Стамбена архитектура Београда 1918−1941.

Abstract

Residential architecture provides a detailed reflection of the ways in which a particular society functioned. With that in mind, this study represents an endeavor to explain the development of typologies in residential architecture of Interwar Belgrade. Undertaken between 2017 and 2020, the research incorporated the study of fieldwork data from 2,149 examples of residential architecture and 566 project documents from the Historical Archives of Belgrade. Throughout the interwar years, a variety of housing typologies were developed: the basic minimal apartment, consisting solely of a kitchen and a room; the family house; the suburban villa; the apartment building with one apartment per floor; the single-entrance apartment building with multiple apartments per floor; and the apartment building with multiple apartments per floor and several entrances. The apartment typology has the fewest variants, with the most dominant of these having had a central plan with an inner courtyard wing, becoming known among scholars as the Belgrade apartment type. Despite this fact, archival research has shown many exceptions. During the First World War, Belgrade lost around 25% of its housing capacity. An insufficient number of apartments, combined with a significant increase in Belgrade’s population during the initial post-war years, led to an intensification and proliferation of new construction sites. However, the newly formed Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes lacked the economic strength to implement the urban development of its larger cities. Laws and regulations pertaining to city planning were often neglected, and instead private capital dictated Belgrade’s growth. In 1921, Belgrade Municipality initiated an international competition for the General Urban Plan of Belgrade (Generalni urbanistički plan Beograda). Even though no winner was announced, a team of urban planners from the municipal authorities developed such a plan in 1923. However, an increasing number of newly formed illegal settlements and neighborhoods in Belgrade’s suburbs brought to the fore numerous issues concerning the infrastructure and city development in general, which gave rise to constant changes to and adaptations of the urban plan. Persistent delays to infrastructural projects – leading to their failure to meet the city’s needs – resulted from bureaucratic incompetence, bribery, and general funding shortfalls. Belgrade’s lack of a solid urban planning strategy led to a specific development of the city and its residential architecture, which is still evident today. It was during the rapid development of Belgrade in the 1920s that the first planned residential neighborhoods were built. The earliest of these was Kotež-Neimar in 1921, followed by the Professors’ Colony (Profesorska kolonija) in 1926, the Railway Colony (Železnička kolonija) in 1927 and the Clerks’ Colony (Činovnička kolonija) in 1928. All of these new settlements were designed under the strong influence of Ebenezer Howard’s concept of the Garden City. Many eminent architects of the Interwar period contributed to the visual appearance and architectural aesthetics of these neighborhoods, with a significant number even opting to live in them, such as Milutin Borisavljević, Milan Zloković and Momir Korunović, among others. Unfortunately, parallel to the planned new neighborhoods, numerous illegal settlements began to form on the outskirts of Belgrade. A significant number of these, such as Jatagan Mala, Pištolj Mala, Šporet Mala, Prokop and others, failed to meet even the basic hygiene standards of the time. These slums were inhabited by the poorest citizens of Belgrade, since the municipal authorities did not have a social housing program that would solve the issues of the underprivileged. As the living conditions in the slums were extremely poor, they quickly became hubs for the spreading of diseases, such as tuberculosis. While Belgrade Municipality embarked upon a phase of slum clearance in the late 1920s, it failed to offer inhabitants alternative accommodation, with many simply moving on and finding another slum in which to settle. Alongside the city’s urban development and the reflection of this in its residential architecture, one of the most significant aspects of this study is the unveiling of the stylistic development, with the residential architecture of the interwar years offering a comprehensive reflection of the pantheon of architectural movements present in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia during the period. This dynamic age was marked by a variety of foreign architectural influences, including French, Czechoslovak, Central European and Russian. Belgrade’s architects kept themselves informed of European and American architectural trends by reading architectural journals and literature, but also through their travels and professional training in Western cities such as Paris. This resulted in a stylistic complexity and heterogeneity specific to the interwar years. Both architects and investors paid great attention to the facades of the apartment buildings, which led to the establishment of an annual prize for the most beautiful. During the 1920s, eclecticism was the dominant choice for residential architecture, with all its variations, from neoclassicism to Serbo-Byzantine style. However, many architectural critics opposed this stylistic diversity. At the same time, due to certain avant-garde movements and Western influence, Modern architecture emerged in the late 1920s, with the Group of Architects of the Modern Movement (Grupa arhitekata modernog pravca) being formed in 1928, thus further popularizing and promoting the movement. Despite the fact that Modern architecture played a pivotal role in revolutionizing not only the exterior, but also the interior and spatial design of residential buildings, this was not entirely applicable to the Belgrade architectural scene. Most architects focused on the ‘Modern style’, paying less attention to the plan libre, as defined by Le Corbusier, and raumplan. This likely stemmed from both the insufficiently advanced construction technology and the rigid tastes of the investors. Interestingly, architects who showed a preference for Modernism also had a tendency to employ a decorative repertoire to enliven the non-ornamental facades, with some of the most popular elements and motifs incorporated into designs being a flagpole, Art Deco reliefs and an oculus. Like Eclecticism, Modern architecture also had its opponents among the architectural critics, who called it ‘ugly’ and defined it as ‘architectural nudity’. Sculpture was also a significant element within residential architecture, both in Eclecticist and Modernist design. A number of architects designed sculptures themselves, while others collaborated with sculptors and artisans in their realization. Regardless of the architectural style, the role of sculpture was to reflect the luxury and refined taste of the owner. Some investors even commissioned copies of famous sculptures to adorn their buildings. Most facade reliefs bore a symbolic and allegoric meaning, representing labor, industry, craftsmanship, etc. They played an important role in disseminating certain ideas and agendas, and often bore a symbolic relationship to a personal trait of the owner, for example their profession. The most obvious examples could be seen on the houses of artists, especially sculptors. With the advent of the establishment of numerous foundations and trusts during the Interwar period, many prominent and wealthy citizens immortalized their own images in busts, which were commonly displayed on their trust building. The entrance was also a key component of the overall design of residential architecture, since it acted as the bridge between the exterior and interior. Depending on the type of residential building, ‘hidden’ and ‘visible’ entrance types existed. ‘Hidden’ entrances were more common among family houses or residential buildings with a small number of apartments. In these cases the entrance did not play a significant role in representation or in attracting potential tenants. On the other hand, ‘visible’ entrances had the purpose of drawing attention towards the edifice. During the 1920s, most ‘visible’ entrances were designed with two wings and a semi-lunar oberlicht. With the introduction of Modernist design in the 1930s, many architects began to opt for three wings and glass panels with metal frames, with some employing typical Modernist elements to emphasize the entrance, such as the aforementioned flagpole, Art Deco reliefs and oculus. Some architects achieved high levels of originality in entrance design, with notable individuals in this regard including Momčilo Belobrk and Andreja Papkov. Entrance halls and vestibules were also important elements in the overall impact of a building’s aesthetics. Some were designed so that carriages and cars could pass through them into the inner courtyard, while it was common for others to have marble stairways that led to the first floor and then onward to the staircase to the upper floors. In the 1920s, entrance halls were often paved with cement tiles, with ceramic tiles decorating the walls. In the 1930s, marble became the most popular material for vestibules, with the innovation of artificial marble also being available for those who could not afford authentic materials. Some more luxurious hallways were adorned with mirrors, fountains, plants, reliefs and sculptures. The lighting varied in design, depending on the style of building. The staircase was most often made of reinforced concrete, and paved with artificial stone or terrazzo. Architects also paid special attention to the design of the handrail. The planning and design of the living space was one of the most challenging tasks faced by the architect. Alongside the design, location and orientation of the individual rooms, the way they and their functions interconnected was of great importance to a well-designed home. In the residential architecture of Belgrade, one of the most commonly used plans was the central plan, with the central room often being used as the dining room, while other functions were divided, with representative rooms facing the street and utility rooms positioned towards the inner courtyard. This type of apartment was based on 19th century Central European housing, but some influences were also adopted from French architecture. Similar plans were present in other European and Yugoslav cities during the interwar years. Most built apartments were very spacious with high ceilings, although they faced criticism from some intellectuals for their lack of light and air. Regardless of such appraisals, the quality of apartment production improved over the years. In the late 1930s, duplex apartments also became popular, especially as housing for the buildings’ investors. In the houses built in Interwar Belgrade, the hallway was of great significance, often being used as the main axis of communication between all zones of a house or villa. The design of the hallway was usually extremely luxurious, with a wooden staircase and carved handrail, with examples of the introduction of fireplaces, artworks and even fountains into the décor concept also existing. In apartments, the central communication room was usually the dining room. However, the most representative room was usually the salon, which was equipped with the most luxurious furniture a family could afford. The salon was often also connected to a balcony, terrace or loggia. Under the influence of British and American culture, the salon was gradually transformed into a living room by the late 1930s, and, in some cases, this evolved into two separate rooms within a single living space. In apartments, the bedrooms were most often located adjacent to the salon, while in houses they were situated on the upper floor(s). Although specifically designated children’s rooms were relatively rare, examples of these did exist in family houses and larger apartments. Despite multiple-bedroom residences being relatively common among the upper classes, most citizens, especially those of the working class, could not afford more than one bedroom per family. A typical family of the middle class or higher had a live-in help that usually lived in a small room next to the kitchen. In some buildings, the servants lived in the attic, or, rarely, in the basement. Some residences had a separate staircase for servants that led directly to the kitchen, but most buildings had two entrances: one for the family, and the other for the servants. In Interwar apartments, the kitchen was completely separated from the living room, salon and bedroom due to the ‘unpleasant smell’ that it often contained. Adjacent to every kitchen was a pantry. The kitchen floors were usually paved with terrazzo or cement tiles, with ceramic tiles being used on the walls, similar to the bathrooms. Unlike kitchens, which had been considered an integral part of the home since the Middle Ages, bathrooms only began to become an obligatory part of the living space in the 1920s. The bathroom was most often placed next to the bedroom, with a window facing the lightwell. In the 1930s, as a result of French influence, many architects started to orient the bathroom windows towards the street, turning them into a strong aesthetic motif within the facade. Most apartment buildings of the time had roof terraces that were used for laundry, but also for socializing and sunbathing, as a method by which to fight tuberculosis. Most architects, especially adherents of the Modernist movement, used terraces as an additional component in which to utilize certain aesthetic ideas; many installed pergolas, inspired by foreign examples such as Adolf Loos’s Villa Moissi. The interior design of the living space can be interpreted through the public-private dichotomy. From the way in which the room was designed, it is possible to determine whether it was intended to reflect social status or personal taste. The dining room and the salon were most often the ‘public’ rooms within the privacy of one’s home; they were usually connected by wide two- or four-winged concertina doors that, when opened, allowed the two rooms to be merged into a single space for entertaining guests. In more luxurious houses and villas, the number of representative rooms increased. Another type of ‘public’ space, in contrast to those reserved for the privacy of the family, was that of the bureau, study or any type of office that was merged with the living space. Such a room was most commonly present in the residences of doctors, artists and entrepreneurs. On the opposite end of the spectrum, bedrooms represented the most private areas within the living space. The interior design reflected the taste, sensibilities and social ambitions of the family. The role of architects in the interior design of residential architecture is not always clear, but it was not particularly common for people to seek professional advice regarding their interior design. Many furniture workshops were established in the wake of the First World War, with the majority simply copying foreign designs. In the 1920s, the popularity of a variety of historic furniture styles, for example Louis XVI, Empire and Biedermeier, increased. In the 1930s, tastes began to change, with Art Deco and Modernist styles gaining popularity. Most apartments were adorned by stucco decoration, which varied in style. The houses of wealthier citizens were even decorated with frescoes created by contemporary artists. However, there are few examples of furniture designed by Belgrade architects, although a small number specialized in interior design, such as Svetomir Lazić and Danica Kojić. Other architects used their own living spaces for experimenting and expressing their ideas in interior and furniture design, subsequently publishing their results in Yugoslav architectural journals. Applied art schools also played an important role in the development of interior design. In general, while the public space was generally dominated by men, family homes were seen as the realm of women. Interior décor choices were often the responsibility of women, and viewed as an opportunity through which they could express their creativity. However, the interiors of private homes also reflected gender, age, and even class dichotomies. Among these, the gender dichotomy, which had been present ever since Ottoman rule, was manifested most strongly in the Interwar period through certain interior design solutions, especially in family homes and villas, with the interior of the Karađorđević family’s royal court having stood as an exceptional example of distinction between feminine and masculine spaces. Feminine spaces often included the boudoir, the bedroom and the lady’s salon. The furniture in these rooms was often in Louis XVI style and pastille tones. In cases where there was insufficient space for such rooms in the apartment, women often delineated their own personalized corners within the living room beside to the window. Masculine spaces were the bureau, the library, the smoking room and the gentlemen’s room, or herrenzimmer. The furniture in these rooms was often more robust and of darker tones, commonly enhanced by personal collections from travels. In rare cases, some of the more luxurious Belgrade mansions had separate bedrooms for spouses. Orientalism played an important role in interior design in Interwar Belgrade. This phenomenon had been present since the 19th century, but gained new popularity after the First World War. The Orientalization of private spaces offered an escape from the present day and modern civilization. Many Belgrade homes and apartments had a Turkish, Bosnian, Arabian or even Japanese room, which primarily served as a space for leisure, enjoyment, smoking and drinking coffee. ‘Orientalism’ was loosely interpreted in interior design, and such rooms were often furnished with an eclectic mixture of various elements of traditional Balkan homes, souvenirs from the Middle East, and even objects from Far Eastern countries such as China or Japan. The Oriental was also occasionally mixed with the Exotic, with African applied art also having a presence in a number of Belgrade homes. However, Oriental interiors were not always a statement of the Western approach, but were instead sometimes viewed as personal searches for a national identity. Landscape architecture and gardening were further aspects of residential architecture in Interwar Belgrade, with many citizens arranging and tending to the gardens that surrounded their houses or apartment buildings. On the basis of a number of periodicals, projects and field research in the present day, it can be determined which types of trees, bushes and flowers were popular among the citizens at the time. One of the most common architectural elements was the winter garden. Many architects incorporated them within the designs of family houses, and even apartments. Indoor plants, such as palms and ficuses, were also present inside homes. Gardens, winter gardens and terraces played an important role in everyday life as personal pieces of nature within the urbanized structure of the city. One of the more distinct phenomena of Belgrade residential architecture was the tenement buildings based upon examples from Central and Western Europe. A significant number of citizens saw the lack of living space in post-war Belgrade as an opportunity from which to profit, with some, such as the Jaćimović family, gaining significant wealth and prosperity. However, many of the rental apartments were of low quality, and often failed to meet basic hygiene norms. Most consisted solely of a bedroom and kitchen, arranged around a communal courtyard, with shared sanitary facilities. Severely inadequate living conditions for Belgrade’s working classes gave rise to epidemics of diseases such as typhus and tuberculosis. Despite the poor living conditions, apartments in Belgrade were among the most expensive in Europe. Some families were even evicted from apartments for being unable to pay the rent. Such events reflected the general lack of strategy in social policy that should have standardized the newly built apartments and addressed the large number of illegal ones. The middle classes could afford better apartments in tenement buildings, where the owners commonly lived on the first floor. The haphazard strategy with regard to social housing can also be analyzed through the lens of the small number of state-initiated housing projects. Unlike other European countries, where the Interwar period was characterized by a large number of state-owned neighborhoods, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia did not have such ambitions, with the vast proportion of built apartments having been privately owned. The first social housing project financed by Belgrade Municipality was initiated at the beginning of the 1920s, near Jatagan Mala. However, a more clear and stable strategy began in the late 1920s, when apartments for the working class were constructed in Sveti Nikola and Humska streets. There were also a number of projects that were never or only partially realized, such as the municipality-owned apartment complex in Severni bulevar, which was intended to contain 1,000 apartments, although only 102 were actually built, due to the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941. In addition to Belgrade Municipality, the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of the Army and Navy built apartment complexes for their employees, and the Ministry of Social Policy and Public Health also implemented several modest housing projects. Residential architecture was also heavily influenced by the personal taste of the investors. The stylistic diversity which was typical for the era was largely a result of the dominance of investors’ tastes over those of the architects. This was a major influence upon the slower pace of emergence of Modern architecture in Belgrade. Many examples exist where architects first produced a Modernist solution for a building, only for this to be rejected by the investors and replaced with a design more adherent to Historicism or Romanticism. Some investors requested nothing more than greater decorative embellishment on the facades, however. But there were also examples where investors specifically requested Modernist buildings for themselves. Investors also often heavily influenced the interior plans, defining the character of the spaces in which they were supposed to live for themselves. While wealthier citizens were satisfied with spacious and luxurious apartments, the less privileged were in dire need of small but hygienic living spaces, which were in scarce supply at the time. This was an issue not limited exclusively to Belgrade and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and many European countries invested heavily in social housing programs to alleviate the problem. Even though the lack of small apartments was critical in Belgrade, the Municipality did little to address the issue. Some wealthy industrialists, such as Mihailo Bajloni, did, however, build apartments for their workers. Unfortunately, most small apartments failed to meet hygienic requirements, and the fact that they were damp, combined with an insufficient supply of light and air, contributed to the development of diseases, amongst which tuberculosis was the most common affliction. While many architects showed an interest in the development of small apartment typologies, few investors shared their ambitions. However, as the number of single working men in the city increased, the need for studios became ever-more apparent, and, in the 1930s, investors also began to commission these. In contrast to the basic living needs of the working class and the underprivileged, Belgrade’s upper classes had the luxury of being able to express their wealth through the designs of their mansions. Most strove for the more romanticized idea of a suburban villa, imitating foreign examples. This form of urban exoticism emerged in the urban palaces of the 1920s, but reached its peak during the late 1930s in the numerous mansions and villas built in the elite neighborhoods of Senjak and Dedinje. Elements of Gothic and Baroque, as well as different forms of Mediterranean architecture, were often combined to form a unique and exotic edifice. However, criticisms of this approach were given by both architects and a wider audience. Among such residences arose examples of replicas of English cottages, so-called Hollywood-style mansions, but also unusual experiments, including a Japanese villa for a Chief of Protocol of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Architects had an opportunity for artistic freedom when they designed their own houses or apartments. Their homes are valuable examples of the true architectural sensibilities of Interwar architects in Belgrade. Momir Korunović, Branislav and Danica Kojić, Milan Zloković and many other distinguished architects manifested their architectural credos and ideas through the projects of their family homes. Many used their homes as a reference for future engagements, with some eventually selling them in order to build new houses or make a profit. In all these cases, self-presentation was the key aspect that defined their architectural realizations. Based on the analysis of various forms of living space, this study attempts to provide a more accurate image of the everyday life of Interwar Belgrade. Through the use of a traditional historiographical approach, it was possible to classify the various types of residential architecture, as well as their features and qualities. On the other hand, new methodologies have facilitated the observation of residential architecture in a broader context. The architecture of Yugoslavia and Belgrade was not isolated, but rather developed as a result of being a part of a broader European architectural scene. Residential architecture was simultaneously impacted by influences stemming from France, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Hungary and Romania. The so-called ‘Belgrade apartment’ also had a presence in other Yugoslav cities. The stylistic and typological diversities present in the interwar years were specific, and stopped abruptly with the onset of the Second World War, largely due to the dramatic changes in social structure brought about in its aftermath. Despite its unquestionable value, Interwar residential architecture is in danger of being almost completely eliminated from the collective memory, since many family houses – and even apartment buildings – are being torn down to make way for new constructions. With the exception of a number that lie in designated protected historic zones, a number of significant examples of this architecture are at risk of destruction, or have already been destroyed. With that in mind, one of the main goals of this publication is to raise the general awareness of their significance for future research.