Contemporary Transformations of the Historic Urban Landscape of Sarajevo and Social Inclusion as a Traditional Value of a Multicultural Society

Abstract

The main research question of this paper focuses on the impact of contemporary interventions on the protection of architectural heritage and the transformation of the unique historic urban landscape of Sarajevo, which symbolizes social tolerance. This study examines the tendencies that have been destroying the essence of such a landscape since the beginning of the 21st century. This research primarily relies on the method of direct observation to analyze the ongoing transformation of the urban landscape over the past 25 years. Additionally, previous research findings and relevant documentation regarding the ongoing urban metamorphosis were considered. The historical urban landscape of Sarajevo is the result of complex urban development that began in the mid-15th century. This urban form, still partially recognizable today, reflected prevailing social relationships, particularly the inclusion of different groups instead of their exclusion, which demonstrated tolerance. However, this research shows the incompatibility of today’s neoliberal concept with the preservation of an urban landscape that embodies tolerance and excludes social marginalization.

1. Introduction

Sarajevo is one of the least-understood cities in modern history [1].

The impact of contemporary interventions on the protection of architectural heritage and the transformation of the urban landscape represents a “living” urban phenomenon that has been insufficiently researched and is the main focus of this study. The ongoing transformation of the urban landscape is currently unfolding and will have long-term consequences on the urban form, as well as significant social and economic implications. This is particularly relevant in historical city centers such as Sarajevo, which have been shaped by centuries-old multi-ethnic and multi-cultural traditions. Describing, analyzing, and clarifying the relationship between contemporary interventions, the protection of architectural heritage, and the urban landscape are crucial in order to protect areas that symbolize the possibility of coexistence and diversity in the heart of Europe.

It seems that the prevailing developments in the 21st century, where the imperative of profit often influences urban transformations 1, are in direct opposition to the protection of architectural heritage and lead to negative transformations of the urban landscape. Narrow private interests are clearly in conflict with traditional social values that are based on a historical urban landscape, which excludes the possibility of social marginalization.

Contemporary interventions, in principle, do not contradict the preservation of architectural heritage and the urban landscape. Instead, contemporary architecture can contribute to the positive development of the historical landscape if it aims to improve the cultural, social, economic, and other needs of society. This inclusive concept aligns closely with the multicultural concept upon which the traditional urban matrix was built.

However, interpretations of the concept of “contemporary intervention” remain open to debate. Under the guise of the “Contrast Method”, ex novo spaces are constructed to make extra profit at the expense of preserving the historical urban landscape.

In this context, it is worth considering the approaches of some authors who have dealt with similar concepts related to the urban transformations of historical landscapes. Previously, Anna Onesti conducted research on the role of local communities in safeguarding the landscape and counteracting the loss of identity using the example of the historical center of Sassano in Italy (a protected area of Cilento and Vallo di Diano), where the local community was considered a key element in preserving the identity of the area [2].

This work aims to identify rules that can be detected and applied in order to stimulate contemporary interventions focused on preserving authentic architectural heritage and improving the urban landscape of historical cores based on multicultural tradition.

Transformations of urban landscapes, often rooted in particular socio-historical assumptions, are inevitable. However, the crucial task is to identify suitable solutions that effectively balance the imperatives of preservation and sustainable development.

2. Literature Review Related to the Historical Landscape in General

With the aim of gaining a better position in this research within global knowledge and a broader theoretical framework, it is important to conduct a concise review of the literature dealing with similar concepts of historical landscapes, urban transformations, and contemporary interventions in historical landscapes in general.

First of all, the monumental edition Landscape as Cultural Heritage—Methods of recognition, evaluation and protection of Croatian cultural landscapes (2015) by Biserka Đumbović Bilušić was consulted. In addition to technical assistance in determining the different typologies of landscapes in general and the subdivision of cultural landscapes, aligning with UNESCO guidelines, this study is important in terms of adopting a particular perspective on the landscape as “a territory where people live and work, which at the same time provides the community and the individual with a sense of identity and belonging” [3].

The relationship between historical landscape and identity is an important concept that influenced the development of this paper. The same is the case with the landscape-transformation relationship: “Development cannot take place without changes in the landscape, therefore the challenge that is posed today is how to enable changes that will respect the essential features of the landscape and that will also create new values” ([3], pp. 11–12.).

While considering these “new values”, research that explores the relationship between contemporary interventions and the preservation of architectural heritage in general, such as the 2012 Ph.D. thesis by Adi Ćorović, was also consulted. This thesis, which is influenced by Andrea Bruno, explores the possibilities of creating new values within the framework of restoration activities that directly affect the transformation of urban landscapes in historical nuclei.

Regarding urban transformations, the monograph of Mario Mastropiero Beyond restoration (1996) is worth mentioning. The key concepts of the restorer Andrea Bruno, who deals with the relationships and overlapping of different historical layers, have been discussed as well.

The research presented in Anna Onesti’s Building recovery in the Historic Urban Landscape approach (2013) is particularly significant because it not only recognizes the role of local communities as a factor in the preservation of historical townscape landscapes, but also offers concrete solutions and strategies. In this case, it is about Research in progress and the exploration of new rules aimed at the recovery of historical townscapes ([2], p. 159).

In addition, the research of Anna Onesti offers solutions such as:

Interactions Experts—Involvement of the local community in the realization of small local activities to achieve … build rules focused on local specificities and ensure… ([2], p. 159). At the same time, as a practical solution, it focuses on the interaction between different social groups and aims to transfer the “knowledge” of individual groups into a reservoir of common and shared knowledge ([2], p. 170).

Arturo Gallozzi from the University of Cassino and Southern Lazio, in terms of post-war reconstructions, observed three basic concepts: Internal reconstruction as the renewal of the existing; reconstruction as an extension of the construction of a new urban nucleus; reconstruction as an overall reorganization of the pre-existing urban settlement. The author observes that in reality, it is difficult to realize one of the three offered scenarios; it is rather about compromises, as in the case study of the city Cassino, where the plan of reconstruction is characterized by a conservative spirit, but also narrow private interests, as well as a lack of dynamic awareness of the possibilities of future development [4].

Such experiences present important theoretical support for this paper regardless of the different historical contexts (in the case of Italy, the destruction related to World War II, and in the case of Sarajevo, the siege at the end of the 20th century).

3. Materials and Methods

This research first applied the method of direct observation to study the ongoing transformation of the urban landscape over the past 25 years. Thanks to the application of this method, important moments were recorded, including urban transformation when the protected remains of one of the oldest thermo-power stations in Europe were demolished. In addition, the demolition of one of the most successful examples of the interpolation of modern architecture in the historical nucleus of Sarajevo from 2013 was recorded.

Thanks to the same method, other interventions in the area of Sarajevo Čaršija have been recorded that significantly affect the urban landscape of Sarajevo. Direct observations have been made using photographic and mapping records, especially in research conducted by experts of the Commission to Preserve National Monuments of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Some of these observations have formed part of the current author’s independent research in the last ten years. In this regard, it should be said that the quality of some older photos (which cannot be recreated, given the urban transformation) is not at the highest level. Nevertheless, their documentary value from today’s perspective is relatively high and is the reason for their presentation in this manuscript.

The case is similar with mapping records, but it should be said that the scope of such records is limited and related to the administrative restrictions under which the Commission to Preserve National Monuments of Bosnia and Herzegovina operates. This method determined important characteristics of the urban landscape, which were then taken as the basis of this research. They were taken to account for determining the degree and nature of the transformation of the historic urban landscape. Further, we consider the criterion of monumental value, given that a large number of historic micro ensembles enjoyed the highest level of protection, even before the designation of the whole Townscape ensemble of Sarajevo as a national monument.

The second method applied in this research is the study method of investigating previous research findings and relevant documentation related to urban metamorphosis. These materials might be divided into two basic groups. The first group includes materials and documentation created as a product of the study of the urban landscape and architectural heritage of Sarajevo.

Research conducted by the Commission to Preserve National Monuments of BiH from the beginning of the 21st century until today (Jajce barrack (2009); research conducted by Firuz-bey hammam (2008); the site and remains of the historical complex of the thermopower station on Hiseta Street (2015); as well as monographs by various authors might be included in this group.

The same group also includes two important decisions of the National Commission that directly concern the urban landscape, including the decision to adopt the Sarajevo Čaršija as a national monument (2014) and especially the decision to adopt the historic urban landscape of Sarajevo as a national monument from 2020. Monographs can be included in the same category, such as Borislav Spasojević’s The architecture of residential palaces of the Austro-Hungarian period in Sarajevo, 1988 and Alija Bejtić’s Streets and squares of Sarajevo, topography, genesis and toponymy, 1973.

The second group of materials is related to the first because it also deals with the topic of the historic urban landscape of Sarajevo, but from the point of view of urban transformations. The emphasis on the method of direct observation stems from the limitation of sources and materials related to the second group, specifically, the limited number of published scientific papers or studies that specifically address the phenomenon of the transformation of the urban landscape in Sarajevo over the past 25 years. Although articles like “Between History and Architectural Laboratory, a case study of Marijin Dvor in Sarajevo” [5] have been published, there is still insufficient historical distance to enable completely objective judgment about the phenomenon. Additionally, the ongoing nature of the transformation process renders works like the Master’s thesis titled “Contemporary Interventions in the Historical Nucleus of the City of Sarajevo” [6] less relevant after only one decade due to the intensive transformations.

Based on the listed materials, including the literature that deals with the phenomena of historical landscapes and transformation in general, in Section 4 (Results), the transformation of the historic urban landscape of Sarajevo will be analyzed through several characteristic case studies. These case studies are located either within the area of the Historical nucleus of the Old Town, which was formed during the Ottoman period, or in the historical area of the city on the opposite western side, which developed during the Austro-Hungarian period. Furthermore, the values of the historic urban landscape of Sarajevo will be explored, taking into consideration its historical genesis and main characteristics.

Finally, in Section 5 (Discussion), based on the aforementioned information, the relationship between contemporary interventions, urban transformation, the interests of investors, and the protection of architectural heritage will be discussed.

4. Results—Historic Urban Landscape of Sarajevo: Its Values and Transformations

4.1. Adoption of the Historic Urban Landscape of Sarajevo as the National Monument of Bosnia and Herzegovina

In 2020, the Commission to Preserve National Monuments of BiH concluded its research, leading to the decision to adopt the historic urban landscape of Sarajevo as a national monument (Figure 1)

This decision was crucial, as it was made by the highest-level national institution responsible for the preservation of cultural heritage. Prior to this, the “City Ambient Complex Sarajevo” was included in the Temporary List of National Monuments under serial number 546. However, keeping such an important historical urban agglomeration on the temporary list for nearly two decades posed challenges. The boundaries of the protected area and the corresponding protection measures were not adequately defined, leading to ambiguity regarding the responsible institution. This resulted in overlapping jurisdiction between the entity and cantonal levels, which, in the context of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s decentralized state structure defined by the Dayton Peace Agreement of 1995 (consisting of three levels: State, Entity, and Canton), was unsustainable and irresponsible in the long run. Therefore, the decision to adopt the Historic Urban Landscape of Sarajevo as a national monument is a welcome development, as it provides clear definitions for coverage, protection measures, and jurisdiction.

4.2. Short Historical Genesis and Development of the Historic Urban Landscape of Sarajevo and Its Main Characteristics

In order to comprehend the complexity of the historic urban landscape of Sarajevo, it is crucial to understand its development since the 15th century. During this time, the distinctive urban character that still exists today was established.

The oldest part of the Urban Landscape of Sarajevo, the preserved urban matrix of Sarajevo Čaršija, serves as a significant testament to the classical phase of Ottoman urbanism in the region of Southeastern Europe, marking the transition to Central Europe. Originally, this matrix reflected social relations, where tolerance towards others and differences was not achieved through territorial concessions, but through permeation. Evidence of this can be seen in the coexistence of places of worship for different faiths in a relatively small area; economic activity involving craftsmen and traders of diverse religions, races, and worldviews conducting business under the same conditions side by side; and the absence of a segregated area for Jews. Many residents of Bosnia and Herzegovina and beyond connect a part of their cultural identity with the social relations symbolized by such an urban matrix [7].

The urban landscape became more intricate during the Austro-Hungarian period (1878–1918) as Sarajevo underwent a transformation into a European city. Urban regulations were implemented, following the model of Vienna. A new city district, Marijin Dvor, emerged in the west, and efforts were made to regulate the historical core of Sarajevo Čaršija. Additionally, reconstruction took place after a devastating fire in 1879, which destroyed 304 houses, 434 shops, and 135 other buildings across 36 streets. As a result, the first Regulatory Plan of Sarajevo was developed, focusing on the central, flat part of the city.

In 1880, a special construction order known as the “Bauordnung” was officially implemented, replacing the Ottoman “Law on Building and Roads” from 1863. Subsequently, in 1893, a new Construction Order was published, which applied to the entire city area [7,8].

The regulation of the Miljacka River occurred between 1886 and 1897 [9]. Unlike the Ottoman period when the city was clearly divided, with the business part in the valley and residential areas on the slopes, the new government primarily focused on developing the valley along the Miljacka river [7]. Consequently, the urban layout shifted from an amphitheater-like design to a longitudinal one. The arrival of the new Habsburg administration brought about fundamental changes in how the city was documented, developed, destroyed, and rebuilt ([1], p. 614).

4.3. The Values of the Historic Urban Landscape of Sarajevo and Their Relation to the Measures of Protection Created by the BiH Commission to Preserve National Monuments

In relation to the long-established values that have developed over centuries, shaping an organic urban framework that mirrors tolerant and diverse social relations, Annex 6 (Guidelines for the Development of the Management Plan) of the decision on the designation of Sarajevo historic urban landscape as a national monument emphasizes, in its initial point, that Sarajevo is already acknowledged and listed on the UNESCO Tentative List as a Unique Symbol of Universal Multiculturalism—a city that remains perpetually welcoming [10].

In this regard, the decision made by the Commission for the Preservation of National Monuments of BH states the following: Article 3 of the General Protection Measures emphasizes the importance of prioritizing the protection, restoration, and reconstruction of historical buildings over the construction of replicas in order to maintain authenticity; in point 2, it is also stated that the interests of individual investors and the development of the real estate market should not take precedence over preservation efforts; points 6, 7, and 8 highlight the need for physical structures to fully respect and enhance the diverse characteristics of geomorphological structures in the landscape. Additionally, it is recommended that the building tradition be maintained by constructing smaller structures with fewer floors on sloped areas, and larger structures with higher floors on flat areas; the design and construction of physical structures should align with the natural and created conditions of the area, while preserving the existing identity of the space, architectural heritage, and continuity of the landscape structure. The cultural–historical and architectural heritage of the natural and urban amphitheater of the landscape should be treated with respect, following traditional principles and valuing “unwritten rules” and urban elements such as volume, sightlines, roofs, courtyards, green spaces, and water features.

In the same document, Article 5 (1) states that in order to protect the space as a historical urban landscape and ensure its development while preserving authenticity, integrity, and value, it is necessary to create a unique spatial planning document that considers the space as a whole (2). The administrative body is responsible for preparing the spatial planning document and must collaborate with the planning organization/service of Canton Sarajevo. Additionally, Article 15 (Implementation of Protection Measures), point 5, specifies that local self-government units and Sarajevo Canton are required to create, adopt, and implement the Management Plan.

Furthermore, Annex 5 (Guidelines for the Preparation of Spatial Planning Documents and the Plan and Project of Heritage Preservation) states in point 1 of the Guidelines that when preparing the necessary spatial planning document, the area of the national monument should primarily be considered as a historical urban landscape. It is crucial to take into account the entire historical layers of cultural and natural values of the historic urban core, ensuring their proper protection, preservation, and presentation. Additionally, the creation of new elements that align with the ambient context and spirit of the present time, while reflecting cultural identity, should be facilitated.

In the same Annex, point 20 stipulates that upgrades, additions, and interpolations are permissible only if they do not alter the value, ambient context, and visual integrity of the specific micro-locality within the national monument. These interventions should not compromise the character and significance of the national monument (both micro-localities and the entire site) and should enable the appropriate reuse of the building while rehabilitating the micro-locality for regular use. The design of the new building should harmonize with the volumes and ground floor heights of the existing buildings adjacent to the subject building [10].

4.4. Case Studies: Contemporary Interventions and Transformation of the Urban Landscape of Sarajevo

4.4.1. Case Studies Regarding the Historical Urban Area of Sarajevo Čaršija Developed during the Ottoman Period

In this case, our focus will be on several specific instances that demonstrate the overall condition and relationship between urban transformations and protection, particularly in terms of heritage preservation. Even prior to 2014, before the adoption of the historical urban area of Sarajevo Square, there were interventions that directly impacted the current state of the protected historical urban area of Sarajevo, which was established in 2020.

The first significant transformation that affected the area in question after the siege of Sarajevo (1992–1995) was the construction of the “Saraj” hotel (Figure 2) on the hill to the east of Sarajevo Čaršija. This construction, which took place at the beginning of the 21st century, is a “hybrid” structure that was carried out in multiple stages by different designers, without a unified concept or construction project.

This volume is located below the Austro-Hungarian architectural complex “Jajce Barracks”, which has been designated as a national monument [11], and it has been protected at the state level since 2009. Consequently, it competes with the protected architectural complex in terms of size. Although this recent building is not officially part of the formal framework of the historic urban landscape of Sarajevo, it directly impacts its perception, which raises concerns about the overall scope. Insufficient consideration was given to the views, visual perception, and connection with the slopes in the border area of Sarajevo Čaršija during the construction process. This construction took place before the adoption of the decision of the Commission, but it was carried out without the required urban planning approvals.

This is an emblematic case of the demolition of the “House of Crafts” (Figure 3 and Figure 4) in the Sarajevo Čaršija area, which occurred in the 1950s under the influence of regional modernism by the renowned designer Andro Čičin Šain. This building was a masterful creation that harmoniously blended elements of modernity with the intersection of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian styles. However, in the midst of the second decade of the 20th century, this remarkable structure was demolished, despite deserving the status of a protected architectural heritage site from the latter half of the century. In its place, a hotel was erected (Figure 5), raising concerns about its compatibility, particularly with the Ottoman architectural elements on the eastern side.

Similarly, interpretive reconstructions of historical buildings in the background along Aščiluk Street are observed (Figure 6).

On Prote Bakovića Street, there are archaeological remains of Firuz-beg’s hammam from the early 16th century (Figure 7), which are protected at the state level. However, archaeological research has been halted, and the site has been closed off by an unsuitable covering and tin fence (Figure 8 and Figure 9) for years. Therefore, the removal of the insignificant one-story building on the site of the valuable remains of Firuz-beg’s hammam [12] is meaningless.

Furthermore, due to the failure to adopt Amendments and Supplements to the Regulatory Plan from 1975, local catering establishments located within examples of preserved vernacular architecture in the historic core of Sarajevo are unable to obtain permits for any interventions that would align the reasons for protection with the demands of representative hospitality and tourism offerings, while harmonizing the old and the new.

The only allowable work is regular maintenance, even if it is evident that certain parts of the buildings cannot be classified as authentic structures. An example of this is the case of the catering facility “Pod lipom” on the same street.

4.4.2. Case Studies Related to the Marijin Dvor Quarter, Which Developed during the Austro-Hungarian Period and Are Part of the Historic Urban Landscape of Sarajevo

In relation to urban and rural landscapes, there is also a subcategory known as the industrial landscape, which is associated with the remnants of industrial culture. This category holds special historical–architectural and technological–scientific value as it showcases the connection between the land and historical industrial infrastructure. In today’s modern world, there is a challenge of revitalizing and preserving industrial landscapes while integrating them into the contemporary urban fabric. By repurposing industrial areas and buildings, new urban values can be realized ([3], pp. 187–188).

From this perspective, the Urban Landscape of Sarajevo itself can be observed, considering the significant examples of industrial heritage in the historical center of the city. This primarily refers to the Marijin Dvor area, where one of the oldest thermal power plants in the region was constructed on Hiseta Street (Figure 10, Figure 11 and Figure 12) at the end of the 19th century. In 1895, a thermopower station and an administrative building [13] were constructed.

As a result of this development, Sarajevo became one of the first cities in Europe to introduce trams. The transformation of this area faithfully reflects the current trend of the relationship between urban development and heritage protection. However, it was a missed opportunity for contemporary intervention to generate new value for the urban landscape.

The prescribed protection measures are arguably the most liberal measures prescribed in the Commission to Preserve National Monuments’ nearly quarter-century practice. These protection measures include, among other things, the following:

Guidelines related to contemporary interpolations:

• … acknowledging the scarcity of material remains (with only the remains of walls and the absence of industrial plant remnants), modern interventions should aim to highlight the symbolic connotations of the Austro-Hungarian period.
• It is permissible to incorporate modern alternative technologies aimed at environmentally friendly energy production as a form of creative expression… the use of photo-sensitive materials … might be explored. Additionally, harnessing wind and water energy from the Miljacka River is feasible.
• …it is important to maintain the functional and historical continuity of the place.
• It is necessary to create a solution that will not disturb the City’s ambient whole in terms of form and dimensions…

Prior to the adoption of the Decision on the protection of the architectural complex, Studio “Urbing” created the “Conceptual solution for the restoration and adaptation of the old Electric Power Station for the purposes of creating a Technical Museum—Correction of the Marijin-Dvor Regulatory Plan” in 2011. The plan involved the partial reconstruction, restoration, and adaptation of the power station building into a Museum of Technology, providing a total space of 7234 m² with a basement, ground floor, and four additional floors [13].

The question of whether urban transformation can generate new urban landscape values seemed achievable. This optimism was based on a combination of liberal protection measures and the positive atmosphere that prevailed in professional circles. In fact, in 2012, world-renowned restorer Andrea Bruno served as an informal mentor for a doctoral dissertation conducted at the Faculty of Architecture in Sarajevo. The focus of this dissertation was the relationship between critical restoration and Bruno’s distinctive restoration work. The central concept of the dissertation was the term “new authenticity” [14]. This concept acknowledged the possibility of preserving architectural heritage while also providing space for contemporary creative architectural expression as part of an integrated protection concept. The ultimate goal was to preserve and transmit integrated authentic values into the future.

Andrea Bruno himself stated that “When the historical layers that lead to its essential transformation overlap in one historical space, it is possible to continue that transformation with more coherent and refined forms. Opportunities to achieve continuity must be used either by adding or subtracting with the aim of removing ‘disturbing memories’” ([14], p. 214) [15]. This concept emphasizes that urban transformations should not be halted but guided toward the preservation of authentic historical values.

For some of his restoration projects, Andrea Bruno drew inspiration from medieval builders who demolished the old without prejudice in order to adapt it to new needs. He found inspiration in this vibrant process, rejecting the indiscriminate concept of demolishing the old and instead selectively preserving the authentic elements and creatively integrating them with the new. By following this approach, the urban landscape can not only be preserved but also improved, contributing to the integration of heritage into the contemporary socio-urban context.

Instead, in 2016, an investor submitted the “Conceptual solution for the protection of the building complex of the Hiseta Thermal Power Plant and the interpolation of modern structures” 2. However, this proposal involved the demolition of architectural heritage, followed by a “faithful” reconstruction of certain parts and the construction of a large contemporary building. This approach stands in opposition to the idea of harmonically integrating heritage into the existing historical urban landscape.

5. Discussion

The relationship between the urban transformation of the historic urban landscape of Sarajevo, contemporary interventions, the protection of architectural heritage, and the various actors and their different interests is complex. When discussing the historic urban landscape of Sarajevo, it is necessary to note that we are dealing with a unique case study in Europe, which Pope Francis during his recent visit in 2015 called ”the Jerusalem of Europe” [16].

This townscape represents a unique urban structure that reflects a rich multicultural tradition not only in the area of the Sarajevo Čaršija formed during the Ottoman period, but also in the western part of the city, formed during the Austro-Hungarian period. In the area of Sarajevo Čaršija, places of worship for all four religious groups (Orthodox Christianity, Catholicism, Islam, and Judaism) were built in close proximity, while in the western part of the city formed during the late 19th century, the Austro-Hungarian administration harmoniously coordinated the new urban matrix with the pre-existing one from the Ottoman period. The fundamental traditional urban concept was preserved, and as such, is worth preserving, where the key issue lies in the relationship between the historic urban landscape and contemporary interventions, which determines the direction of urban transformation.

5.1. Drafting of Spatial-Planning Documents, Actors of Implementation, Decisions Related to the Protection of the Historic Urban Landscape of Sarajevo, and Protection Measures

If we want to evaluate the impact of contemporary interventions on the protection of architectural heritage and the transformation of the urban landscape, it is necessary to first evaluate the effectiveness of the protection measures outlined in the decision to put under protection the historic urban landscape of Sarajevo. The National Commission establishes protective measures for the historic urban landscape of Sarajevo, while the responsibility for implementing the spatial document lies with the Canton at the lower level. Approval for its implementation is required from the intermediate-entity level. However, this system is overly complex and hinders the efficient creation of the plan.

In addition, it is crucial to address certain inaccuracies in the definition of protection measures outlined in the decision to adopt the historical urban landscape of Sarajevo as a national monument of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2020. One significant point is stated as follows: Preserving authenticity prioritizes the protection, restoration, and reconstruction of historical buildings over the construction of replicas (Article 3 of the General Protection Measures—Interventions in the Area of the National Monument, point 1).

The contradiction becomes apparent in the key sentence of the Protection Measures, as it mentions the reconstruction of historical buildings while denying the possibility of replicas. It is unclear how authenticity can be preserved through reconstruction while simultaneously avoiding replicas.

To summarize, the Protection Measures of the decision to designate the historical urban landscape of Sarajevo as a national monument should be supplemented with the concept of integral protection—recognizing the possibility of preserving architectural heritage while also allowing space for harmonious contemporary architectural expression. New buildings should reflect the overall ambiance while incorporating elements of contemporary design.

The protective measures of the historic urban landscape of Sarajevo are indeed focused on preserving fundamental traditional values. These measures have established that the protected area is a symbol of universal multiculturalism, and the interests of individual investors (profit) must not take precedence. It is necessary to preserve the identity of the place and the continuity of the landscape structure.

However, achieving all of this is not possible due to the complexity of implementing the protection measures, which involves multiple administrative decision-making levels. The National Commission establishes protective measures, the lower-entity level issues permits for activities, and the responsibility for implementing spatial documents lies with the Canton at the lower level.

Another important factor is the influence of interest lobbies, where the priority is the construction of large buildings that will bring greater profit. This prioritization of private interests over social interests is evident in the public urban space.

Despite certain shortcomings, the decision of the Commission to Preserve National Monuments to adopt the historic urban landscape of Sarajevo as a national monument holds great importance. This is because previously adopted individual objects or units of architectural heritage cannot be viewed as isolated cases. They must be observed within the context of the organic connection between architectural and natural heritage, which is precisely what this decision achieves.

5.2. Some Dilemmas Related to the Classification of the Urban Landscape of Sarajevo

To understand the complex urban landscape of Sarajevo and its transformation, it is necessary to briefly examine the general definition and division of landscapes, and then, determine the specific category in which such a landscape can be classified. In this regard, it was important to consult the monumental research work of author Biserko Đumbović Bilušić related to Landscapes [3].

Additionally, the Commission to Preserve National Monuments of BiH defined the “Principles and Guidelines for the Preservation of National Monuments” in 2019 [17]. This document served as the basis for the adoption of the historic urban landscape of Sarajevo as a national monument [10]. It is partly based on the UNESCO Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention from 2017 [18] and the UNESCO Vienna Memorandum from 2005 on the “Historic Urban Landscape” approach [19].

Regarding the definition itself, the Commission adopted the UNESCO Operational Guidelines 2017 definition, which states that a cultural landscape represents the “combined creations of nature and man” ([17], p. 34) [18]. As stated in Annex 3 of UNESCO’s Operational Guidelines, the specific assets include cultural landscapes, historic cities and city centers, and cultural heritage routes ([17], p. 34) [20].

The World Heritage Convention from 1992 already acknowledges three basic types of cultural landscapes: consciously created, visibly shaped; organically developed; and associative landscape ([3], p. 181). However, this division seems incomplete, given the possibility of classifying urban, industrial, or agricultural landscape into all three categories, as many possess more than one feature prescribed by UNESCO guidelines ([3], p. 185).

The reason why the Commission classified the area of Sarajevo in the Urban Landscape category lies in the provision of the UNESCO Vienna Memorandum from 2005. This memorandum states that it represents a “living territory” marked by traces of previous generations as a response to the challenges and benefits of the natural environment. In fact, the landscape of Sarajevo is related to the division of the city from the 15th century into the business part in the valley—Čaršija—and the amphitheater-arranged residential units on the slopes of the surrounding hills—Mahala—as well as the later regulation of the bed of the Miljacka river from the end of the 19th century.

Such a landscape is an expression of time and the people who shaped it, including technical achievements, and intellectual and pragmatic attitudes. The historical urban landscape has a clear structure and recognizable components, including built infrastructure, open spaces, and functions. It encompasses the use of space, spatial organization, visual relationships, vegetation, buildings, and all elements of technical infrastructure, including small-scale buildings and construction details ([3], p. 186) [19].

5.3. Urban Transformation of the Historic Urban Landscape of Sarajevo, Contemporary Interventions, and Protection of Its Architectural Heritage

Considering the ineffective implementation of protective measures, it becomes necessary to analyze the development of events, which have, to some extent, taken on disastrous proportions. It is crucial to understand how “spontaneous” (illegal) urban transformations impact heritage and the urban landscape.

It should be noted that the previously protected historic city area of Sarajevo Čaršija has largely been integrated into the historic urban landscape of Sarajevo. However, the Regulatory Plan of Sarajevo Čaršija from 1975, which called for the demolition of all buildings constructed after 1879 (prior to the Austro-Hungarian period) except for the City Hall, was never implemented. Although these measures from the 1975 Regulatory Plan were suspended by previous protective measures, issues such as traffic management and unresolved matters continue to directly impact the entire historic city area of Sarajevo.

As for the area of Sarajevo Čaršija, a big problem is interventions carried out without urban planning approvals, which are outside of the historic area but in direct visual contact with Sarajevo Čaršija (Hotel “Saraj”). This incoherent structure disrupts the Urban Landscape and visually competes with historically significant buildings such as the Jajce barracks complex.

Interventions that were not foreseen with the 1975 Regulatory Plan include the construction of a hotel on the site of the “House of Crafts”, a modernist creation from the 1950s that harmoniously blended with the historic urban tissue. It served as a shining example of how urban transformation can generate, create, and develop new heritage. It is evident proof that, more than half a century later, the same location experienced a reverse process where urban transformation actually resulted in the degradation of heritage.

Similar to a series of micro-interventions in the area of Sarajevo Čaršija, such as the inappropriate interpretation of vernacular architecture in the same zone along Aščiluk, the same concept was applied with the inappropriate kitsch decoration of a catering establishment situated within the remains of the Kolobara han (Figure 13)—the oldest preserved inn from the 15th century in proximity to the Gazi Husrev-beg mosque (Figure 14).

These kinds of interventions and the demolition of characteristic examples of architectural heritage represent examples of the irreversible transformation of the historic urban landscape in the very heart of the historical core. Other interventions, such as kitsch decorations in important historical places like Kolobara-han, represent inappropriate interventions that can be corrected with the implementation of protective measures.

In the area of Prota Bakovića Street, after the completion of the excavation of the archaeological remains of Firuz-beg’s hammam, a contemporary intervention aimed at a worthy presentation of the protected heritage from the Ottoman period was never carried out. The current status quo and the lack of urban transformation in this case represent a significant alteration of the urban landscape.

Earlier, a business building was constructed in Bravadžiluk Street, in the immediate vicinity of the symbol of Sarajevo—City Hall (Vijećnica), which deviates from the traditional urban matrix (Figure 15).

Likewise, in the first decade of the 21st century, the monumental Gazi Husrev-beg Library was built: a significant cultural center where priceless library treasures are kept in one place, but also a place where the restoration and study of such treasures is possible.

However, from the perspective of the preserving the historical townscape of Sarajevo, this intervention seems problematic for at least three reasons: The first reason is that a volume that does not correspond to the traditional urban matrix has been introduced. The second reason is that it was built next to Gazi Husrev-beg’s madrasa from the 16th century (Figure 16), which is literally overshadowed by a tall building. The third reason is that the volume of the new building is significantly larger than the largest mosque in Sarajevo, which is located on the opposite side of the street (Figure 17).

Furthermore, the transformation of the area of the former Hiseta thermopower station in the Marijin Dvor quarter on the opposite west side of the city may have long-term implications for the quality of the historic urban landscape of Sarajevo.

Liberal measures to protect this area were aimed at the preservation of the urban landscape, but at the same time, the interests of potential investors were taken into account, allowing interventions that would serve their profit-making interests. However, it is evident that even the most liberal protection measures are merely a component of the solution and are frequently insufficient. This is due to the conflicting imperative to generate extra profit, which contradicts the fundamental principles of heritage protection.

The investor’s “Conceptual solution” from 2016 declaratively predicted “protection” and the application of the “Principle of democratization of heritage”, which the author described as “the involvement of people—users and the local community and their needs in protection, restoration, and use”². The design solution clearly demonstrates tendencies that are in direct conflict with the fundamental reasons for heritage protection and positive urban landscape transformation. The proposed method of “Temporary Dislocation” of the same author suggests dismantling the remaining authentic construction, with the plan to magically return it to its original location after the construction of new business and museum buildings. This project also proposes the use of the “contrast method” for interpolation, including the construction of a disproportionately large tower that not only clashes with the industrial heritage but also disrupts the entire historic urban landscape.

In terms of protection measures, a symbolic “height accent” is indeed included to evoke the collapsed industrial chimney. However, it is inappropriate and, more accurately, wrongly interpreted as a tower with G + 27 floors, situated above the recomposed (reconstructed after dislocation) remains of the authentic structure.

Considering this sequence of events, it is not surprising that no protection measures were implemented until March 2023. The situation nearly spiraled out of control as the building posed a danger to passers-by. Consequently, on 30 March 2023, the demolition of the remaining industrial building began, with only the segment of the northern wall facing Hiseta Street being preserved (Figure 18).

As a result, the historic urban landscape will undergo irreversible changes, and the city will lose authentic material evidence of one of Europe’s first thermal power plants, which enabled Sarajevo to have public lighting in 1895, just thirteen years after New York [13].

However, the current state of society, burdened with ideas where profit dictates nearly every decision made by investors, has not allowed for the development of urban transformation based on the best European traditions.

This is about the fact that the essence of the traditional historical urban matrix based on an inclusive multicultural concept is not only related to the existence of different religious places of worship. The essence is connected, above all, to the spatial relationships present in the area of the historic townscape of Sarajevo. These relationships are a reflection of the active involvement of the local community, which traditionally based urban transformations on unwritten rules related to respecting the rights of neighbors (komšiluk), which implied restrained interventions. The transformations shown are not in accordance with the essential values of the historic townscape of Sarajevo or with the traditional multicultural identity.

In that process, traditional knowledge, or the interaction of different social groups, previously mentioned as an important factor by the researcher Anna Onesti, was neglected, and therefore, it is difficult to expect activities that would lead to the recovery of historical townscapes. Such contemporary transformations make impossible the traditional social inclusion present in a multicultural society where every social or ethnic group, since the foundation of Sarajevo in its present form in the 15th century but even earlier, was welcome.

In the part of the city created during the Ottoman period, on the basis of respect for traditional knowledge, it is possible to carry out transformations that will preserve the traditional urban matrix and, at the same time, provide the opportunity for investors to make the necessary income. Revitalization and adaptation to the modern needs of neglected historical buildings and units with the participation of the local community and the preservation of traditional values should be given priority over demolition and mismatched interpolations.

On the other hand, a radical shift in the urban approach is required on the city’s western side. The area of the city where the Austro-Hungarian administration built the first specially designed museum in this part of the world (National Museum of BiH) and one of the first thermal power plants in Europe is mostly left to interest lobbies for which the protection of the historical townscape and urban identity is not a priority. The harmoniously imbued urban matrices of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian periods, and the period between two World Wars, that reflect a multicultural urban identity are threatened by unarticulated intervention.

The approach must be such that priority is given to social interest. In 2011, the never-realized project of the Museum of Technology [13] was created while preserving the authentic structure of the Hiseta thermal power plant. It is certain that it is not possible to revive the original function, but such a historical symbol of technological progress from the end of the 19th century can be revitalized into a museum, including the contemporary modern technological elements of sustainable design.

When we talk about the general rules related to the transformations of reconstructed cities, the researcher Arturo Gallozzi concluded that in reality, a combination of different concepts is carried out, which implies the reorganization of the pre-existing urban settlement with new construction, where the influence of private interests and low awareness of future development ultimately lead to inappropriate urban development.

If we compare the urban development scenarios from the period after World War II in Italy and the current trends in the transformation of the historic townscape of Sarajevo, it is possible to confirm that the influence of private interest and low awareness of future urban development on the well-being of the community is a common characteristic.

A common characteristic is that urban reconstruction is considered as a reorganization of the pre-existing urban settlement with new construction, given that ex novo urban development plans are unrealistic in terms of space and finance.

On the other hand, the difference is in the intensity and character of construction within pre-existing urban settlements, where the executed or planned new construction disrupts the balance or renders meaningless the historic townscape of Sarajevo, as a symbol of the cosmopolitan idea of the possibility of realizing a multicultural concept in the present time.

In accordance with the above, considering the research on urban transformations in historic landscapes in general, research should be directed towards determining the intensity of construction that can be achieved without damaging or, in more severe cases, destroying the historical townscape and its associated universal and specific values of the local community. At the moment, it is difficult to answer this question, and it can be assumed that future research will give a polyvalent answer that will depend on different criteria and circumstances.

6. Conclusions

The prevailing logic in today’s society is in contradiction with the preservation of heritage. As a result, authentic historical complexes are being dismantled through radical urban transformations, particularly in the historical core. This will undoubtedly have long-term repercussions on the physiognomy of the historic urban landscape of Sarajevo, with consequences that are still unknown. This unique city, with its centuries-old multicultural tradition, already endured the ordeal of destruction during the period of 1992–1995. Now, it faces the even greater challenge of social transition, directly impacting the city’s shape and identity.

The impact of contemporary interventions from the end of the second decade of the 21st century, which were not previously foreseen by regulatory plans, has a devastating effect on the urban landscape, directly related to the multicultural character of Sarajevo. From such activities, one can clearly see the predominance of private interest and the pursuit of profit over social interest. Investors often do not feel a special responsibility towards the broader social interest and the preservation of the unique historical urban landscape, which holds significant value in Europe.

In this case, a conclusion is not enough; it is necessary to define some rules that would prioritize social interest over private and work towards changing the negative impact of contemporary interventions:

• It is necessary to propose a simplification of the decision-making and implementation system. The Canton of Sarajevo and the associated institutes for planning and heritage protection should be given greater autonomy when planning the creation of spatial plans, allowing for a freer interpretation of certain protection measures. In such complicated administrative systems, the obligation to create combined work teams should be introduced to increase decision-making efficiency and achieve benefits for the historical urban landscape.
• It is crucial to reduce the influence of interest lobbies on institutions that are directly related to the development of contemporary interventions that affect the transformation of the historic urban landscape of Sarajevo.

The experiences of mobilizing citizens—who, in 2017, expressed their public displeasure through the Association of Architects of BiH regarding inappropriate modern interventions in the area of the archaeological site of Tashlihan [21] in the Sarajevo Čaršija—represent a recipe for effectively combating this phenomenon and stronger involvement of the local community in the process of decision making.

Raising awareness about the significance of preserving cultural heritage within the urban landscape is necessary; furthermore, proactive action is also needed. This includes introducing stimulating economic incentives that clearly encourage both investors and ordinary citizens to recognize the economic and social benefits of heritage protection.

Such solutions can then be applied to historic urban landscapes around the world that are threatened by thoughtless construction driven by profit interests. The aim is to harmonize contemporary interventions with the protection of architectural heritage in order to improve endangered historic urban landscapes that are often linked to the identities of entire social communities.