Keywords

1 Introduction

The historical phenomenon that began with the industrial revolution has affected the entire world and its consequences continue to this day. It represents a period of accelerated social and economic changes, mechanization of production, and the transition from fragmented manufacturing to purpose-built factories with specialized production. The interconnectedness of the development of cities and industry is unquestionable and complementary. However, the restructuring of the economy and the change in the production processes triggered the industrial decline. In Serbia, overall conditions of socioeconomic transition and the failed processes of privatization of publicly owned enterprises caused the withdrawal of industrial production, thus creating deteriorating industrial brownfields. Numerous examples are situated in today’s urban areas, having lost their previous purpose, or adequacy for contemporary requirements. They have great potential for improving the local context in social, economic, and environmental terms through interventions in the form of adaptive reuse and are therefore important for sustainable urban development. Supporting industrial landscapes and their conversion offers significant opportunities for the urban context and preserving cultural identity. Enhancing the vitality of the sites enables urban reconstruction of declining landscapes to which these brownfield sites belong.

Furthermore, it supports the responsible attitude toward resources, including energy and spatial resources, which represents an important aspect of climate change mitigation concept.

The paper is considering characteristics of industrial brownfields and the revitalization process. Due to the particularities, it requires responsible management that includes a participative planning process, clearly defined responsibilities, and targeted investments for each individual case. Various data on industrial heritage sites in Belgrade are analyzed, providing a multi-layered image and identifying potentials for intervention, both in legislation and in practice.

1.1 Industrial Architecture

Even the earliest examples of industrial buildings indicate high quality of elements with the design following the functional aspects. Improvement of building materials led to the discovery of newer structural systems that bridged ever-increasing spans and enabled the creation of new spatial effects. Although depending on the function, the artistic aspect cannot be a neglected part of industrial architectural design since it acts psychologically by stimulating esthetic feelings or causing resistance to its evaluation. (Mirković 1964).

Extensive studies have been conducted on industrial heritage buildings of Serbia built before the Second World War, while even significant buildings built afterward are less often subject of research. This is mostly due to them being a priori excluded (Kadijević 2012), or insufficient time has passed for them to be evaluated. In contrast, examples of good practice in neighboring European countries show the introduction of legal protection for historic industrial buildings as soon as signs of decline in their function are noticed.

The role of public participation of the local community is important in that because timely reaction and establishing financial resources can prevent deterioration of industrial sites where the loss of the original purpose is recorded. At the same time, this increases the chances of a higher success rate of reactivation success, which directly corresponds to the fulfillment of the principles of sustainability.

Architectural transformation involving improvements intended for contemporary purposes and requirements, that preserve the cultural feats of built heritage, listed or not, represents the concept of adaptive reuse. Due to its proven potentials, it is recognized within the heritage charters regarding industrial architecture, such as the Dublin Principles (International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) 2011), as well as international architectural heritage conventions, such as the Leeuwarden Declaration (Architects’ Council of Europe (ACE) 2018). It contributes to heritage preservation, urban sustainability as well as the environment.

2 Brownfield Locations and Their Revitalization

Brownfield revival addresses numerous problems regarding the environment. Most importantly, it supports rational use of the finite green areas, as well as decontamination—which is implied in the process of industrial brownfield redevelopment. It also offers significant contribution to socioeconomic improvements, and cultural identity preservation.

Emphasizing the sustainable use of natural and cultural heritage and natural resources, the “Spatial Development Strategy of the Republic of Serbia 2009–2013—2020” (Ministarstvo životne sredine i prostornog planiranja 2009) was adopted in 2009. It recognized the importance of utilizing brownfields and set brownfield recycling as one of fourteen key strategic priorities to help urban renewal and solving numerous economic, social, and environmental problems, preventing excessive urbanization and conversion of fertile agricultural land for construction purposes.

In 2019, a new National Strategy of Sustainable Urban Development of the Republic of Serbia until 2030 (Official Gazette of RS 2019) was adopted, in accordance with the New Urban Agenda (United Nations 2017), with accent on the Goal 11—“Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable,” from the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations 2015). Recycling the existing architectural heritage by revitalizing brownfield sites represents a vast potential for lessening the stress put on greenfield construction, ultimately attenuating the effects of climate change. The National Strategy served to create a legislative framework for the utilization of existing urban assets with the aid of stakeholders’ participation.

2.1 Jurisdiction and Funding

An integrated approach to brownfield reactivation brings together all its potentials. Successful regeneration implies active cooperation with a focus on the roles, responsibilities, and limitations of the institutional instruments. Horizontal collaboration represents the cooperation of different sectors, disciplines, and institutions at the same organizational level, while vertical collaboration is between the national, regional, and local levels. (Perić and Furundžić 2014).

Greatest responsibility for the treatment of industrial brownfields in the Republic of Serbia lies with the municipalities in which they are located given their role in urban planning and raising local awareness of the importance of brownfield revitalization. On the other hand, the fact that fiscal and legislative instruments for consolidating brownfield sites are still regulated on the national level can prevent greater implementation.

Insufficient data on brownfield sites, private ownership, or private financial institutions controlling the necessary funds also pose challenges, according to Danilović et al. (2008) Funding is provided mostly from private sources, while local authorities have a wide range of formal and informal incentive instruments—formal instruments being creating strategic priorities, directing investment programs and marketing, and informal such as assistance in pollution detection, land remediation, and consolidation.

The instrument of private–public partnership, which can range from non-profit cooperation to co-financing of the project, is irreplaceable in the case of brownfield site redevelopment in order to balance private and public interest. The basic principles of the collaboration are clear common goals, transparency and public involvement, coordination of processes and properly distributed risks. Since it is vital to gain support of the public that will be affected by the planned revitalization, involving the public in the participatory decision-making process from the very beginning of the project is advised.

2.2 Brownfield Types and Their Inventory

Preventing further deterioration of brownfield sites by timely revitalization and increasing revenues is of the utmost importance. In order to be well informed about the economic potential in a particular area, the brownfield sites must be properly assessed.

According to Danilović et al. (2008), 5 types of brownfields can be distinguished according to the exclusivity of the location, investment needs and opportunities for return on investment, as well as contamination. The first type is characterized by excellent location and best effects of private investment. The second and third require greater involvement of public funds due to less attractive locations. The fourth type is characterized by pollution that needs to be remediated before the revitalization can take place. The final, fifth type, does not have any market potential, and in most cases will be demolished and restored to construction land or green areas. A unified manner, used to determine accurate data on abandoned and insufficiently utilized land, would enable a reasoned assessment of the problems and priorities of rehabilitation, as well as comparability of values in different municipalities.

Shortcomings of current databases for brownfields represent practical obstacles for accomplishing such reconstructions. Thus, a methodological framework for creating a register of brownfield sites is necessary for effective urban planning. (Đukić et al. 2014).

3 Industrial Brownfield Heritage Location of Belgrade

Data on Belgrade brownfield sites and industrial heritage buildings in this research have been extracted from the databases of the Museum of Science and Technology, primarily the Department for Industrial Heritage, as well as the publication “Industrial Heritage of Belgrade” by the former director of the museum, Kulenović (2009). Information obtained then was updated by researching the cadaster database and conducting field research for selected locations. The research findings are presented in the form of summarized data in Table 74.1, data distribution (Fig. 74.1), and selected features’ percentages (Fig. 74.2). A map of Belgrade is provided with positioning of sites as well as their classification according to characteristics of significance for the analysis (Fig. 74.3). The limitation of the research is the lack of updated data on certain buildings, such as structures involved in litigation.

Table 74.1 Industrial heritage brownfield sites in Belgrade
Full size table
Fig. 74.1
A bar graph represents the number of buildings for function, main industry branch, ownership, protection, and state of the building. It denotes the highest number of buildings for protection and the lowest for main industry branch.

Data distribution chart (abbreviations as per Table 74.1)

Full size image
Fig. 74.2
A set of 3 pie charts labeled a through c. The charts denote different percentage values. a comprises 6 divisions, b comprises 4 divisions, and c comprises 3 divisions.

Circular charts for selected characteristics’ percentages—a state of buildings, b current function status, c repurposed buildings’ function (abbreviations as per Table 74.1)

Full size image
Fig. 74.3
A map exhibits the distribution of dots all across the region. It highlights the region in the middle with a squared block. There are 4 photographs that exhibits buildings and constructions in different regions.

Industrial heritage sites in Belgrade (numbering as per Table 74.1)

Full size image

The majority of buildings or their parts are under some level of formal protection, but the fact that Belgrade is the capital city must be considered, having regulatory systems that are generally higher than the national average. The largest number of facilities is in public ownership, with a declining trend due to numerous privatizations and the limited number of brownfields. (Fig. 74.1).

Only about one fifth of the facilities are in adequate condition for their purposes, while the rest of them have an equal share of buildings in bad or very bad condition, regarded as unsafe and requiring urgent intervention, and in good condition, where safety is not questioned, but they require renovation or reconstruction. (Fig. 2a).

Buildings that are still in their primary industry, or out of function, are less in number than the repurposed buildings, while the demolishment is the least present (Fig. 2b).

All buildings that were converted or demolished are in the central zone of the city (Fig. 74.3). Most of them are converted by market-oriented construction into residential, office or commercial space, and privately owned. A smaller part of the conversion was made for public purposes, primarily culture, and all these facilities are in public ownership (Fig. 2c). These buildings represent the few examples of good practice.

From the spatial disposition (Fig. 74.3), it can be observed that the contents occupying most attractive property (central city area) are mostly repurposed or in the phase of conversion. Few buildings are not in function and currently unconverted. These are publicly owned facilities that are not included in detailed regulatory plans that would define their possibility of conversion. The peripheral zone, on the other hand, has most sites out of function.

Regarding the demolished sites, field research revealed that new office and residential buildings were constructed in their place, having a much greater index of occupation.

4 Conclusion

According to the data, most of the conversions of buildings were done for market demands. Only a few good practice examples applied the principles of adaptive reuse for the benefit of all stakeholders, so the opportunity for its significant gains and promotion of the concept were notably missed.

It can be concluded that the conversion has not consistently followed the plans, directives, and strategies that emphasize the significance of public functions and participation. The redevelopment of industrial brownfields in Belgrade is mostly done with the aim of maximizing revenues and profits, not paying attention to the importance of continuity of identity and cultural diversity in given locations, thus allowing damage to existing social structures, which is contrary to the strategies.

The partially incomplete data of the researched relevant sources indicate a discrepancy between plans and on-site circumstances, marking the necessity for a centralized system for planning, and monitoring the condition of industrial heritage. It indicates undefined competency for the application of existing knowledge in the field of industrial brownfields revival, lack of implementing strategies and plans defined, poor cooperation between institutions on different levels and stages of the process. A great responsibility lies with the local governments to continue working on the data collection and synchronization of databases and strategies for reviving the sites in question carrying urban renewal.

At the same time, a potential for further research is highlighted, both thematical and practical, because there is only a finite number of brownfields of industrial heritage that is only decreasing, either by devastation or inadequate conversions that do not meet the full potential of said heritage.

A more substantial implementation of industrial brownfield revitalizations, with respect to sustainable development and growing environmental concerns apart from economical features, would bring benefits to the overall struggle against the consequences of the climate change that were aided by the process of industrialization.