conflict, or help address, and

potentially heal, existing ethno-national divisions. However, the Mostar examples underlines

the danger of initiating the rebuilding process of a city that is scarred with faith-based

partitions with the construction and reconstruction of religious institutions, since this only

amplifies already existing tensions in the city.

Post-war reconstruction and planning processes in Mostar render visible the power relations

and struggles between different international and local actors that shape the city. Here, the

citys conflicting identities underline that war not only destroys urban landscapes, but also

threatens the memories and meanings that individuals, groups and communities associate with

these landscapes. As such, the physical city is revealed as a victim of war just as much as its

populace. This in turn, highlights the need for urban planning to allow the city to absorb, resist

and play a role in post-conflict reconstruction and reconciliation by situating the city as an

actor facilitating its own transformation process.

This paper argues that the opportunity for transformative development in Mostar was not

adequately seized and arguably lost, due to the lack of strategic planning of the city as a centreof inter-ethnic and inter-cultural cooperation, despite the presence of various planning bodies.

Furthermore, it highlights the authors belief that any political post-war solution without a

comprehensive urban agenda cannot be successful in producing coherent reconciliation, or

even a valid attempt to do so. Given that strategic urban policies help re -write planning

alternatives that address socio-spatial fragmentation in cities and encourage social cohesion

between different groups. Furthermore, the case of the city of Mostar amplifies need for urban

planning processes to facilitate positive change and corrective transformation in the both the


37/41

32

city and in individuals by being a mediator of memories, negotiating how are cities are

produced. This presents much room for manoeuvre to open up new shared spaces and

manage co-existence incrementally leading to reconciliation in the city. A divided city with split

identities, contradicting myths and notions of belonging, features sites of commemorationconnected to a specific group, which are simultaneously sites of horror and trauma to another.

Therefore it is critical to see to what extent the comm emoration of the other can be part of a

hegemonic planning process. In conflict-ridden cities this is usually an outcome of a long and

often painful national reconciliation process, one in which memories are exhumed and

collective traumas addressed, as high levels of resolution and civil maturity are required to

allow memory and belonging of the other to become part of the space and landscape of the

city.

As such, planning processes - in which the reconstruction framework is designed and

implemented - are just as important as their outputs. In other words, different planning

approaches leading to the same end product can have contrasting effects on the socio -

political dynamics of the city. Furthermore, these processes should be strategically framed on

the local, urban, national and international levels. The Stari Most bridge is a clear illustration:

whereas the lack of participation from the local community in the projects vision led to acommunal division in how the bridge was read by the communit y and also eventually

appropriated, i.e. written over. Additionally, the Bruce Lee statue - although relatively small in

scale - managed to facilitate a shared sense of local identity by association with a silver screen

character whose qualities are admired by all, regardless of political and religious background.

Both examples illustrate that social cohesion calls for collective awareness and identity, which

can be promoted through a shared memory or historical experience; notions which are key to

planning in post-war cities anywhere.

Decades of tyranny and injustices sparked the Syrian revolution in March 2011 in what began

as a peaceful popular uprising. However, the repressive and violent management of the conflict

by the Syrian regime resulted in the emergence of a militarized uprising that soon

metamorphosed into a civil war and arguably the worst humanitarian crisis in recent memory.

Over the past forty years the regime has expressed its tyranny through monuments, statues

and various spatial representations imposed on the landscape of Syrian cities. As an imminent

Syrian planner, this author recognizes this struggle as one that confronts the regimes


38/41

33

repressive ideology by re-capturing cities, and questions narratives of Syrian identity and

nationhood in an attempt to re-imagine the future.

This in turn, has led the author to endeavour to understand the processes and practices of

socio-spatial reconstruction in war-torn environments. Reflecting the example of Mostar on

other war-torn cities with similar ethno-national divisions and physical devastation has led the

author to recognize various similarities between Syrian cities and those in the former

Yugoslavia including Mostar; such as the once omnipresent leader cult occupying most public

space; existing yet often ignored ethno-national divisions (Homs, Aleppo, Hama); destruction of

sites related to certain narratives of the city (Daraa, Deir Ezzor, Aleppo, Homs, Qusayr); and

stark changes in the citys demographics (Homs, Aleppo).

As struggles in many of these war-torn cities - that shape their past, present and future -

intensify, the key challenge to their post-war planning is creating a space for reconstruction in a

corrective rather than socio-politically dominant approach, and how this challenge can be

translated into policies and practice contributing to a deeper understating of the particulars of

the post-war city.

However, whilst urban landscapes emerge from wars subjected to cycles of destruction and

trauma, the promise of cities is that they have the ability to frame spaces for co-existence as

spaces of proximity, inclusivity and that reshape integrated social identities. Is this not a

primary role of urban space? As such, planning interventions in post-war cities need to be

rooted in a vision that draws attention to particular urban landscapes and inhabits them with

new meanings of shared future and co-existence. Meanings that are endlessly transformable

and transformative of the populace. Here, the writing and re-writing of collective memories

come into play, whereas the city becomes a place to share stories, where remembrances andhealing are interwoven within the citys spaces. It is here that the city presents itself to its

citizens as the place where divisions can be addressed in not only practical and constructive

ways, but also ways that are full of yet- unforeseen possibilities. It is the authors desire that

this may soon be possible in the cities and landscapes of Syria.


39/41

34

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ARENDT, H. 1998. The Human Condition. 1958.Chicago: U of Chicago P .BARAKAT, S. 2005. After the conflict: reconstructions and redevelopment in the aftermath of war , IBTauris Publishers.

BEHRAM, A. 2005. Living in the Ghetto.War Report.BENJAMIN, W. 1968.The task of the translator , Illuminations.BLACKBURN, J. & HOLLAND, J. 1998.Who changes? Institutionalizing participation in development ,

Intermediate Technology Publications Ltd (ITP).BLOOMER, K. 1987. Memory and the Poetics of Architectural Time.Crit Spring , 23-30.BOANO, C. 2011. Violent spaces: production and reproduction of security and vulnerabilities. Journal of

architecture, 16, 37-55.BOLLENS, S. A. 2006. Urban planning and peace building.Progress in Planning, 66, 67-139.BOLLENS, S. A. 2012.City and soul in divided societies , Routledge Abingdon.BUBLIN, M. 1999. The Cities of Bosnia and Herzegovina: A Millennium of Development and the years of

Urbicide. Sarajevo Publishing Co, Sarajevo.CALAME, J. & PASIC, A. 2009. Post-conflict reconstruction in Mostar: Cart before the horse.In: CITIES, D.

(ed.) Contested States Working Paper Series, Paper No. 7.CALVINO, I. 1978.Invisible cities , Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.CD. 2009. The Cross over Mostar. Available from: http://beyondsarajevo.com/wordpress/2009/08/the-

cross-over-mostar/ 2013].CHARLESWORTH, E. 2012. Architects without frontiers , Routledge.CINC 2012a. Key Findings: Why research cities that experience ethno-national conflict?In: CINC (ed.)

Conflict in cities and the contestd state briefing papers . www.conflictincities.orgCINC 2012b. The politics of heritage: Why memory in divided cities impacts upon the future.In: CINC

(ed.) Conflict in cities and the contested state briefing papers. www.conflictincities.org.CINC 2012c. Rethinking Conflict Infrastructure: How the built environment sustains divisions in

contested cities. In: CINC (ed.)Conflict in cities and the contested state briefing paper. www.conflictincities.org: Conflict in cities and the contested state.

COLLIER, P. 2003.Breaking the conflict trap: Civil war and development policy , World Bank.CONNERTON, P. 1989.How societies remember , Cambridge University Press.COWARD, M. 2002. Community as heterogeneous ensemble: Mostar and multiculturalism. Alternatives:

Global, Local, Political, 27, 29-66.CRIC 2012. Mostar: Heritage Reconstruction in a Divided City.In: CRIC (ed.)Cultural Heritage and the Re-

construction of Identities after Conflict. Tuzla: CRIC.CUPERS, K. 2005. Towards a nomadic geography: Rethinking space and identity for the potentials of

progressive politics in the contemporary city. International Journal of Urban and RegionalResearch, 29, 729-739.

DANNER, M. 1998. Bosnia: the great betrayal.The New York Review of Books, 45.DJURASOVIC, A. 2012. With a New Planning Regime toward a Sustainable City of Mostar, BiH. AESOP

2012. Ankara.DUNCAN, J. & DUNCAN, N. 1988. (Re) reading the landscape.Environment and Planning D: Society and

Space, 6, 117-126.DWYER, O. J. 2000. Interpreting the civil rights movement: place, memory, and conflict.The Professional

Geographer, 52, 660-671.DWYER, O. J. & ALDERMAN, D. H. 2008. Memorial landscapes: analytical questions and metaphors.

GeoJournal [Online]. Available: https://resources.oncourse.iu.edu/access/content/user/odwyer/geojournal_2008_dwyer_alderman.pdf [Accessed 21 July 2013].

FAINSTEIN, S. S. 2000. New directions in planning theory.Urban affairs review, 35, 451-478.
https://resources.oncourse.iu.edu/access/content/user/odwyhttps://resources.oncourse.iu.edu/access/content/user/odwy


40/41

35

FLYVBJERG, B., RICHARDSON, T., ALLMENDINGER, I. P. & TEWDWR-JONES, M. 2002. Planning andFoucault. Planning futures: New directions for planning theory , 44-63.

FORESTER, J. 1999.The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes , The MITPress.

GLENNY, M. 1992. The Fall of Yugoslavia: TheThird Balkan War. London: Penguin Books.

HANANO, A. 2012. The Land of Topless Minarets and Headless Little Girls. Available:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/12/11/the_land_of_topless_minarets_and_headless_little_girls?page=0,0 [Accessed 15 July 2013].

HARVEY, D. 2000a. Cosmopolitanism and the banality of geographical evils.Public Culture, 12, 529-564.HARVEY, D. 2000b.Spaces of hope , Taylor & Francis.HEALY, P. 1997.Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies , UBC Press.HILLIER, J. 1998. Representation, identity, and the communicative shaping of place.LIGHT Andrew,

SMITH Jonathan M.(eds.), The Production of Public Space, Rowman & Littlefield, Boston .HOELSCHER, S. & ALDERMAN, D. H. 2004. Memory and place: geographies of a critical relationship.

Social & Cultural Geography, 5, 347-355.HOLSTON, J. 1989.The modernist city: An anthropological critique of Braslia , University of Chicago

Press.HUYSSEN, A. 2003.Present pasts: Urban palimpsests and the politics of memory , Stanford UniversityPress.

ICG, I. C. G. 2000. Reunifying Mostar: Opportunities for Progress. ICG Balkans ReportSarajevo/Washington/Brussels.

ICMPD/RIC, I. C. F. M. P. D. R. I. C. 1998. Municipality Information Fact Sheet: The City of Mostar (CentralZone). Sarajevo.

IRAZBAL, C. 2008.Ordinary Places, Extraordinary Events: Citizenship, Democracy And Public Space inLatin America , Psychology Press.

JOHNSON, N. C. 1994. Sculpting heroic histories: celebrating the centenary of the 1798 rebellion inIreland. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers , 78-93.

KRISHNAMURTHY, S. 2012. Memory and Form: An Exploration of the Stari Most, Mostar (BIH). Journalon Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe, 11, 81-102.LEFEBVRE, H. 2003.The urban revolution , University of Minnesota Press.LEVY, C. 2007. Defining Strategic Action Planning led by Civil Society Organisations: The Case of CLIFF,

India.LYNCH, K. 1972.What time is this place , The MIT Press.MAKAS, E. G. 2006. Competing Visions of Postwar Mostar.European Association for Urban History

Conference. Stokholm, Sweden: European Assciation for Urban History.MIRAFTAB, F. 2004. Invited and invented spaces of participation: Neoliberal citizenship and feminists

expanded notion of politics. Wagadu, 1.MITCHELL, K. 2003. Monuments, Memorials, and the Politics of Memory.Urban geography, 24, 442-

459.NAGEL, C. 2002. Reconstructing space, re-creating memory: sectarian politics and urban development in

post-war Beirut. Political geography, 21, 717-725.NASR, J., VOLAIT, M. & NASR, J. 2003.Urbanism: imported or exported?:[native aspirations and foreign

plans] , Wiley-Academy Chichester, Sussex.NORA, P. 1989. Between memory and history: Les lieux de mmoire.Representations , 7-24.NORA, P. 1996. General introduction: between memory and history. Realms of memory: rethinking the

French past, 1, 1-20.OSBORNE, B. S. 1998. Constructing landscapes of power: the George Etienne Cartier monument,

Montreal. Journal of Historical Geography, 24, 431-458.PAI, A. 2005.Celebrating Mostar: architectural history of the city 1452-2004 .PURCELL, M. 2002. Excavating Lefebvre: The right to the city and its urban politics of the inhabitant.

GeoJournal, 58, 99-108.


41/41

RASPUDI, N. 2004. Bruce Lee monument in Mostar.In: CULTURE, P. F. (ed.)Relations. Halle, Germanry.REX, J. 1996.Ethnic minorities in the modern nation state: working papers in the theory of

multiculturalism and political integration , Macmillan Basingstoke.ROSSI, A. 1982. The Architecture of the City, trans. Diane Ghirardo and Joan Ockman. Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press.

RUGGLES, D. F. 2012.On location: heritage cities and sites , Springer.SAFIER, M. 2002. On estimating'room for manoeuvre'.City, 6, 117-132.SAID, E. W. 2000. Invention, memory, and place.Critical Inquiry, 26, 175-192.SANDERCOCK, L. 1998.Making the invisible visible: A multicultural planning history , University of

California Press.SANDERCOCK, L. 2003. Out of the closet: The importance of stories and storytelling in planning practice.

Planning Theory & Practice, 4, 11-28.SANDERCOCK, L. & LYSIOTTIS, P. 1998. Towards cosmopolis: Planning for multicultural cities.SHERMAN, D. J. 1994. Art, commerce, and the production of memory in France after World War I.

Commemorations: The politics of national identity , 186-211.SIBLEY, D. 1995. Geographies of exclusion Routledge.London and New York .

TILL, K. E. 1999. Staging thepast: landscape designs, cultural identity and Erinnerungspolitik at BerlinsNeue Wache. Cultural geographies, 6, 251-283.TILL, K. E. 2001. Reimagining national identity:chapters of lifeat the German Historical Museum in

Berlin.Textures of place: Exploring humanist geographies , 273-299.TWAIN, M. 2007.The innocents abroad , Penguin. com.UNESCO 1997.Mostar: Urban Heritage Map and Rehabilitation Plan of Stari Grad, Florence, A.

Pontecorboli.UNESCO. 2005. Old Brid

Documents

Urban Palimpsest_reconstruction and the Politics of Memory