*2.4. The Sustainability Indicators of Regeneration Strategies for Historic City Centers*

The evaluation and measurement of the quality and success of the implemented strategic urban regeneration projects according to the urban management model [16] depend on the angle of view, i.e., from public, private, or civil sector positions and, accordingly, the system of values and goals, which each actor defines individually or jointly in the partnership. This also raises questions of efficiency and effectiveness.

Effectiveness refers to issues related to the quality of implemented strategic urban regeneration projects. Issues regarding the effectiveness of strategic urban regeneration projects are related to the values that exist in a particular society and whether solely political representatives define the goals or whether goals are defined in interaction with other actors in society in collaborative ways. Thus, the model [16] distinguishes two essential elements concerning efficiency, such as:


Efficiency refers to the process of implementing strategic urban regeneration projects. Thus, three essential elements concerning efficiency can be distinguished, such as:


Regarding the strategic urban regeneration projects in the urban management model [16], their successful implementation requires a system of developing new urban management and policy instruments and a continuous system of monitoring and evaluating the effects that projects have on urban development. It is necessary to distinguish between the interests and goals that actors have, both individually and jointly in partnerships, so that outcomes are also measured against individual outcomes, and to avoid an overflow of responsibility. Additionally, monitoring the effects of the implementation of strategic urban regeneration projects is important because the actions and projects that do not meet the formulated goals, objectives and performance can be evaluated, changed and adjusted, or even abandoned.

Regarding indicators, there are no standardized sustainability indicators for historic cities and heritage sites, since they have to be adapted to particular needs and specific contexts. Sustainability indicators constantly have to be modified and must be flexible and revisable to allow monitoring, control, and prediction [20].

However, in the quest for an all-embracing typology of sustainable indicators in relation to the revitalization of historic urban quarters in a changing context, we argue that, for the formulation and conception of the regeneration and protection strategy for the historic city centers, as well as for its implementation:


Furthermore, the site-specific indicator selection process offers a methodology for combining goals' and objectives' formulation with community participation for the relevant, sustainable indicators of historic cities and heritage areas [27] as:


### **3. Urban Planning and Governance in Relation to the Preservation of Protected Heritage in Serbia**

The problems facing Serbia are numerous and are mostly conditioned by the changing social, economic, and political ambient. Since the breakup of former Yugoslavia, Serbia has gone through a period of devastating economic, social and cultural crises. Problems with the preservation of cultural heritage have culminated over the last three decades, especially since the beginning of the wars in the territory of former Yugoslavia. Their causes are manifold, ranging from the most dangerous, such as war devastation, through to traditional negligence, the absence of a national strategy in this area and, finally, because of outdated and inapplicable legal regulations [28]. The restitution of several cultural and historical monuments to private owners introduced new actors in the heritage management process. Their behavior, apart from restrictive measures, has not been accompanied by an integral policy or by incentive measures. Due to the slow response of public institutions and low awareness of the new owners, there was an inexperienced restoration or even demolition of monuments and cultural heritage in order to obtain valuable construction land. The insufficient motivation of the decision-makers and lack of public funds for projects restoring historical urban landscapes led to the destruction of many valuable cultural monuments and their surroundings.

An integrative territorial approach to the protection of cultural and natural heritage and landscapes was introduced in the Spatial Plan of the Republic of Serbia from 2010 [29], in accordance with European standards of protection. Nevertheless, although this approach contributes greatly to the recognition of cultural heritage as a resource for sustainable development, the problem remains regarding the legal and institutional framework of protection. That framework is still inconsistent with contemporary conservation approaches, which raises the question of the possibility of implementing planning recommendations. Worth mentioning in this respect is that the Law on Cultural Properties from 1994 is still in power, and it does not comply with international recommendations, nor does it recognize categories of cultural landscapes and historic urban landscapes. Additionally, UNESCO's Recommendations on the Historic Urban Landscape form 2011 [9] have not yet been ratified in Serbia.

Nevertheless, there has been progress in Serbia regarding strategic planning. Priority areas for urban intervention have been identified in the Sustainable Urban Development Strategy of the Republic of Serbia until 2030 [30], linking recognized development problems with specific locations, thus directing local integrated urban development strategies to priority projects. Spatial units with cultural and architectural heritage, important urban settlements as reference points of cultural and historical development, and a group of urban settlements were individually set aside, following the perceived need to extend the subject of protection and the notion of cultural heritage. The following interventions are proposed within the Sustainable Urban Development Strategy—the rehabilitation and revitalization of buildings and architectural heritage; an integrative approach to the protection of cultural property and the urban protection of buildings and entities which are not under institutional protection; the adaptation of architectural heritage buildings according to modern requirements, such as energy efficiency; etc.

Nonetheless, Serbia has to incorporate a number of contemporary United Nations resolutions in its pursuit for its own model of heritage protection. HABITAT III Global Human Settlements Conference 2016 [31] promotes a new, integrative approach to urban planning and decision-making processes for the future of development. Out of the seven important areas for ensuring the sustainable development of cities, the first is urban regulation, land, and management, and the second is planning and design. The third component necessary for lasting prosperity is a financial plan that provides adequate revenue to achieve strategic objectives.

### *Advantages and Limitations of the Transition from Conventional to Strategic Planning in Serbia in Relation to Heritage Protection*

Following significant social, political and economic changes in Serbia in the early 1990s, there were, among other things, changes in planning and management policies that addressed the issue of protected historic urban landscapes. Although the management and planning of development in protected urban landscapes in Serbia is governed by a set of development and planning documents, as well as by the appropriate institutional framework, the practice has shown that this planning system is not efficient enough. Furthermore, the market pressures for land lead to unavoidable devastation of valuable architectural and urban heritage, which often leads to changes in their functional and spatial characteristics, causing the creation of so-called quasi cultural heritage. The physical degradation of heritage leads to its economic decline, but also to a decrease in real estate value. This loss of economic value has negative effects on the social component of cities, which is reflected in the impoverishment, deterioration, and eventual migration of the local population from historic centers of Serbian cities.

As there is no single strategy for urban development, due to the diversity of local conditions, development planning should address the development of guidelines, models, and action plans and programs. Management plans should provide policy instruments for implementation, as opposed to current project-oriented planning, and strategic plans should provide a link between strategy and implementation. Urban development planning should coordinate between sector strategies and sector policies with spatial resources.

Nevertheless, the transition from conventional to strategic planning is neither simple nor easy. When looking at the international experiences of prosperous cities and the global challenges that historic cities are facing, it is clear that Serbia needs to define fundamental mechanisms as soon as possible. This means that Serbia has to move from an ad-hoc style of making decisions regarding urban development to a systematically organized and defined way of planning development using strategic plans. Vujoševi´c [32] states that the failure of strategic planning in Serbia is the responsibility of an elite that does not have a clear answer to the challenges our country faces. The slow development of civil society institutions is contributing to these processes, as well as poor education, which reduces the value of human capital.

Since citizens in almost all the countries of former Yugoslavia have not yet developed an awareness of their impact on decision-making, in Serbian circumstances the Serbian Government could oblige all local governments to develop a spatial development strategy with the participation of all relevant stakeholders. Based on these assumptions, local governments would develop action plans that could define the exact time and framework for the implementation of agreed goals and objectives. By providing financial assistance for development projects within action plans at the local level, the state would limit local governments to arbitrarily managing the development, with the mandatory condition that funds from the local budget can be spent solely on the implementation of the tasks specified in the action plans, which are derived from development strategies. Controlling the public budget expenditures would make local decision-makers more serious in the process of creating an integrated spatial development strategy as an umbrella document. Indeed, citizens would also be interested in getting involved in the development of the strategy, as the strategy sets priorities and budgetary resources for the implementation of projects. In this way, citizens could formally influence decision-making and the implementation of these projects, because, to date, it has been the practice for politicians to implement projects at their discretion.

Based on the experience of cities in other post-socialist countries, local authorities in Serbia could involve the private sector in the decision-making process and integrate comprehensive urban and financial planning through strategic planning. Furthermore, participation and collaboration should be integral parts of the decision-making process, since strategic plans involve the active participation of stakeholders, and the definition of problems, visions, objectives, and means of implementation [33].

A significant problem in the implementation of strategic urban planning in Serbia is the requirement for institutions to introduce consulting practices through which the legitimacy and diversity of inputs are established [34]. It is necessary to establish clear demarcations of responsibilities between institutions to prevent conflicts of interest, especially between governmental and non-governmental organizations, which have a crucial impact on strategic planning. Western Europe has a suitable institutional setting for strategic planning because it has a long tradition of involving all three sectors and embracing public interventions for the common good. Western countries include a large number of partners in urban spatial strategies in decision-making, policy formulation and implementation.

Local governments in Serbia have adopted comprehensive strategic development plans from the year 2000, which are called sustainable development plans in most municipalities, as well as individual sector strategies. A particular problem is that the priorities highlighted in the strategies are not precisely the projects for which they are competing and receiving external funding to finance or co-finance in the implementation process. The existence of development plans does not mean that development is also managed systematically. The main problem is budget preparation and the lack of financial and informational instruments for implementation. Without any reliance on a planning document, local governments often do not follow the plans and deadlines for implementation in strategic documents, and priorities are changed by the will of individuals [35]. Regarding implementation, the success of such plans varies in practice. Strategies are very often informal documents adopted by local governments on their own initiative. The quality of strategies depends on already established procedures, policies, institutionalized practices and forms, value systems and ways of observing phenomena, etc.

### **4. The Case Study: Historic City Center of Novi Pazar in Serbia**

Novi Pazar is a town in southwestern Serbia, and the regional, economic, cultural and educational center of Raška region, which still retains its historic name—Sandžak. According to the 2011 census [36], Novi Pazar has 100,431 ethnically heterogeneous inhabitants, comprising 80% Bosniaks, 15% of Serbs and a small percentage of other nationalities. The city today covers an area of 742 km2, with an average density of 135 inhabitants per hectare.

The founding of Novi Pazar as a town is linked to the establishment of the Ottoman rule in these areas. The name Novi Pazar is related to the first official document from 1461, when the Republic of Ragusa—today's city of Dubrovnik in Croatia—sent its judges to the town of Novi Pazar. The name was probably due to the existence of the Old Trgovište town with the vast market-place—today's Pazarište site—a medieval settlement from the period of the old Serbian state of Raška located just a few kilometers from the present-day town of Novi Pazar. Both town names literally mean the market place in the Serbian language and are believed to have existed in parallel for some 100 years, when the Old Trgovište town was economically stifled and abandoned [37].

The favorable position along the Raška River on the crossroads and trading routes between neighboring regions of Zeta and Bosnia in the west, and Kosovo and Metohija in the south enhanced the strategic importance of the town of Novi Pazar and its rich cultural heritage. Its historic center as a business and commercial part of the town, with the fortress of Novi Pazar in the vicinity, as part of the once more significant market place, is one of the best-preserved urban heritage sites of its kind in Serbia and was declared the spatial cultural–historical unit of great importance in the Republic of Serbia. The creation of the historic center is related to the construction of the first 56 shops in the newly formed settlement built by the military commander and contributor Isa-beg Isakovi´c. It is believed that during this period, the first public buildings were built, such as the central mosque and the hammam—Turkish bath—that has been preserved to the present day. The historic center was built first on the left and then on the right bank of the Raška river, and reached its peak in the second half of the 17th century, when it was a large and rich oriental historic center, with several small and bigger lodgings, market places, hammams and about 1200 shops. The fact that during the time of the travel writer Evlija Celebija in the sixteenth century, Novi Pazar had the status of a town—besides Belgrade, ˇ Skopje, Sarajevo and only 10 other cities in the occupied Serbian part of the Ottoman Empire—speaks of the richness and development of the city. From the 19th century until liberation from the Turks in

1912, Novi Pazar achieved a significant degree of economic development, and most of the historical buildings from that period still exist today [37].

The city of Novi Pazar underwent a drastic urban transformation after World War II due to changed socialist ideological conditions, like most of the cities in the former Yugoslavia. The first general urban plan of the city of Novi Pazar was adopted in 1956, and shortly after that a city center project was created in 1968 that would give Novi Pazar a whole new modern spatial and visual identity. With this design of the city center, dominated by high-rise buildings along the arched road forming the wall, the city was symbolically divided into the center and the outskirts [38]. The settlement on the left bank of the Raška River—the historic city center—underwent significant changes during the implementation of this plan. A significant number of buildings were demolished around the town square to form roads and a new Municipal and Cultural Center building.

A significant change occurred in 1977 when the Institute for the Protection of Monuments from the city of Kraljevo recorded monuments and started the research and valorization of cultural heritage in this area. Moreover, a large group of architects and architecture students did their primary research in the period from 1971 to 1973, which served as the basis for the adoption of the General Plan for the Valorization and Protection of the Historic Center of Novi Pazar in 1975. Furthermore, the area of the medieval fortress of Old Ras—one of the first capitals of the medieval Serbian state of Raška—was listed on the UNESCO World Heritage List in the late 1970s. Consequently, a committee for the protection and management of cultural heritage in the municipality of Novi Pazar was established during this period. An important activity of the committee was to implement an appropriate approach for the planning of heritage protection, including the historic city center in Novi Pazar.

Thus, in 1986 and 1987, additional research and documentation of heritage began, which resulted in the development of a detailed plan for the protection and revitalization of the historic city center in Novi Pazar in 1988, under the leadership of Jovan Neskovi´c, professor of architecture and a leading expert in the field of heritage protection and revitalization in the country at that time. Most of the buildings in the historic center were valorized and received legal protection [39]. As a result, significant public buildings in this area were restored during the period of the welfare state in former Yugoslavia.

Another critical period for the historic part of the city was during the 1990s, when the economic and social crisis in Serbia caused many substantial visual and spatial changes to it. The most evident changes were related to the great number of illegal interventions on housing stock in the historic center, e.g., without the consent of the Institute for the Protection of Monuments. Most of the shops modernized their storefronts during that period, which, although appealing in appearance, were not entirely in line with the character of the historic city center. The attitude that it is possible to perform works without obtaining a building permit has been maintained up to the present day, as evidenced by the latest interventions on the Arab Mosque, shown in Figure 3.

**Figure 3.** Panorama of the historic center in Novi Pazar with the Arab Mosque under reconstruction.

From the 2000s, with the recovery of the state and with the market liberalization in Serbia, control over development processes began to be also established throughout the city of Novi Pazar, as well as in its historic part. Those circumstances have influenced a shift from physical to integral socio-economic territorial development, with the introduction of new planning concepts and instruments. Hence, new forms of planning in the form of participatory processes and strategic plans have emerged, including new models of cooperation between municipalities and educational institutions conducted as a simulation of a strategic planning exercise [40]. An essential event for the development of the historic center of Pazar is the adoption of the Plan of Detailed Regulation of the Historic Center with the park in 2017. Although this plan is primarily focused on the arrangement of the physical and spatial layout and land uses, it is an essential basis for the future development of the old historic city center of Novi Pazar.

### *4.1. The Context and the Level of Obsolescence and Dynamics in the Historic Center of Novi Pazar: The Physical, Social, Economic, Environmental and Governance Aspects*

### 4.1.1. The Spatial and Functional Aspect

The historic center in Novi Pazar today is one of the rare and relatively well preserved urban heritage sites of its kind in Serbia. In the postwar period, the historic center underwent significant changes, such as its demolition and new construction. In the historic center and its surroundings, many objects of larger volume and inappropriate architecture were built, which did not comply with the standards and character of the historic center. The historic center has remained a vibrant and very active part of the city with a high level of development dynamics; however, many commercial and trade shops have replaced traditional, old wooden windows—for reasons of modernization, cost and energy efficiency—with new modern aluminum and plastic windows in a different color that is not suited to the character of the historic center. Furthermore, a large number of buildings on the 1st of May Street have problems with water supply, plumbing systems and sewage, while some stores do not have any sanitary facilities at all [39].

A significant problem is the fact that a large number of buildings are not in use, and houses in which the old crafts have been situated are being replaced with new uses that are often inconsistent with the historic character of the historic center. Most of the interventions have been done superficially, unprofessionally and without analysis and proper expert approach. The hammam building dating from the 15th century, being the oldest and most important building in the historic center, is not in proper function. The hammam building (Figure 4) was used for a long time as a warehouse, and one part of the facility was converted into a food preparation facility 15 years ago and used only during the summer months, since the roof was demolished. One of the most visually striking objects is the Han Smailbegovi´ca building, popularly known as the Grenade. This facility has been out of service since the 1990s, further contributing to its decay and, eventually, this resulted in the facility burning completely in the 2013 fire.

The replacement of cobblestone asphalt on the 1st of May Street in 1965 and vibrant automobile traffic further shattered the ambiance and atmosphere of the historic center [41]. The condition of the infrastructure is reduced, as asbestos piping has been obsolete a long time ago, while numerous electrical power lines visually pollute this space.

During the 1990s, after the change in the social system and the weakening of the control over construction activities and inspection by the national and local authorities, the historic center has been left to the market forces, and many buildings were illegally constructed and reconstructed resulting in the devastation of the whole historic center. Another feature of modern interventions was the distinction of illuminated advertisements and billboards, which devastated the physical appearance and ambiance of the entire historic center (Figure 5).

Furthermore, due to the massive influx in population from the surrounding areas, the city of Novi Pazar has been exposed to an intense urbanization process in recent years. A large number of the old structures located in the contact zone of the historic center have been demolished to provide valuable building land for the construction of multistory residential and commercial buildings (Figure 6).

**Figure 4.** Hamam of Isa-beg Isakovi´c, 15th century, (**a**) street view; (**b**) birds eye view.

**Figure 5.** (**a**) Placing billboards in the historic center without any order; (**b**) new shop windows in a different color and material that are not suitable to the character of the historic center.

**Figure 6.** A cleared site for the construction of a multi-story building in the immediate vicinity of the historic center in the 7th of July Street (**a**) street view; (**b**) view of the lot.

These new buildings certainly do not fit the character of the historic center, regarding their height and size, and contribute to the image obsolescence. Another problem is the additional burden of the already existing infrastructure systems of the historic center. Parked vehicles in the narrow and winding streets inherited from the past create blockages for the smooth passage of pedestrians and utility vehicles, adding to the functional obsolescence.

### 4.1.2. The Social Aspect

Almost all of the buildings in the historic city center are privately owned. Currently, the biggest problem is the fact that a large number of objects have more than one owner, and a considerable number of them have more than three owners. A substantial number of buildings on the 1st of May Street are owned by the Islamic Community. Since the restitution process of returning confiscated property from the socialist period to its real owners has not yet been completed, court disputes prevent any activity on the objects. It is important to realize that a solution to property ownership issues is a fundamental prerequisite for beginning the process of regenerating the historic center at all.

Another key point regarding social issues is significant research about the inhabitant's and shop owner's satisfaction with the housing options and places of residence in the historic center done by Muli´c [42]. The research reveals that the historic center is mainly populated by an older population which is over 50 years old, while a younger population of less than 40 years old lives in the new residential areas of the city [42]. This is explained by the fact that older families find it more challenging to move to new settlements, but there are also financial reasons behind this. Old-town residents are natives that have lived in these facilities for more than 40 years and they constitute 65 percent of the city center population. In terms of education, the older generations generally have completed secondary education, while the younger population living in new settlements have completed higher education. In a survey of 355 respondents, about satisfaction with living conditions and comfort, 15 percent of people answered that were satisfied, 20 percent were partially satisfied, while 65 percent of the surveyed responded that they were not satisfied with the levels of comfort of living in the old city center. Only one percent of residents would demolish their buildings to build new ones, 16 percent thought they could continue living in those buildings with minor renovations, while most, as many as of 64 percent, of residents replied that the facilities should be adaptively reused, while 16 percent of respondents would preserve objects for reasons of nostalgia and historic character and leave them without any use or purpose [42].

## 4.1.3. The Economic Aspect

The economic land uses—such as commercial and trade shops along the 1st of May Street, which is currently one of the busiest streets in the city—are extremely economically valuable as they carry out vibrant economic activity. The trend of opening new bars has recently become noticeable. The entire city, including this historic city center, has seen a rise in property values in recent years due to population growth, greater appreciation of the heritage values and the economic concentration of activities. This dynamic economic activity that puts particular pressure on property owners to modernize their stock. Nonetheless, important to this research is the fact that there is a conflict between the demands for modernization and the preservation of authenticity.

Regardless of this economic growth, the price of land is much lower in the historic center than in the areas directly adjacent to this part of the city. As an illustration of this trend—according to an interview conducted with a private investor who recently bought a building plot on the 1st of May Street—the price of the land in this part of the city ranges from 30 to 50 thousand euros per acre (100 m2). For comparison, the price of land in the new city center—which is about 100 m away from this part of the city—on the 8th of March Street is between 80 and 100 thousand euros per acre. The price of the land in the historic city center is lower precisely because of the imposed restrictions and the protection zoning regulations in terms of allowed urban coefficients—e.g., the lot coverage, height limitations and floor area ratio (FAR), as well as the poor condition of the existing infrastructure.

### 4.1.4. Environmental Aspect

Traffic jams and lack of parking space are the biggest problems for the city of Novi Pazar in general and the historic center in particular, adding to the functional and locational obsolescence. This causes numerous environmental problems such as air pollution and damage to the facades of the old heritage buildings. A significant environmental problem is also the pollution of land and water from the sewage outflow from the old sewage system. Moreover, as municipal waste collection vehicles find it difficult to access certain parts of the historic center, the municipal waste containers are full and visually unsuitable for this ambiance. Since there are several butchers on the 1st of May Street, it is common to find trash of animal origin in municipal waste containers, and this situation is not sanctioned by the competent municipal services.

Although the Republic of Serbia has adopted the Ordinance on the Energy Performance of Buildings in 2011 [43], the City of Novi Pazar has only recently begun certifying objects, and therefore accurate data on the energy consumption of individual objects are still unknown. In the same way, while the city has started a few projects related to the reduction of public energy consumption in the form of introducing energy-efficient city lighting, the city's clear commitment to addressing these issues has not yet been seen. Likewise, the issue of increasing the energy performance of public buildings and open spaces in the city's historic core is also of paramount importance.

### 4.1.5. Governance Aspect

The local self-government is mainly committed to solving traffic problems, improving the quality of public spaces, creating preconditions for new investments and solving problems of coping with natural disasters, such as river flooding. Heritage preservation is not a priority issue to be addressed both at the national level and the local level of governance, as the state is confronted with the pressing issues of economic consolidation. Even though there is a department dealing with cultural heritage preservation within the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Serbia, adequate models for the creation and implementation of a strategy for the preservation and promotion of architectural heritage have not been developed. Similarly, there is no strong political commitment to addressing issues related to heritage protection and revival at the local level. Although the city supports projects for the branding and promotion of heritage regarding tourism development, there are almost no funds from the local budget allocated to the research on and restoration of architectural heritage. This may be due to the complexity of historic center regeneration, since a large number of private actors need to be involved and significant financial resources invested. Another important aspect is that there is a low level of knowledge and skills among municipal experts in the field of heritage protection, management and regeneration related to the new trends and concepts of sustainable development. Additionally, another critical reason for the slow regeneration are the long-lasting and complicated procedures required to obtain building permits, since they have to be obtained at the national level. This is because the historic center is proclaimed a Spatial cultural–historical unit of great importance and falls under the jurisdiction of the republic level of governance.

According to a survey of a sample of 355 respondents [42], 62 percent of residents believe that the city government is responsible for the bad condition of the built heritage, and as many as 16 percent of the population consider that the state and owners themselves are responsible for this situation. Only five percent of the population was unsure who was responsible for this situation. This is important information for all NGOs dealing with cultural issues, to put more pressure on decision-makers to tackle heritage conservation issues in future.

4.1.6. Problems Derived from the Physical, Social, Economic, Environmental and Governance Aspects

The main problem was identified and elaborated using a problem tree method (Figure 7). It was done in a participatory manner with representatives of the Novi Pazar city authorities, the Institute for Urbanism and Planning of the City of Novi Pazar and Regional Institutes for the Protection of Monuments, and representatives of shop owners and citizens.

**Figure 7.** Problem tree.

The final product of this analysis is a graphical representation of problems, differentiated by causes and effects, which focuses on central or essential problems. This technique helps to understand the context and interdependence of problems, as well as the potential influences, when defining the goals of projects and programs. The problems described here were carefully recognized with the aim of identifying the essential main problems, and real causes and effects of dominant problems on different levels.
