Urban review of the year - it seems that someone is in a hurry

Someone is in such a hurry that there is no time for public discussions, there are no boundaries for plans, and rules apply until they become a nuisance, then special laws and special rules arrive. To the detriment of the public interest, of course. In this year, we again saw the demonstration of force over space, as well as over people, which remains a warning of what awaits us if we accept these policies as normality.

Before you is the urban overview of Belgrade in 2025, make yourself comfortable, there is at least one positive example.

EXPO – lex specialis and the fourth extension of the plan

The year has begun. with changes to the Lex specialis for EXPO. The proposed changes to the lex specialis, which was adopted at the end of 2023, found themselves in the parliamentary procedure in January, without a legally binding public discussion. In addition to the fact that this law largely and roughly suspended the Law on Public Procurement two years ago, the Ministry of Finance now had a few more ideas on how to additionally suspend a number of regulations and laws - especially those that "inhibit development and construction".

The key changes in the Lex specialis related to: (1) narrowing the space for public participation and shortening the public inspection to 15 days; (2) accelerated and facilitated obtaining a building permit, as well as the construction of facilities without an environmental impact assessment study; (3) use of facilities without a use permit.

Lex specialis came to the National Assembly, then left, then came again, and was adopted the fourth time. Halfway through this journey, a public discussion took place, which according to the law should have been held before the first arrival of the law in the Assembly.

Thus, the original version read that the Lex specialis refers to objects within the plan for the EXPO, but also all objects that are not included in the plan, but the government declares them part of the EXPO manifestation - so anything, anywhere in Serbia.

After strong resistance from the public, the lex specialis was withdrawn from the Assembly, but soon returned again because this government never gives up on its carefully designed and designed legal-planning mechanisms. The head of state hoped that the public had "cooled down and calmed down" during the previous two months. The assessment was wrong, and after a new wave of public resistance, the bill was withdrawn again.

The final version of this law had a significant change - the lex specialis will only apply to facilities included in the EXPO plan. However, another important provision has been retained - the objects within the EXPO will be used without a use permit for two years.

Along with the changes to the lex specialis, phase IV of the spatial plan for the EXPO was exposed for public inspection. The development of this plan in stages is one of the most illustrative examples of the creativity of the republican institutions and the Government of the RS, when it comes to efficient, non-transparent and non-participatory development of plans.

Although this phase covered twice as much surface area as all three previous phases, it is not viewed as a separate plan, but only as a continuation of the development of the plan, which was started in 2018. To make matters worse, we do not know how many phases this plan will have, nor what may be the subject of a phase, nor how much territory it may cover. It is therefore not surprising that this plan, through its four phases, has now covered 813 ha from the initial 114 ha, and it does not have to stop there at all.

This IV phase of the plan covered an additional 460 ha of agricultural and water land in Surčinsko polje. Of this, 250 ha is intended for something called a theme park, but it has not been worked out in detail at all, although it can be directly built on the basis of this plan. And we don't know what will actually be built on that surface and what all goes into that purpose - but whatever it is, it will be made possible by the plan. In addition to the mysterious theme park, an international passenger pier on the Sava embankment is also planned, which is completely covered - from the EXPO location to block 45.

Perhaps the most important information is that this plan (813 ha) covers all three sanitary protection zones of the Belgrade water source, and that all planned uses directly put a third of the source of drinking water in Belgrade at risk. But hey, let's not forget, it's all extremely important for all of us and it's in the public interest to have EXPO, some theme parks, piers, at the expense of embankments and water sources. One thing is certain, the RS Government thinks so, so it adopted this plan in July. And you, if you don't agree with that, you could have said so at the public meeting of the Planning Commission.

What do you mean, you couldn't? The public session was held online?

Digital sessions - how to exclude citizens from planning 15047390 part

In the wake of citizens' dissatisfaction with the plan and lex specialis for EXPO, the government finds a hand of salvation in digital public meetings. Even though the PPPPN for EXPO is done in an abbreviated procedure where the public review lasts 15 days, the hurdle called the public session cannot be eliminated (yet). Nevertheless, a way was found to hold it formally, but to completely eliminate the last shred of public participation - the introduction of digital public sessions! In this way, decision-makers can now easily avoid facing the resistance of a large number of citizens for any future plan.

We participated in the first digital session, and what we can say is that it went scandalously. Citizens were extremely dissatisfied with switching on and off "from the program", the connection was interrupted and generally could not be established again. The Commission for Plans did not answer any questions, but every comment was - Thank you, let's move on! All citizens' objections were rejected as unfounded, and the session was held online due to "excessive interest".

The digital session clearly showed that it is not an adequate way of involving citizens and a few months later, when it was also applied to the plan for Belgrade on the water, for a historic duration of 11 and a half hours! Online sessions are not bad in themselves, they could even be a good supplementary tool for those citizens who would like to get involved but are unable to attend physically. However, their introduction as a basic tool for democratic participation in the adoption of the plan cannot be justified.

PPPPN Belgrade on the water - to prepare New Belgrade and Čukarica

Amendments to the PPPPN Belgrade on Water provided for a practically double expansion, to a new 330 hectares, and now also on the Novobeograd coast, but also on Čukarica.

The biggest attention and reaction of the public was caused by the announced demolition of the fair.

Although all halls, except hall 1, were scheduled for demolition according to the plan, at the public session the Planning Commission made a decision that this plan does not foresee the demolition of any hall. However, the plan will require the implementation of an architectural and urban planning competition. Um, does this sound familiar? Like a tried and tested recipe - if the public's resistance to a plan is very strong, then it should first be weakened and passive, and this can certainly be achieved by organizing a competition through which an attempt will be made to generate legitimacy for the project, which otherwise does not exist. The entire area of ​​the fair is intended for the construction of very high buildings, between 60 and 120 meters (how big, for example, is the Genex tower), and the task of the competition solution will be to bring all the halls, that is, the entire area to its purpose and fit into such an environment.

In addition, the plan itself states that the area of ​​Belgrade on the water is the largest heat island in Belgrade, and despite this, it proposes further dense construction that will further increase the high summer temperatures.

This plan clearly shows all the dangers of PPPPN as a type of plan, which covers hundreds of hectares of new space in one go — a pattern that can be seen in the case of the EXPO project, but can easily be repeated in Kosutnjak.

Ušće - citizens defend the greenery from the state

It is interesting that the development of the Detailed Regulation Plan, which laid the foundations for the competition that led to the solution presented at the beginning of the year as part of the urban planning project of the Ušće Park, ran parallel to the development of the General Regulation Plan for the Green Area System - a plan that regulates green areas in the city and whose original goal was to increase their share from 12 to 23 percent.

The PDR for Ušće was adopted only a few months before the PGR, and it was left in force with all the planned contents, including the new building of the Museum of Natural History, the annex of the Museum of Contemporary Art and the aquarium. On the other hand, the PGR clearly prescribes the ban on the construction of both above-ground and underground facilities during the reconstruction of existing parks, as one of the measures that will help achieve the desired result - which is a more widespread and better quality green infrastructure of the city. This obvious contrast between the two plans clearly indicates that the solution for the Ušće park does not contribute to that goal, regardless of the efforts of the author of the architectural solution to explain how the underground facilities are practically not counted.

As icing on the cake, we also have the phantom public company Belgrade park, which for the purposes of the urban project issued conditions that there are no specific conditions for this area (one of the most important and largest parks in the city), which left the existing vegetation in the park without protection. Despite the announcements of the Ministry of Finance (in other words, the investor of this project), which assures us that all vegetation will be preserved, that the trees that come in the way of the construction of buildings will be carefully transplanted (without there being any documentation that would explain to us how this will be done), the residents of the surrounding blocks, and beyond, remained concerned about the future of this area and organized themselves on duty, in order to be informed of what is happening in the park at all times and to be able to react in time.

The case of the General Staff or how a city is produced

One of the key messages of the broad front of actors gathered around the defense of the General Staff complex was that this is not a fight for a building, but for a place. However, the events of 2025 showed us that it is an even wider struggle - a struggle for the rules by which the city is produced in general.

In the midst of the investigation led by the Prosecutor's Office for Organized Crime, due to the illegal cancellation of the status of cultural property, another lex specialis was sent to the National Assembly, with a clear purpose - the removal of institutional, planning and legal obstacles so that the investment project of a private company could be realized, but also the suspension of criminal proceedings and further investigation directed at the Government.

This special law re-applied the exception regime - urgent procedures, shortened deadlines and the obligation to act "without delay" - which reduced the public administration to a service for private investments. Public property, the memory of the place and the public interest were treated as an obstacle to the realization of a private investment, which was declared a higher interest, higher than the public one.

Although the investor withdrew due to strong resistance from the public, students and experts, the consequences and a bitter taste in the mouth remained. The General Staff case confirmed the pattern of urbanization in which the city is not planned through pre-set rules, but through special laws and ad hoc adaptation of the system to capital needs. That is why this fight must not be an exception, and the defense of one location while the rest of the city is burning - we will not be able to call it a victory, if we do not change the value and political frameworks in which our city is created.

Changes to the general regulation plan - sale of state land

Amendments to the General Regulation Plan arrived near the end of the year — in the style of let's do it for the plot twist. They come right after the news about the construction on the site of the General Staff and the adoption of the lex specialis for this area, to which the public reacted violently, and further worsen the situation at the level of the entire city.

In short, these changes they unlock the possibility for a mass sale of public land and public purpose buildings. The key change allows land and public purpose buildings to be converted into residential and commercial use exclusively by drawing up a PDR, a lower-level plan, which as a rule is drawn up and financed by the investor himself.

Until now, public property has been relatively protected because any such conversion required an amendment to the PGR as a higher order plan. Now that protection is disappearing: it is enough for the investor to pay for the development of a detailed regulation plan - which is an established practice - and to secure the approval of the Planning Commission, which has rarely been an obstacle for investors in practice.

Once the public purpose is changed to another in the plan, the conditions for the sale of that public land are met. This means that schools, kindergartens, health centers, faculties, as well as green areas and forests can potentially be sold and repurposed. The changes apply to both vacant and occupied plots, without any restrictions. Despite being presented as a technical change, hidden in a footnote, it is a fundamental change:

The PGR is stepping back from its primary role — regulating planning at the city level.

PPPPN Košutnjak - a forest is a forest.

Five years ago, we together defended Košutnjak from logging, but we can't say that we were surprised when the plan came back, in a new guise called PPPPN. The plan was never procedurally rejected, so doubts about its passage existed all these years, even though the government then said that the plan was being abandoned.
What we didn't expect was that the plan would appear as a PPPPN, because it is quite counterintuitive for the state to declare the construction of luxurious residential square meters by an investor to be of national importance. They practically tell us that the earnings of investors are our national interest.

In addition to the type of plan, the investor (with the support of state institutions and representative professional associations) came up with another way to appease the public, so an architectural and urban planning competition was organized for Košutnjak. This move was not intended to really collect the opinions of the profession, but to secure the support of the professional community and thus artificially produce legitimacy for a project that citizens strongly oppose.

The investor has now concluded a contract with the winner of the competition, who will create this PPPPN, so he told us through that architectural bureau and the leading architect that no healthy trees will be cut down, and that the architecture will be between the treetops. If you thought it might be a technical term, no, this sentence doesn't make any sense. The investor's interest is not to cut down any trees, but to appease the public, while he builds his half million square meters intended for no one who lives and works in this city.

A forest is a forest. In a city that has only 9% of its territory under green areas and forest, there is no place for proposals to turn the forest into a residential area, and even a luxurious one in a city where 70% of the population considers housing completely unaffordable.

Choruses - the infrastructure of solidarity and resistance

Since the transition from planned to investor urbanism, the only way to make the voice of the citizens living in the areas for which the plans are being adopted heard and possibly be respected was through local organizing. Long before the digital sessions, the procedure of public participation has a performative character, and the space is shaped by the conflict between the private interest of investors and the common interest of organized neighbors. Opposing unwanted urban changes, from the construction in Peti Parkić to the drilling of the Sava Embankment, was only possible through association and presence.

The organization of citizens into local assemblies, initiated by the call of the student movement, brought a whole new wave of local organizing that consistently demonstrates the strength of united citizens. Choirs are the infrastructure of solidarity with the most threatened protest events, they follow what is happening in the neighborhood, they carry out do-it-yourself actions to repair furniture, children's playgrounds, fields, etc.

Choirs actively monitor what is happening in the urban planning of the city and coordinate with each other around common spaces such as Usce and Košutnjak.

More importantly, however, these structures exercise an important, neglected practice of democratic dialogue at the lowest level - where we live. This is what we need as much as greenery and clean air: to hear each other, to understand, to unite - from the house, through the building and neighborhood, and beyond.

Only active citizens organized into permanent structures represent a long-term barrier to the collapse of democratic institutions and enable the city to finally begin to develop in the next year according to the wishes of those who live in it.