Conference Agenda

Urbicide, the deliberate destruction of urban spaces, is traditionally understood as the physical annihilation of architecture and infrastructure during conflict (Bevan, 2006). This paper argues there is an expanded definition that includes disregard for public memory and historical significance in favour of investor-led urbanism. The case of Belgrade’s Generastaff Building exemplifies this process. Once a symbol of Yugoslav modernism and later a ruin memorialising the 1999 NATO aggression, the site is now at the centre of controversial privatisation effort. It is arguably a textbook example of how governments in their pursuit of foreign capital redefine national heritage as disposable. At the same time, it is a textbook example of the nuances of a post-conflict environment and a need for consideration of historical trauma, as the site has been in a stalemate for decades, with each proposal exacerbating the issue rather than moving towards a solution (Jovic, 2022).

Serbian government's recent agreement with a private investor marks a significant shift in the timeline of this heritage site. While officials claim revitalising it will contribute to Belgrade’s economic future, critics argue its erasure and/or adaptation to proposed space of leisure constitutes an erasure of historical - and recent, therefore still painful memory. This paper argues it can further be understood as an act of urbicide in peacetime, interrogates ideas of urbicide (Coward, 2004; 2009) that occurs through economic policies rather than warfare, and questions ethical implications of prioritising capital over collective historical memory. It contributes to broader discussions on post-conflict urbanism, memory politics and neoliberal developments.

Through Critical Discourse Analysis of media narratives, government policies, and urban planning documents, this paper examines how state actors, private investors, and civil society organisations frame the Generalstaff Building debate. While the former push for its understanding as a modernisation strategy, opposing voices agree it follows a pattern of investor-driven urban transformations that prioritise profit over memory, echoing similar critiques of projects like Belgrade Waterfront (Slavkovic, 2013). The discourse of progress and economic growth, championed by political elites, often marginalises or silences counter-discourses advocating for historical preservation and - particularly pertinent for post-conflict environments, public participation.

Bevan, R., 2006. The destruction of memory: architecture at war.

Coward, M., 2004. Urbicide in Bosnia. Cities, War, and Terrorism: towards an urban geopolitics, pp.154-171.

Coward, M., 2009. The Logic of Urbicide. Urbicide. The Politics of Urban Destruction.

Jović, M., 2022. Post-Conflict Branding. Encyclopedia of Tourism Management and Marketing. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Slavkovic, Lj. 2013. Camenzind Magazine, Issue #2. Accessed at http://www.camenzindbelgrade.com/ on February 10, 2016.

In the center of the city of Madrid is located the so-called Paseo del Prado and Buen Retiro, Landscape of Arts and Sciences, the official name of which is known as Landscape of Light. This site was inscribed on the World Heritage List in July 2021. It is the first tree-lined promenade in a European capital, created in the 16th century to offer the inhabitants of Madrid a spatial environment conducive to leisure and relaxation in a wooded setting. Located in the patrimonial and symbolic heart of the city, it has been configured for many years as a highly institutionalized space with an important cultural and touristic dimension.

The work is based on the study of the urban dynamics driven by private initiative, mainly companies of different sizes and orientations. The aim is to investigate the scope that the declaration as a World Heritage site has had on the real estate dynamics of this central area of the city. Some of these dynamics are linked to the renewal of the residential fabric, the establishment and renovation of hotels, the change in first floor businesses, the transformation of dwellings into tourist rental housing, or changes in the office market trends. The starting point is the idea that in recent years there has been a (re)valorization and (re)significance in cultural and, above all, touristic terms of this space, already highly institutionalized and with a high symbolic value. However, it is necessary to determine whether the declaration as World Heritage has had a significant influence on these processus and the tensions that private economic interests generate over the conservation of a legacy in transformation.

To this end, three of the dimensions that are influencing recent socio-spatial transformations will be analysed: 1). Through field work and comparative cartographic analysis, the dynamics of change in land use in the area under study will be studied; 2). Using land registry sources and real estate portals, the dynamics affecting residential and tertiary use will be analysed; and 3). Through documentary analysis we will review the major projects that are putting this urban space in the cultural and tourist marking from the private initiative, whether they are implementations of cultural headquarters and foundations dependent on large companies and banking corporations or the opening and / or remodelling of luxury hotels.

In a world hurtling towards ecological breakdown, the concept of time is of growing concern. According to the UN Secretary General, "we are now engaged in a race against time to adapt to a rapidly changing climate" (UN, 2024). The world is running out of time.

But which - and whose - time are we talking about? Reducing the question to quantitative 'objective time', arguably a technological construct (Bastian, 2017), might prompt one to paraphrase Cedric Price (1966): technology is the answer, but what is the question?

In the industrial-capitalist credo, "time is money" (Adam, 2003). This simple motto enshrines the quantitative perception of time espoused by much large-scale urban development as a seemingly stable, objective, quantifiable value. However, in the context of large developments within urban UNESCO World Heritage (WH) sites, global heritage governance can play an active role in differentiating between qualitative and quantitative concerns for the future.

Employing desk-based research of primary and secondary literature, this paper will analyse and compare approaches to time taken in contentious major urban developments at two UK WH sites: Liverpool and Edinburgh. The former WH site was delisted in 2021 as a result of its approach (WHC, 2021). The latter escaped - possibly accidentally - a similar fate, seen to have addressed UNESCO concerns dating back to 2008.

Might delisting, for urban WH sites under heavy development pressure, just be a matter of time?

Drawing on scholarship on the theme of "social time" (Luhmann, 1976; Bastian, 2016), this paper will chart the first hints of what might be termed 'World Heritage chrononomy', UNESCO's management of time within inscribed WH sites, with a particular focus on large prospective urban developments. In turn, the WH system's qualitative approaches to post-inscription temporalities might be recognized as an important contribution to a unified global governance response to the global ecological crisis.

Urban landscapes are testimony, through their changes, to the dynamic relationship between society and its environment, which simultaneously reflect and condition each other’s characteristics and evolution over time. The Old and New Towns of Edinburgh World Heritage Site presents a fascinating insight in these dynamics over the last decades. Starting with the end of the nineteenth century, when Patrick Geddes applied his principle of ‘conservative surgery’ to a series of Old Town buildings, Edinburgh had seen the rise of a heritage movement that had successfully put a halt to the ambitious post-war urban development plans of the University which clashed with those of the city and its residents. This remained the case until the turn of the 21st century, since when a series of large-scale developments have been promoted by the council, to be erected by private developers, some of them despite strong opposition from residents and local stakeholders. The latter, tourism-focused large-scale developments had seen entire campaigns mounted by local community groups, inspections by UNESCO missions, and high-profile public inquiries. The tensions between the interests of investors, administration, community, and heritage were laid bare in the process. Other city-focused proposals, however, had the support of the local community and heritage stakeholders. This paper will reflect on the way in which the urban fabric of Edinburgh has been shaped by this series of recent large-scale developments and their implications for the historic city and its residents.