Operating Urban Elements for Cities in Transition from Socialism to Capitalism
Identifiers and Pagination:Year: 2015
Issue: Suppl 1-M4
First Page: 35
Last Page: 40
Publisher Id: OUSDJ-1-35
Article History:Received Date: 10/6/2015
Revision Received Date: 15/6/2015
Acceptance Date: 15/6/2015
Electronic publication date: 31/12/2015
Collection year: 2015
open-access license: This is an open access article licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/legalcode), which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited.
The main research topic is the city in the period of transition from socialism to capitalism and the associated attitudes towards urban planning. A case study was conducted on the city of Split, in particular the area called Split 3. The aim was to establish the mode of operating in contemporary conditions of urban planning and reconstructing small cities of up to 300,000 inhabitants by learning from local good practices. We used textual and graphic materials as the basis for exploring the programming, planning and realization of city construction for 50,000 inhabitants that took place during socialism, and its subsequent development under capitalism. Establishing usability of the then forms in present-day life followed. To this end, we analyzed the neighborhood unit proposed by C.A. Perry in 1929, the typical neighborhood proposed by the Urban Task Force headed by Richard Rogers in 1999 and the fused grid proposed by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute in Canada in 2012 – and compared it with the urban unit used in Split 3.
In the concluding section we extracted common elements and common dimensions of analyzed units and proposed them as references of the operation of modern urban planning and reconstruction of small towns of up to 300,000 inhabitants, bearing in mind that “Cities are an immense laboratory of trial and error, failure and success, in city building and city design. This is the laboratory in which city planning should have been learning and forming and testing its theories” .