problemi mestnega razvoja

Urbanizem v Sloveniji je v krizi. Le s težavo preboleva prestrukturiranje, ki je posledica družbenih sprememb po padcu socializma in pa seveda tudi splošne situacije v svetu, ki bi jo še najkrajše ponazorili s tezo o “koncu velikih zgodb.” Težišče pravne in realne oblasti na področju urejanja prostora se je od skupnega interesa, ki ga je, vsaj na deklarativni ravni, zastopal socializem in ki je omogočil relativno široko razvejanost urbanizma kot stroke in politike v minulem sistemu, preneslo v zasebnost. Prevladal je model neoliberalnega tržnega kapitalizma brez omejitev. Tudi sami akterji urbanizma - planerske in načrtovalske institucije, stroka, pa tudi politika - so se iz nosilca javnega interesa prestrukturirali po principih tržne logike. Če ni in ker še ni izoblikovana neodvisna civilna iniciativa, je dogajanje v prostoru v veliki meri prepuščeno stihiji, s tem pa na eni strani sektorskim (npr. cestarskim) ter na drugi strani špekulantskim interesom. Prosvetljena in/ali očetovska skrb države in pravnega reda za urejanje prostora se manjša in izgublja pomen. Ekonomija v veliki meri določa podobo mesta.

Pri zemljiški politiki, od katere je urbanistično načrtovanje življenjsko odvisno, je javni interes ostal skoraj brez veljave in izgublja bitko s posamičnimi pravicami, ki izhajajo iz zasebne lastnine. Tako urbanizem na eni strani životari po inerciji, na drugi pa se pričenja očrtavati realna potreba po njegovi rehabilitaciji.

Razvoj demokracije in tudi približevanje Evropi, ali z drugimi besedami, postopno vključevanje v mednarodno delitev dela in globalizacijske procese, krepita potrebo po natančnejši definiciji javnega interesa. Pomemben trend je tudi krepitev vloge mest in mestnih regij na škodo pomena nacionalnih držav. Slovenska mesta se vsako po svoje (to pomeni brez kakšne skupne nacionalne strategije) srečujejo s problemi učinkovitosti planiranja in urbanizma.

Maribor je pri tem morda dosegel največ. Ima strokovno pripravljen in aktualen mestni načrt, ki je trenutno v sklepni fazi priprave oz. na začetkih implementacije. Mestni načrt sega od analize urbane strukture preko postavljanja urbanistične zasnove celote do skic oblikovanja posameznih mestnih območij in ambientov. Načrt pomeni novost v diskusiji o načrtovanju razvoja mesta pri nas. Izhodišče ni več doktrina, ampak dinamičen sistem kooperativnega planiranja, ki ne določa le rabe prostora oz. coninga, ampak ima vgrajeno spoznanje, da ne moremo predpisati niti vsebine niti oblike mesta prihodnosti in da smo zato omejeni na razmišljanje o možnih scenarijih razvoja in o smiselnih potezah, ki lahko usmerjajo te tendence. Pri tem ne gre za neoliberalistični laissez faire, ampak za vključevanje kreativnosti, pluralizma, osebne odgovornosti in iniciative v kompleksne mrežne sisteme, ko urbanist in arhitekt nista več demiurga, ampak moderatorja, promotorja ter akterja kulturne in komunalne usluge. S tem predstavlja mestni načrt Maribora najvišji dosežek sodobnega urbanizma pri nas v zadnjem času in model za druga slovenska mesta, tudi za Ljubljano.

V pričujoči številki so predstavljeni nekateri elementi mestnega načrta in spremljevalnih dejavnosti, zlasti urbanističnih delavnic. Prikazan je tudi prerez nekaterih arhitekturnih realizacij in projektov v Mariboru, nastalih v zadnjem času.

1.

Prvič: Čemu urbanizem?

V vse bolj zaostrenih gospodarskih razmerah ter ob vse večji individualizaciji in fragmentaciji je planiranje postalo početje, ki se mu spreminja hkrati preveč spremenljivk, da bi jim lahko uspešno sledilo oz. jih anticipiralo, kar naj bi pravzaprav bil njegov smisel. Zato se planiranje spreminja v osnovi - priznati mora svojo nepopolnost in jo postaviti v svoja izhodišča, nato pa glede na ta spremenjena in spreminjajoča se izhodišča poiskati svoj smisel in uporabnost ter prilagoditi oz. na novo postaviti svoje strategije. “Edina konstanta je stalno spreminjanje.”

Danes sta mesto in z njim tudi koncept urbanizma v globoki krizi. Vendar je mesto, če rečemo z Remom Koolhaasom, vse, kar imamo. Ne moremo si privoščiti, da bi opustili mesto, da bi dopustili njegov propad. To bi bilo usodno tako politično in ekonomsko kot socialno in kulturno. Urbanizem je odločitev za dogovorno in odgovorno ravnanje s prostorom in mestom. Zato imata planiranje in urbanizem smisel.

Drugič: Kako se izogniti glavobolu ob vsej heterogenosti programov in zahtev? Kako doseči ekonomsko optimizacijo in ohraniti odgovornost javnemu dobremu?

Naučiti se moramo prestrukturirati mesto tako, da bo ekonomsko uspešno in prijetno ter s tem privlačno za bivanje in delo. To je globalni problem države, še bolj pa lokalni problem vsake urbane aglomeracije. Ustaviti moramo razpršeno gradnjo, ki bo požrla našo krajino ter nas zadušila z odpadki in prometom. Destimulirati moramo nekontrolirano pozidavo odprtega prostora ter usmerjati in koncentrirati gradnjo v obstoječa območja mest.

Tretjič: Iz česa lahko izhajamo?

Intuitivno in asociativno - iz narave, topografije. Iz zgodovine. Iz kulture. Seveda tudi iz ekonomije, ki pa je, kot že rečeno, precej labilna spremenljivka. Lahko jo predpostavljamo - statistično in v scenarijih, vendar ne prav natančno. Narava, reke, gore, tudi zgodovina in kultura pa so, vsaj do neke mere, objektivne danosti. Lepota je objektivnejša od denarja. In tudi stalnejša oz. trajnejša. Torej se ukvarjamo z branjem teh stabilnih spremenljivk in poskušamo vplivati nanje, da bi bile jasno in strukturno logično izoblikovane.

Četrtič: Kako znova vzpostaviti ustvarjalno kontrolo nad mestnim prostorom?

Samoregulacijske tehnike imajo najboljši učinek, saj temeljijo na realnih potrebah. Manj ko samoregulacijske tehnike funkcionirajo, večja je individualna odgovornost planerjev. Tu pa se srečamo s problemom, da imamo premalo izobraženih, sposobnih in razgledanih ljudi, ki bi se ukvarjali s planiranjem ter ustvarjanjem pogojev za kvalitetna urbanizem in arhitekturo. Imamo okorel sistem in kader na področju urejanja prostora, da o zakonodaji sploh ne izgubljamo besed. Dušita nas birokratska in morfološka trdota procesa planiranja in tudi arhitektske mentalitete.

Dobro urejena in dolgoročno stabilna mestna politika je predpogoj za kvalitetno urejanje mestnega prostora. Vloga urbanistov in arhitektov mora biti na tem področju odločilna. Načrtovanje skupaj s načrtovalsko politiko mora biti paradni konj kvalitetne oblasti.

Petič: Lahko planiranje kanalizira rast in razvoj mesta ali pa je omejeno na gasilske ali kirurške intervencije kot reakcije na spontano nastale probleme?

Na podlagi splošnih in skupnih načel si je treba postaviti fleksibilne strategije oz. scenarije za uporabo in izboljšave prostora in mesta, v katerem živimo oz. za katerega načrtujemo. Pozidan prostor je tudi vir. Fleksibilno in selektivno se vključuje v scenarije urbane prihodnosti. Ker smo blizu meja rasti, je potrebno pozidani prostor stalno reorganizirati. Nesmiselno je graditi nove poslovne stavbe ob nezasedenosti obstoječih. Enako velja za stanovanja. Nepozidani prostor je dejansko potrebno zaščititi, tako da mu damo enak pomen in ga obravnavamo enako, kot kadar gre za grajeno strukturo. Park je vreden prav toliko kot tovarniška stavba. Ne gre za radikalne spremembe in vizionarske utopije, pač pa za povezavo novega s starim, podporo obstoječim kvalitetam in hotenje, da bi s smiselno postavitvijo novega vnesli v obstoječe mesto razvojni impulz in novo življenje.

Šestič: Kako se lotiti projektov ob majhni investicijski sposobnosti javnega sektorja in v zaostreni socialni situaciji?

S sistemskimi rešitvami, ki ne slonijo samo na proračunu, ampak imajo vgrajene alternativne in dopolnilne koncepte, kot so participacija, sponzorstvo, loterija itd. Zbirajo se namenska sredstva za skupne potrebe - kulturo, šport, izobraževanje. Vedno preko razpisov s sodelovanjem, tudi finančnim, večjega števila partnerjev: države, fondov, mesta, lokalne skupnosti, zasebnikov itd., da se zagotovita nadzor in racionalna poraba sredstev.

2.

Planiranje iz časov klasične moderne je izhajalo iz higienistične in socialne paradigme in njegov rezultat so bili monofunkcionalni kompleksi sosesk, industrijskih con itd. Ob tem srednji sloj že desetletja biva v enodružinskih hišah na zelenem obrobju mesta. V sedemdesetih so klasični model nasledile sistemske teorije, ki so urbanizmu poskušale dati logično znanstveno podlago. Rezultat je bil v praksi porazen, saj planskemu usmerjanju razvoja z realizacijo le redko uspe loviti naglo spreminjajoče se pogoje realnosti. Problem je čas, ki ga niti harmonična niti tehnokratska vizija ne upoštevata - realni čas. Da bi zaobseglo te pogoje, je planiranje poskušalo razviti paradigme in instrumente, ki so zelo heterogeni, včasih kontradiktorni, včasih precej poljubni.

Podobno kot je sodobna umetnost našla lepoto v estetiki grdega, tudi urbanizem izhaja iz te nove senzibilnosti, ki je krhka in nestabilna. Tu najdemo nekaj smeri, v katerih se inspirira sodobni urbanizem oz. kar je ostalo od njega. Njihov razpon sega od teoretskih poskusov refleksije in vplivanja do zavestne podreditve dejanskosti. Za vsako od njih pa sta bolj značilni nepopolnost in fragmentarnost kot celovitost in optimistična vera v prihodnost.

Strukturalistični pristop

Izhajati poskuša iz posplošitev, tako rekoč statistično preverjenih načinov. V tem je blizu strukturalizmu na drugih področjih znanosti in kulture, trudi se razbrati kompleksna pravila, jih razporediti v nekakšen red in nato na podlagi podobnosti ali pripadnosti določenemu tipu strukture in njenega modelnega obnašanja predvideti potencialno obnašanje strukture, ki jo obravnava. Ta pristop ima prednost sorazmerne objektivnosti statistične primerjave. Njegova pomanjkljivost pa je, da bolj komplicira kot poenostavlja in razrešuje ter da potlačuje intuitivno dimenzijo, ki je nujna pri kreativnem pristopu.

Diagram kot pristop k urbanizmu

S pomočjo prostorskega diagrama poskuša zajeti funkcije, ki potekajo v prostoru. To je pristop, ki nadaljuje in posodablja urbanistično doktrino kot plansko kategorijo, kot kreacijo kolektivnega in javnega reda, kot nekaj, kar je povezano z arhetipi družbenega in socialnega življenja. Diagram neposredno odslika stanje v socioprostorski organizaciji, brez ideološke vmesne vloge urbanistične doktrine - ni teorije, ni projekcije. Tako poskuša zagotoviti objektivnost.

Arhitektura

Ko govorimo o urbanizmu, govorimo tudi o arhitekturi. Arhitektura je tista, ki lahko prostor povzdigne v kvaliteten ambient ali pa ga osiromaši in razvrednoti. Žal je statistično to drugo pogostejše. Predmestja slovenskih mest so uničena prav z zanič arhitekturo. Urbanizem je nekako popustil pod pezo neposredne učinkovitosti arhitekture.

Landscape

V zadnjih letih je izposojanje iz krajinske estetike v urbanizmu vse bolj izrazito. Gre za odziv na rastoč interes ljudi, ki v naravi vidijo garant identitete kot socialne in psihične blaginje ter ekologije kot fizične blaginje in tudi preživetja. Ne graditi, ampak zasajati, je moto tega tipa urbanizma, ki tudi arhitekturi odpira nekatere nove dimenzije.

Umetnost - nova senzibilnost

Doživljanje realnega prostora, če se postavimo npr. kam ob hitro cesto v predmestje, je grozljiva izkušnja, ki je spominja na horror video z rezkim soundom in vonjem po bencinskih hlapih. Razumljivo je, da se večina ljudi tega boji - gre za urbani strah. Nekateri se sicer počutijo udobno v urbanem kaosu in se bojijo narave, vendar za ljudi v Sloveniji to v splošnem ne velja. Nastaja kontradikcija med novimi mediji, novo podobo mesta, novimi načini življenja in pretežno konservativnostjo socialnih vzorcev in mentalitet. V Mariboru denimo med pornografsko medijsko potujenostjo in mednarodnim kriminalom ter ruralno mentaliteto polkmetov.

Zapeljevanje

Strategija, ki se je iz marketinga in designa hitro preselila v arhitekturo, je uporabna tudi v urbanizmu. Sentimentalne podobe privlačijo investitorje. Urbanizem se mediatizira. Njegova funkcija je spektakel, ne več raba in smisel v klasičnem, evolucijskem smislu, za harmonično in urejeno okolje za življenje. Depolitizacija javnosti se skozi zapeljevanje kot visoko razvito obliko potrošništva kaže kot dodatek globalnosti trga. Urbanizem sodeluje v amneziji vseh drugih vrednot razen te.

Kapital: flow

Vse bolj se soočamo s fenomenom zemljiške špekulacije in njenega vpliva na pozidavo teritorija. Prostor je postal tržno blago, gradnja produkt, vključen v mehaniko potrošniške družbe. S tem je podvržen železnim zakonitostim tržne logike in posledično komercializacije. Tako se podaja na pot k preobrazbi v tržni artikel - k posplošitvi, poenostavljanju, trivializaciji. Pop standardi Stojana Auerja kot izraz krize vrednot na eni strani se srečujejo s tradicionalizmom in konservativizmom, zaplankanostjo in kulturno regresijo na drugi strani, nad vsem pa vlada globalna ekonomija. Družba se mcdonaldizira.

Največje prestrukturiranje naših mest je tiho in brez plana nastajajoč fenomen t. i. “obrobnih mest” (edge city) ob prometnicah. V suburbijah vseh mest - BTC, Trzin, Črnuče, Dolgi most v Ljubljani, Ptujska v Mariboru - so taki spontano nastajajoči, trgovsko poslovno zabaviščni skupki shoping mallov, kinov, restavracij s hitro pripravljeno hrano in disko klubov.

Bo mesto izkrvavelo? Bo postalo Disneyland, sámo komercializirano v potrošni artikel? Samo urbanizem, ki si prizadeva zajeti celoto, je morda način, kako uravnotežati ta proces.

Problems of Urban Development

Slovene urbanism finds itself in a crisis. It has difficulties with getting over restructuring, a result of changes in our society after the fall of socialism, but also a result of the general situation in the world, which could best be depicted by a theses about “the end of great stories”. The centre of gravity of the legal and administrative authorities in the field of urban planning shifted from the common interest, defended, at least on the declarative level, by socialism which enabled the development of urbanism as a branch and a way of politics in the former system, to the private sphere. The model of the neo-liberal market capitalism took over the leading role without any limits. Even the active participants in urban planning, i.e. planning institutions, experts, and politics - were transformed from carriers of public interest to followers of market logic. If there is no (and where there is no) independent civil initiative, spatial planning is left over to chaotic development, falling under the interest of different sectors on the one hand (for example, the road-building sector), and of different speculations on the other. The enlightened and (or) paternal care of the state and legal order for environmental planning is becoming smaller and loses its meaning. Economy is the dominant factor in deciding about the future view of a town.

In land politics, public interest lost almost all of its influence and is loosing the battle with partial rights derived from private ownership. While urbanism still functions in a kind of inertia, the actual need for its rehabilitation is growing.

The development of democracy and gradual incorporation into the international job sharing and processes of globalisation encourage the need for a more precise definition of public interest. A growing importance of the role of towns and town regions as opposed to national states is also an important trend. Slovene towns each deal with their problems of efficient planning and urbanism in their own way (i.e. without a common national strategy).

Maribor has perhaps achieved the most. It has an up-to-date urbanistic plan prepared by experts, which is currently in the concluding phase of preparation (i.e. at the start of the implementation). The urbanistic plan goes from the analysis of urban structure, to outlining the urbanistic concept of the whole, to draft regulations of different town areas and ambience. The plan is something new in the discussion on planning urban development in Slovenia. The starting point is no longer the doctrine, but a dynamic system of co-operative planning which does not define the use of space, or zoning, but includes an awareness about how one cannot prescribe the contents nor the form of a town in the future, and that one is therefore limited on reflection about possible scenarios of development and on rational moves that could direct these tendencies. This is not about the neo-liberal laisser faire but about creativity, pluralism, personal responsibility and initiative, incorporated into network systems where urbanist and architect are no longer creators of the world, but moderators, promoters and providers of cultural and communal service. In this respect, the Maribor urbanistic plan is the highest achievement of modern urbanism in Slovenia in past years and a model for other Slovenian towns, including Ljubljana.

This issue presents certain characteristics of the Maribor urbanistic plan and of some of the accompanying activities, particularly urbanistic workshops, as well as some recent architectural realisations and projects in Maribor.

1

1 Why urbanism?

In the times of growing recession and increasing individualisation and fragmentation, planning became an act with too many variables to be able to follow these processes, let alone anticipate them (which is its essential role). That is why planning is changing its very basis by admitting its own imperfection, placing it right into the starting points. Then, considering these changed and changing starting points it needs to find its own meaning and applicability again, and adapt or find new strategies. “The only constant is constant changing.”

Nowadays, the town and the concept of urbanism find themselves in serious crisis. However, the town is everything we have, as Rem Koolhaas puts it. We cannot afford to abolish the town, to allow its decay. This would have fatal political, economic, social and cultural consequences. Urbanism means saying yes to agreed and responsible regulation of space and town. That is why planning and urbanism have meaning.

2 How to avoid a headache in the sight of all this heterogeneity of programmes and demands?

How to achieve economic optimum and preserve the devotion to the public good?

We have to learn to restructure town in a way to make it economically successful and pleasant, thus making it attractive as a residential and working place. This is a problem of the state, and even more a local problem of every urban agglomeration. We need to stop this dispersed building which is going to devour our landscape and clog us with waste and traffic. The uncontrolled building of open space needs to be destimulated. Instead, it needs to be directed and concentrated in the already existing urban areas.

3 Where can we start?

With intuition and by association - from Nature, from topography. History. Culture. And economy as well, of course, but that is, as we’ve already said, a pretty variable factor. We can forecast it in terms of statistics and different scenarios, but this is not very accurate. Nature, rivers, mountains, and cultural history, are objective realities at least to some extent. Beauty is more objective than money. It is also more permanent and sustainable. We are therefore working on reading these “stable variables” and trying to influence them in order to make them form a clear and logical structure.

4 How to re-establish creative control over the urban space?

Self-regulation techniques have the best effect because they are based on real needs. The less self-regulation techniques function, the greater the individual responsibility of the planners. The problem is that we do not have enough educated, capable and broad-minded people to work on the planning, which would create the best conditions for quality urbanism and architecture. We have a rigid system and personnel in the field of spatial planning, to say nothing about the legislation. We are blocked by the bureaucratic and morphological rigidity of the planning process and architectural mentality.

A well -regulated and stabile town policy is the first condition for a quality regulation of urban space. The role of urbanists and architects in this field needs to be decisive. Planning together with planning politics needs to be the pride of a successful and efficient state.

5 Can planning channel the growth and development of a town or is it limited to

firemen or surgeon operation as reactions to spontaneous problems?

On the basis of common general principles we need to set flexible strategies or scenarios for the use and improvement of space and town that we deal with or live in. Another resource is space, which has already been built. It is incorporated flexibly and selectively into scenarios of urban future. It is not sensible to build new business buildings while what already exists remains empty. The same goes for flats Giving it the same importance and treatment, the built structure should protect the unbuilt space. A park has the same value as a factory building. We are not talking about radical changes or visions, but simply about bringing together the old and the new, about supporting the existing qualities, desiring to bring into the town the impulse of development and new life by means of sensible urban regulation.

6 How to work on projects when there is a low investment capacity of the public sector and a grave social situation?

With system solutions which do not count solely on the budget, but include alternative and complementary concepts like participation, sponsorship, lotto, etc. Financial support is collected for common needs - culture, sport, and education. Always through tenders with co-operation (financial as well) of a great number of partners: the state, funds, towns, local communities, private entrepreneurs, etc., in order to ensure control and a rational distribution of financial support.

2

In “classical” modernism, planning was done on the basis of the hygienist and social paradigms, and it resulted in mono-functional complexes of neighbourhoods, industrial zones, etc. At the same time, the middle class has been living in single-family houses on the green edge of the city for decades. System theories followed in the seventies, trying to give a logical scientific basis to urbanism. In reality, the result was terrible, for it is difficult for the realisation of a planned and directed development to catch up with the rapidly changing conditions of reality. The problem is time, which is not being considered either by the harmonious or by the technocratic vision - the real time. To satisfy these conditions planning tried to develop paradigms and instruments, which turned out to be very heterogeneous, sometimes contradictory and sometimes very arbitrary.

In a similar way, as modern art found beauty in the aesthetics of ugliness, urbanism works from this new sensibility which is fragile and ephemeral. Here we can find several branches inspiring contemporary urbanism, or what is left of it. Their range goes from theoretical attempts of reflection and influence to conscious subordination of reality. What is typical for each of them is incompleteness and fragments rather than completeness and an optimistic belief in future.

Structuralist approach

This tries to work on generalisation, on statistically proven methods. In this it is close to structuralism in other scientific and cultural branches. It tries to work out complex rules, put them into some kind of order, and foresee potential behaviour of the structure it deals with on the basis of similarity or belonging to a certain type of structure and its model behaviour. The advantage of this approach is relative objectivity of statistical comparison. It’s weak point, however, is that it tends to complicate rather than simplifies or solve, and that it neglects the intuitive dimension, crucial in any creative approach.

Diagram as urbanistic approach

This tries to illustrate functions running in a certain space by means of a spatial diagram. This approach continues and modernises urbanistic doctrine as a planning category, as the creation of collective and public order, as something connected to archetypes of social life. The diagram shows directly the state of social-spatial organisation, without the ideological intermediary role of urbanistic doctrine - there is no theory, no projection. In this way, it tries to ensure objectivity.

Architecture

When speaking about urbanism, we also speak about architecture. It is architecture that can turn space into a quality ambience, or impoverish and degrade it. Unfortunately statistics show that the latter is more often the case. The suburbia of Slovene towns are ruined by inadequate architecture. Urbanism gave up under the burden of direct applicability of architecture.

Landscape

Over the past few years urbanism has been borrowing a lot from landscape aesthetics. This is a response on the growing interest of people who see in Nature a warrant of identity as social and psychological welfare, and ecology as physical welfare and survival. Not building, but planting, is the motto of this type of urbanism, which is opening some new dimensions to architecture.

Art - new sensibility

The experience of real space, if we stand near a motorway in the suburbs, is terrible and reminds us of a horror movie with a shrieking sound and smell of gas fumes. It is understandable that most people are afraid of it - this is the urban fear. Some of them still feel well in the urban chaos and are afraid of Nature. This, however, is not true for the majority of people in Slovenia. There is a contradiction between the new media, the new image of town, new ways of life and a relative conservatism of social patterns and mentalities. In Maribor this is a contradiction between pornographic media alienation and international crime, and rural mentality of half-farmers.

Seduction

This strategy, which has moved from marketing and design into architecture, is very applicable in urbanism too. Sentimental images attract investors. Urbanism gets media-tised. Its function is a spectacle, and no longer use or meaning in the classical, evolution sense, for a harmonious and organised dwelling environment. Public depolitisation is shown, through seduction as a highly developed form of consumption, as a supplement to the globalisation of the market. Urbanism is taking part in the amnesia of all other values except of this one.

Capital: the flow

Land speculation and its influence on building in space are more and more frequent. Space became consumers’ goods, and building is a product incorporated into the mechanics of consumption society. Thus it is subjected to the iron laws of market logic and, consequently, commercialisation. It is walking along the path of transformation into an object of trade - towards generalisation, simplification, and trivialisation. Pop standards of Zoran Auer as an expression of crisis of values on one side, meet with traditionalism and conservatism, narrow-mindness and cultural regression on the other, while all of this is dominated by the global economy. Society is getting McDonaldised.

The greatest restructuring of our towns is a quiet phenomenon, without planning, of edge cities near main roads. These spontaneous trade and business entertainment conglomerates of shopping centres, cinemas, fast-food restaurants and discotheques are in the suburbia of all towns - BTC, Trzin, Črnuče, Dolgi most in Ljubljana, Ptujska in Maribor.

Will the town bleed to death? Will it become Disneyland, full of commercialised consumers’ goods? Only urbanism that tries to encompass the whole, is perhaps a way of balancing this process.