Case study examines how urban-architectural competitions impact spatial planning, suggesting implications for future practices.
Urban-architectural competitions and Special Purpose Area Spatial Plans (SPASP) represent different levels in the spatial and urban planning process, defined by the legal framework. SPASP establishes a broader spatial basis by defining land use, space utilization, protection, infrastructure solutions, and basic planning guidelines, while competitions provide detailed conceptual solutions for specific spatial units, often including innovative architectural and urban concepts. This case study examines the manner and procedure through which the influence of competition solutions on the SPASP preparation process can be recognized, where certain elements of awarded competition solutions are integrated into the spatial plan development phase. This approach reveals deviations from standard practices, raising questions about the flexibility of planning procedures and the level of detail in planning solutions within spatial planning. Insights from the case study open space for further discussion on the future development of planning practices and the regulatory framework.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Solujić et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: