This study addressed problems related to the protection, reconstruction, and revitalisation of modern heritage, particularly the regeneration of mass housing estates built after WWII and facing the contemporary perils of urban decay and deterioration. It presented interdisciplinary research investigating the possibility of extending and complementing the heritage assessment methodology and broadening the scope of the criteria by including mass housing landscape values. Starting with a close reading of the key theoretical positions embedded in the conceptualisation and construction of New Belgrade, we investigated a set of holistic and time-based criteria, followed by contemporary methodologies for landscape quality assessment. The investigation was based on an urban landscape approach to heritage assessment and focuses on the Central Zone of New Belgrade, declared a heritage site in 2021. The interaction of the theoretical underpinnings of modern architecture and urban planning with urban landscape discourse, coupled with historically and theoretically relevant knowledge and data, resulted in an investigation of landscape-based criteria for further mass housing assessment. Finally, we presented the findings of the landscape quality assessment of the transformations of the Central Zone. This perspective could be used to extend the possibilities of this approach in order to (1) tackle the “thickness” of temporality related to (urban) landscapes; (2) rethink and redefine the applied heritage assessment approach; (3) open the assessment procedure to a wider range of stakeholders, particularly nonexperts and the local community; and (4) re-actualise the position and role of experts in the sense of communicating knowledge in a completely new context.

This article aims to underline the necessity of including historical enquiry in reaching the complex goals of sustainable development of urban riverscapes. Its proposed method is a survey conducted through selection, interpretation and systematization of the relevant historical data that consider the Belgrade cityscape, and specifically, the New Belgrade public spaces at the river confluence. The theoretical framework, which relies on the concepts of ‘landscape urbanism’ and ‘critical practice of landscape architecture’, has affected the selection and interpretation of dense historical layers of modernization, formed in diverse socio-economic and political conditions. We have distinguished five historical strata that contribute significantly to comprehension of the present state. By looking at the traces of the formative period of Belgrade urban landscape, the moments of New Belgrade’s inception, inerasable impacts of war, vigorous post WWII socialist transformation and, finally, the series of Danube riverscape revisions, we intend to depict the complexity of the modern city legacy and thus stress the interconnectedness of past and future endeavours. As a counterpoint to globalizing tendencies in re-designing city riverfronts, this work is conceived as a lateral contribution to a broader investigation that informs, supports and constitutes more ecologically viable practices.

This paper examines two large urban projects within a defined theoretical and methodological framework. Firstly, we analyse how the city administration in Belgrade, in post-socialist Serbia, managed the initial steps of the transformation of a part of the old town into the new large-scale development, the Belgrade Waterfront (BW), on the right bank of the Sava River. The contested outcome of the land transformation process contributes to a recognition of the unethical decision-making and performance of the responsible city authorities. Secondly, the postwar planning and construction of New Belgrade, in particular its Central Zone, is critically examined from the aspect of radical urban landscape transformation and its impact on society. Through a critical examination of the spatial development of the socialist period, we aim to identify emancipatory architectural and urban practises that could be an alternative to contemporary spatial production and that might provide a notion of key strategies for (re)establishing corresponding forms of socio-spatial justice. The two aforementioned research subjects are examined using different research questions, methodological tools, and different theoretical frameworks, which overlap, merge, and combine in the part of the study where the obtained results are discussed.

The Garden City was introduced in 1898 by Ebenezer Howard as a model for a healthy industrial city grounded in philanthropic speculation. This theoretical model sought to create a socially and spatially balanced urban environment, addressing the socio-economic, sanitary, and spatial challenges of capitalist development. Although utopian in vision, Howard framed the proposal as a moderate reform, which led to its widespread adoption and lasting influence on urban planning. This article analyzes how the concept?s socio-spatial framework addressed recurring urban problems and informed planning practices. Beyond its frequent interpretation as an architectural or planning model, the concept can also be understood as a geographical discourse for analyzing urban?rural relations, land-use organization, and regional spatial planning. In the United States of America (USA), where speculative construction and uncontrolled suburban sprawl were persistent issues, the Garden City concept found fertile ground throughout the twentieth century. From a geographically informed perspective, American adaptations of the concept under varying socio-economic, political, and territorial conditions reshaped patterns of suburbanization, regional development, and environmental planning. The USA experience played a significant role in forming spatial models such as garden suburbs, planned communities, and later approaches associated with New Urbanism. These developments reveal both the adaptability of the Garden City concept and its limitations when detached from broader socio-spatial objectives. This article situates the Garden City within geospatial debates in urban and human geography, underscoring its continued relevance for contemporary discussions on spatial planning, environmental sustainability, and the organization of urban regions.