by Slaven Klicek

Disembarking from the tram at Jelacic square station you will find yourself at Zagreb’s centre, the historical boundary of the Upper and Lower town. Follow the crowds of people, on their way to work, or to the many coffee shops and restaurants, pass by the violinists and street performers in front of the Hotel Dubrovnik, and you will invariably be brought to Cvjetni (Flower) Square. It is often held up as Zagreb’s most important square, valued for its history and as a space to socialise. Such value is most clearly represented in a century-old flower market, which has recently been radically transformed by contemporary real estate investments. The transformation of Flower Square between 2006 and 2011 can be seen as a process of gentrification similar to that which has occurred in other post-socialist cities. But while the spatial investment patterns are indeed comparable, Zagreb distinguishes itself on a crucial point: large parts of the population disapprove of these kinds of urban development.

The plan for the transformation of Flower Square

The principal bone of contention lies in Flower Square’s significance as Zagreb’s historical core but also, predictably, in the processes of neoliberal urban restructuring taking place throughout the city. The increasing internationalisation of the economy, especially in cities, introduced these urban processes in Croatia in the transitional period and privatization gradually became a major incentive of post-socialist urban change. In Zagreb this resulted in the construction of new shopping centres in the 1990s and in recent times, neoliberalism has shaped the city in a variety of ways. This has resulted in a characteristically late-capitalist planning system, driven by the profit-making agenda of investors, always after new opportunities to “improve” the city. Flower Square serves as a useful case study for understanding these processes.

Once upon a time in Zagreb
Flower square, as it is known today, was constructed at the turn of the 20th century. It was also at this time that the square’s most prominent buildings were erected – the First Croatian Savings Bank, the Farkaš building, Antun Ulrich’s modernist building and the oldest building in the square, the Zagreb Orthodox Church. In the 1930s, the layout of the square was redesigned as a grocery market, with offices, stores at the ground level and taxi stops. Soon, the new functions transformed Flower Square into a popular, lively place with a specific genius loci which remained strong up until the current transformations. Before the spatial interventions of the 21st century, the 1995 transformation had already drastically changed Flower Square. By cutting down the trees and lowering the central part of the square with atypical building material, the charm and integrity of the square was considerably reduced. At the time, citizens protested against the transformation, but a petition, featuring 8,000 signatures, was ignored by those responsible for the square’s development.

A postcard from the 1960s

When capital kicks in
The new plan for the Cvjetni Centre on Flower Square, presented to the public in 2006, branded the development as a ‘lifestyle destination’ in the heart of the city. The plan for a fifth shopping centre in central Zagreb consisted of a retail area, an underground garage and luxury apartments. The media emphasized the positive aspect of modernising Zagreb’s derelict Lower city residential blocks and made favourable comparisons to similar experiences of regeneration in other European cities. The actual plans of the project, however, required the conversion of a popular cinema and the demolition of two cultural monuments. Moreover, the most controversial part of the construction involved the removal of a pedestrian zone in nearby Varšavska Street to make way for the construction of a garage. With its identity threatened, Zagreb’s formerly vibrant square was gradually re-activated as the site of mass civil protest against the project.

Flower Square before and after the transformation

Cleaning out the rat-holes
The square’s ‘lifestyle centre’ transformation embittered many but it was the changes in Zagreb’s most crucial planning document that really intensified the criticism and protest. Completely lacking in transparency, the document sought to evade democratic planning mechanisms and mislead the public. Flower Square was seen as just another case of severe urban degradation in transitional Zagreb and no surveys were conducted to analyse public (dis)approval of the urban transformations. The city mayor, along with several representatives of city planning departments, was a key player in the approval of this pattern of wild, transitional development led by private investments. He also repeatedly attacked the main representatives of concerned NGOs in the media, accusing them of ‘preventing development’. In this context, further anger was caused by the investors’ statements about the neglected and dirty parts of the Lower city, calling them ‘rat-holes’, and stressing the need for their revitalization. From then on, the people of Zagreb protested against the ‘de-ratisation’, better described as urban regeneration through commercialisation of the historic core. Meanwhile, the entrepreneurial-political elite approved the project without consulting citizens or the NGOs...Continue Reading

> via Failed Architecture