Urban megaprojects,nation-state politics and regulatory capitalism in Central and Eastern Europe: The Belgrade Waterfront project

Abstract

Chinese

In this paper, we explore how state-led regulatory planning is utilised to push for delivery of an urban megaproject (UMP) in the specific context of post-socialist Central and Eastern Europe. Our focus is on the large-scale brownfield redevelopment project ‘Belgrade Waterfront’ under implementation in the Serbian capital, a joint venture between the Republic of Serbia and Abu Dhabi-based investor Eagle Hills. We show this UMP to be an extreme example of state-led regulatory intervention, characterised by lack of transparency and haste in decision-making processes, all of which serve to prioritise private investors’ interests in project delivery above the principles of representative democracy. Through analysis of legislative and planning documents, expert reports and media coverage from the period between 2012 and 2017, we explore the legislative mechanisms, contractual strategies and modes of governance involved in the project’s delivery. This provides two insights: first, it reveals that, in contrast with the active role of local governments in conceiving entrepreneurial strategies that is often assumed today, in the case of Belgrade Waterfront, the national government has instead played the decisive role; second, it shows how modifications to national law were instrumental in defining public interest, in enabling certain types of contracts to become technically legal, and in minimising risks for the private investor. We conclude by highlighting the need to further conceptualise nation-state politics and autocratic rule as driving forces of urban development processes.

Keywords

regulatory capitalism post-socialism urban megaprojects urban politics waterfront developments

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Academy of Architecture of Serbia (2015) Deklaracija o ‘Beogradu na vodi’ [Declaration on Belgrade Waterfront project]. Available at: http://aas.org.rs/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Deklaracija-AAS-o-Beogradu-na-vodi-05.-mart-2015.pdf.

Andersen

Røe

(2016) The social context and politics of large scale urban architecture: Investigating the design of Barcode, Oslo. European Urban and Regional Studies 24(3): 304–317.

Bakarec

(2015) ‘Beograd na vodi’ kolosalna obmana [‘Belgrade Waterfront’ colossal deception]. VREME, 24 July 2015. Available at: http://www.vreme.com/cms/view.php?id=1173307.

Belgrade Association of Architects and Association of Architects of Serbia (2014) Primedbe tokom javnog uvida na Prostorni plan područja posebne namene uredjenja dela priobalja Grada Beograda – područje priobalja Reke Save za projekat ‘Beograd na Vodi’ [Complaints about the Spatial Plan for Belgrade Waterfront]. Available at: http://www.dab.rs/images/Primedbe_1–12.pdf.

Belgrade Planning Institute (2003) Generalni Plan Beograda 2021 [Belgrade Master Plan 2021]. Available at: http://nastava.sf.bg.ac.rs/pluginfile.php/11248/mod_resource/content/0/ZAKONI_I_PRAVILNICI/GUP_BGD.pdf.

Belić

(2016) Protest Ne Davimo Beograd ispred sedišta Vlade [Protest of the NGO ‘We Wont Let Belgrade D(r)own’ in front of the government headquarters]. Politika, 11 June 2016. Available at: http://www.politika.rs/sr/clanak/356957/Odrzan-protest-zbog-rusenja-u-Savamali.

BETA (2016) Božović: ‘Beograd na vodi’ je najveća korupcija na svetu; SNS: DS je protiv investicija [Božović: ‘Belgrade Waterfront’ represents the biggest corruption in the world; SNS: DS opposes investments]. Blic, 18 April 2016. Available at: http://www.blic.rs/izbori-2016/vesti/bozovic-beograd-na-vodi-je-najveca-korupcija-na-svetu-sns-ds-je-protiv-investicija/mye86p0.

Blagojević

(2005) Back to the future of New Belgrade: Functional past of the modern city. Paper presented at Aesop Conference 05, Vienna, 13–17 July 2005. Available at: http://aesop2005.scix.net/data/papers/att/204.fullTextPrint.pdf.

Braithwaite

(2008) Regulatory Capitalism: How it Works, Ideas for Making it Work Better. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

10.

Brenner

Peck

Theodore

NIK

(2010) Variegated neoliberalization: Geographies, modalities, pathways. Global Networks 10(2): 182–222.

11.

Broudehoux

(2010) Images of power: Architectures of the integrated spectacle at the Beijing Olympics. Journal of Architectural Education 63(2): 52–62.

12.

Buckley

Hanieh

(2014) Diversification by urbanization: Tracing the property–finance nexus in Dubai and the Gulf. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 38(1): 155–175.

13.

Büthe

Mattli

(2011) The New Global Rulers: The Privatization of Regulation in the World Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

14.

City of Belgrade (2014) Službeni List Grada Beograda [Official Gazette of the City of Belgrade] LVIII, 18 September 2014.

15.

City of Belgrade (2015) Službeni List Grada Beograda [Official Gazette of the City of Belgrade] XLVIII, 15 October 2015.

16.

Commission for Protection of Competition (2015) Decision nr. 6/0–02–368/2015–7, 27 May 2015. Available at: http://www.kzk.gov.rs/kzk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Beograd-na-vodi-doo-Belgrade-Waterfront-Capital-Investment-LLC.pdf.

17.

Cook

(2010) The expatriate real estate complex: Creative destruction and the production of luxury in post-socialist Prague. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 34(3): 611–628.

18.

Cope

(2015) Euro 2012 in Poland: Recalibrations of statehood in Eastern Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies 22(2): 161–175.

19.

Degen

García

(2012) The transformation of the ‘Barcelona Model’: An analysis of culture, urban regeneration and governance. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 36(5): 1022–1038.

20.

Dixon

(2013) The Southern Square in the Baltic Pearl: Chinese ambition and ‘European’ architecture in St. Petersburg, Russia. Nationalities Papers 41(4): 552–569.

21.

Djelic

Sahlin-Andersson

(2006) Transnational Governance. Institutional Dynamics of Regulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

22.

Evans

(2003) Hard-branding the cultural city – From Prado to Prada. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27(2): 417–440.

23.

Fainstein

(2001) The City Builders: Property Development in New York and London, 1980–2000. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

24.

Faulconbridge

Grubbauer

(2015) Transnational building practices: Knowledge mobility and the inescapable market. Global Networks 15(3): 275–287.

25.

Filipovic

El Baltaji

(2014) Serbia’s Vucic promises UAE’s billions in election bid. Bloomberg, 13 March 2014. Available at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014–2003–2012/serbia-s-vucic-promises-u-a-e-s-billions-in-election-bid.

26.

Flyvbjerg

Bruzelius

Rothengatter

(2003) Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

27.

Golubchikov

(2010) World-city-entrepreneurialism: Globalist imaginaries, neoliberal geographies, and the production of new St Petersburg. Environment and Planning A 42(3): 626–643.

28.

Golubchikov

Badyina

Makhrova

(2014) The hybrid spatialities of transition: Capitalism, legacy and uneven urban economic restructuring. Urban Studies 51(4): 617–633.

29.

Halbert

Rouanet

(2013) Filtering risk away: Global finance capital, transcalar territorial networks and the (un)making of city-regions: An analysis of business property development in Bangalore, India. Regional Studies 48(3): 471–484.

30.

Kinossian

(2012) ‘Urban entrepreneurialism’ in the post-socialist city: Government-led urban development projects in Kazan, Russia. International Planning Studies 17(4): 333–352.

31.

Kinossian

Morgan

(2014) Development by decree: The limits of ‘authoritarian modernization’ in the Russian Federation. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 38(5): 1678–1696.

32.

Koch

(2014) Bordering on the modern: Power, practice and exclusion in Astana. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 39(3): 432–443.

33.

Koch

(2015) Exploring divergences in comparative research: Citizenship regimes and the spectacular cities of Central Asia and the GCC. Area 47(4): 436–442.

34.

Koch

Valiyev

(2015) Urban boosterism in closed contexts: Spectacular urbanization and second-tier mega-events in three Caspian capitals. Eurasian Geography and Economics 56(5): 575–598.

35.

Komisija za javni uvid u Nacrt Prostornog plana [The Commission for public access to the Draft Spatial Plan] (2014) Izveštaj o obavljenom javnom uvidu Komisije za javni uvid u Nacrt Prostornog plana područja posebne namene uređenja dela priobalja grada Beograda – Područje priobalja reke Save za projekat ‘Beograd na vodi’ [Report on the public insight of the Commission for public insight to the Draft Spatial Plan for the Specially Designated Area for Development of a Part of the Riverfront of the City of Belgrade Waterfront – River Sava Waterfront Area for the ‘Belgrade Waterfront’ Project], No. 350-244-244/2014-01. http://www.rapp.gov.rs (accessed 3 November 2015; the pdf is unfortunately no longer available).

36.

Kusiak

(forthcoming) Dispossession by restitution: Urban property conflict, its judicial theft, and the legal technicalities of targeted gentrification in Warsaw. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research.

37.

Lakićević

(2016) Intervju Milan Kovačević: Ugovor o Beogradu na vodi je vrlo štetan [Interview Milan Kovačević: The Belgrade Waterfront contract is very harmful]. Novi Magazin, 22 November 2016. Available at: http://www.novimagazin.rs/ekonomija/milan-kovacevic-ugovor-o-beogradu-na-vodi-je-vrlo-stetan.

38.

Lauermann

(2016) Boston’s Olympic bid and the evolving urban politics of event-led development. Urban Geography 37(2): 313–321.

39.

Levi-Faur

(2005) The global diffusion of regulatory capitalism. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 598(1): 12–32.

40.

Levi-Faur

(2011) Regulation and regulatory governance. In: Levi-Faur

(ed.) Handbook on the Politics of Regulation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 1–24.

41.

McCann

Ward

(eds) (2011) Mobile Urbanism. Cities and Policymaking in the Global Age. Minneapolis, MN and London: University of Minnesota Press.

42.

MacLeod

Jones

(2011) Renewing urban politics. Urban Studies 48(12): 2443–2472.

43.

McNeill

(2015) Global firms and smart technologies: IBM and the reduction of cities. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 40(4): 562–574.

44.

Marinković

(2016) Jedna rampa manje za investitore – Novi Zakon o konverziji građevinskog zemljišta donosi pravnu sigurnost [One barrier less for investors – the new Law on Conversion provides legal security to investors]. eKapija. Available at: http://www.ekapija.com/news/1420282/jedna-rampa-manje-za-investitore-novi-zakon-o-konverziji-gradjevinskog-zemljista-donosi-pravnu-sigurnost-ulagacima.

45.

Metzger

Allmendinger

Oosterlynck

(2015) The contested terrain of European territorial governance: New perspectives on democratic deficits and political displacements. In: Metzger

Allmendinger

Oosterlynck

(eds) Planning Against the Political. Democratic Deficits in European Territorial Governance. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 1–27.

46.

Mihajlović

(2015) Ugovor o Beogradu na vodi otkriva veliku prevaru [Agreement on the ‘Belgrade Waterfront’ reveals massive fraud]. Radio Slobodna Evropa, 21 December 2015. Available at: http://www.slobodnaevropa.org/a/ugovor-o-beogradu-na-vodi-otkriva-veliku-prevaru/27260571.html.

47.

Moulaert

Rodriguez

Swyngedouw

(2004) The Globalized City: Economic Restructuring and Social Polarization in European Cities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

48.

Müller

(2011) State dirigisme in megaprojects: Governing the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. Environment and Planning A 43(9): 2091–2108.

49.

Murray

(2015) Waterfall City (Johannesburg): Privatized urbanism in extremis. Environment and Planning A 47(3): 503–520.

50.

Murray

(2017) The Urbanism of Exception. The Dynamics of Global City Building in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

51.

Ne da(vi)mo Beograd! [We Wont Let Belgrade D(r)own!] (2015) Analiza ugovora o Beogradu na Vodi [Analysis of the Contract on ‘Belgrade Waterfront’], 21 September 2015. Available at: https://nedavimobeograd.wordpress.com/2015/09/21/analiza-ugovora/.

52.

New York Times (2017) A Serbian election erodes democracy. The New York Times, 9 April 2017. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/09/opinion/a-serbian-election-erodes-democracy.html.

53.

Novy

Peters

(2013) Railway megaprojects as catalysts for the re-making of post-industrial cities? The case of Stuttgart 21 in Germany. In: Del Cerro

(ed.) Urban Megaprojects: A Worldwide View. Bingley: Emerald, pp. 237–262.

54.

Olds

(2004) Globalization and Urban Change: Capital, Culture, and Pacific Rim Mega-Projects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

55.

Orueta

Fainstein

(2008) The new mega-projects: Genesis and impacts. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 32(4): 759–767.

56.

Plaza

(2000) Evaluating the influence of a large cultural artifact in the attraction of tourism – The Guggenheim Museum Bilbao case. Urban Affairs Review 36(2): 264–274.

57.

Purcell

(2009) Resisting neoliberalization: Communicative planning or counter-hegemonic movements? Planning Theory 8(2): 140–165.

58.

Raco

(2014) Delivering flagship projects in an era of regulatory capitalism: State-led privatization and the London Olympics 2012. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 38(1): 176–197.

59.

Rapoport

(2015) Globalising sustainable urbanism: The role of international masterplanners. Area 47(2): 110–115.

60.

Republic of Serbia (2013) Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia [Službeni glasnik Republike Srbije], No. 55/2013.

61.

Republic of Serbia (2014a) Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia [Službeni glasnik Republike Srbije], No. 58/2014.

62.

Republic of Serbia (2014b) Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia [Službeni glasnik Republike Srbije], No. 132/2014.

63.

Republic of Serbia (2015a) Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia [Službeni glasnik Republike Srbije], No. 7/2015.

64.

Republic of Serbia (2015b) Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia [Službeni glasnik Republike Srbije], No. 34/2015.

65.

Republička agencija za prostorno planiranje [Republic Agency for Spatial Planning] (2014) Izveštaj o strateškoj proceni uticaja prostornog plana područja posebne namene uredjenja dela priobalja grada Beograda – Područje priobalja reke Save za projekat ‘Beograd na Vodi’ na životnu sredinu [Report on Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Spatial Plan for the Specially Designated Area for Development of a Part of the Riverfront of the City of Belgrade Waterfront – River Sava Waterfront Area for the ‘Belgrade Waterfront’ Project]. Available at: http://195.222.96.93//rapp_mape/PPPPN/Beograd_na_vodi/Grafika_javni_uvid/SEA%20BgNV%20od%2026.9.14.pdf.

66.

RTS and Tanjug (2016) Vučić: Beograd na vodi – Budućnost i novo lice Srbije [Vučić: Belgrade Waterfront – the Future and the New Image of Serbia]. RTS, 11 December 2016. Available at: http://www.rts.rs/page/stories/sr/story/13/ekonomija/2557853/vucic-obisao-radove-na-beogradu-na-vodi.html.

67.

Sandercock

Dovey

(2002) Pleasure, politics, and the ‘public interest’ – Melbourne’s riverscape revitalization. Journal of the American Planning Association 68(2): 151–164.

68.

Sekularac

(2014) Serbia relies on Gulf cash for Belgrade waterfront development. Reuters, 24 June 2014. Available at: http://in.reuters.com/article/serbia-emirates-belgrade-idINL6N0P72X220140627.

69.

Serbian Academy of Science and Arts (2014) Primedbe i sugestije na nacrt Prostornog Plana za projekat ‘Beograd na vodi’ [Complaints and Suggestions on the Spatial Plan for Belgrade Waterfront]. Available at: http://aas.org.rs/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Savski-amfiteatar-komplet-28.-10.pdf.

70.

Serbian Government (2013) Agreement on cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Serbia and the Government of the United Arab Emirates, Belgrade, 17 February 2013. Available at: http://www.parlament.gov.rs/ (accessed 30 October 2016).

71.

Serbian Government (2015) Joint venture agreement – Belgrade Waterfront Project, Belgrade, 26 April 2015. Available at: www.srbija.gov.rs (accessed 3 November 2015).

72.

Shatkin

(2008) The city and the bottom line: Urban megaprojects and the privatization of planning in Southeast Asia. Environment and Planning A 40(2): 383–401.

73.

Sklair

(2006) Iconic architecture and capitalist globalization. City 10(1): 21–47.

74.

Slavković

(2014) Belgrade on troubled political waters. Kamenzind: International Architecture Magazine 4: 6–15.

75.

Smith

Von Krogh Strand

(2011) Oslo’s new opera house: Cultural flagship, regeneration tool or destination icon? European Urban and Regional Studies 18(1): 93–110.

76.

Spalević

(2014) Železnica sprema teren za ‘Beograd na vodi’ [Railway prepares the area for the ‘Belgrade Waterfront’]. Večernje Novosti, 8 March 2014. Available at: http://www.novosti.rs/vesti/beograd.74.html:481708-Zeleznica-sprema-teren-za-Beograd-na-vodi.

77.

Stanilov

(2007) Taking stock of post-socialist urban development: A recapitulation. In: Stanilov

(ed.) The Post-Socialist City: Urban Form and Space Transformations in Central and Eastern Europe after Socialism. Berlin and New York: Springer, pp. 3–17.

78.

Stojanović

(2016) KONCERTI NA TRGU Baklje i na sedmom protestu ‘Ne da(vi)mo Beograd’ [CONCERTS ON THE SQUARE Torches on the seventh protest ‘We Wont Let Belgrade D(r)own’]. Blic, 20 October 2016. Available at: http://www.blic.rs/vesti/beograd/koncerti-na-trgu-baklje-i-na-sedmom-protestu-ne-davimo-beograd/h025dl2.

79.

Swyngedouw

Wilson

(2015) Insurgent architects and the spectral return of the urban political. In: Metzger

Allmendinger

Oosterlynck

(eds) Planning Against the Political: Democratic Deficits in European Territorial Governance. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 215–225.

80.

Swyngedouw

Moulaert

Rodriguez

(2002) Neoliberal urbanization in Europe: Large–scale urban development projects and the New Urban Policy. Antipode 34(3): 542–577.

81.

Tanjug (2015a) BEOGRAD NA VODI Božović: Projekat prevara veka, paravan za pljačku [BELGRADE WATERFRONT Božović: The deception of the century and a cover for robbery]. Blic, 23 September 2015. Available at: http://www.blic.rs/vesti/politika/beograd-na-vodi-bozovic-projekat-prevara-veka-paravan-za-pljacku/d3b2l7m.

82.

Tanjug (2015b) Položen kamen temeljac Beograda na vodi [The foundation stone for the Belgrade Waterfront laid]. Tanjug, 27 September 2015. Available at: http://rs.n1info.com/a95815/Vesti/Vucic-Stvaramo-istoriju-i-protiv-volje-zatucane-vecine.html.

83.

Temelová

(2007) Flagship developments and the physical upgrading of the post-socialist inner city: The Golden Angel Project in Prague. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 89(2): 169–181.

84.

Valverde

(2009) Jurisdiction and scale: Legal ‘technicalities’ as resources for theory. Social & Legal Studies 18(2): 139–157.

85.

Vujošević

Nedović-Budić

(2006) Planning and societal context – The case of Belgrade, Serbia. In: Tsenkova

Nedovic-Budic

(eds) The Urban Mosaic of Post-socialist Europe. Heidelberg: Physica Verlag, pp. 275–294.

86.

Vujović

Petrović

(2007) Belgrade’s post-socialist urban evolution: Reflections by the actors in the development process. In: Stanilov

(ed.) The Post-Socialist City: Urban Form and Space Transformations in Central and Eastern Europe after Socialism. Berlin and New York: Springer, pp. 361–383.

87.

Vukmirović

Milaković

(2009) Investigation of the spatial potentials of strategic locations in the city’s waterfront: Sava Amphitheatre in Belgrade. In: Van Duin

Cavallo

Claessens

, et al. (eds) The Urban Project: Architectural Intervention in Urban Areas, EAAE Transactions on Architectural Education, Nr. 39. Delft: Delft University Press, pp. 360–367.