апр 22

Да се потсетиме: (26.09.2011) Невообичаено, во 5 часот наутро помеѓу петок и сабота советниците од општина Центар ги донесоа измените на ДУП „Го­лем ринг,  ју­жен дел – ис­ток“ за изградба на две нови десеткатни згради во зелениот простор спроти хотелот „Бристол“.

И покрај собраните потписи од 1.400 граѓани од урбаната заедница „Роберт Гајдиќ“ против изгласаните измени од Советот на општина Центар, во парковското зеленило спроти хотелот „Бристол“се поставија маркици за два нови административни објекти со височина од 29 метри.“

http://www.build.mk/?p=9856

На 19.03.2013 во циклусот Изборни интервјуа на 24 Вести, гостуваше кандидатот за градоначалник на о. Центар, Владимир Тодоровиќ, во чиј мандат се поставија градежните маркички. Тој го искажа својот личен став за уништувањето на зеленилото спроти Бристол, а за истото ги обвини архитектите.

Новинарката: Опозицијата ве обвинува дека во програмата нудите транспарентност и дека ве интересираат проблемите на граѓаните, ама кога го уништивте паркот спроти Бристол и кога преку ноќ сте го смениле планот, велат шверцерски, воопшто не ве интересирале граѓаните туку вашите лични интереси.

В.Тодоровиќ: Видете искрено бев против тоа. Јас бев против архитектите кои го даваа предлогот и туркаа да се изградат на таа локација овие објекти. Нема тука личен интерес. Тука е инвестиција од страна на државата.

(интервју : Бристол > 46:43 http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xybtiv_24-analiza-19-03-2013_news#.UXWHuLXDAW1 )

ГРАДСКО ЗЕЛЕНИЛО

Зелените слободни површини, освен што се наменети за одмор и релаксација на граѓаните, го подигаат квалитетот на живеење и претставуваат еден од основните хигиенски елементи во градот.

Тие се во значајна мера регулатор на микроклимата во населбата. Зеленилото повлечено низ градот, низ станбените блокови и улици, влијае на смалување на градската бука, прашина и чад. Дрвјата со лисја и развиени крошни  влијаат на  ударната сила на ветерот, го олеснуваат таложењето на честиците прашина  и ги заштитуваат површините од претерано осончување.

Со подигнување на градско зеленило, извесен дел на јаглерод диоксид може да се елиминира по пат на природна асимилација, и тоа приближно 0,4l (што одговара на 0,8г CO2 на 0*C и 760mm Hg) по m2 вегетација на час. Освен зеленилото, важен фактор во прочистување на амбиенталнот воздух од  јаглерод диоксид е воздушното струење – ветер. Доколку при урбанистичкото планирање се изврши правилно поставување на улиците и групирање на објектите и зелените површини,  тогаш ќе се обезбеди  потребната аерација во населбата, а со тоа и подобар квалитет на амбиенталниот воздух.

Последните анализи на градското зеленило во централното подрачје на Скопје, укажуваат на неконтролирано намалување на зелените површини и дрвниот фонд, што е резултат на неоформеното законодавство, непостоењето на институционална организациска структура за планирање, развој и заштита на градското зеленило, како и на неодговорниот однос на државните, градските и општинските институции кон градското зеленило.

http://www.utrinski.com.mk/?ItemID=6DD2381107A45340B50E38E03A8DE57B

ЗЕЛЕНИЛО СПРОТИ БРИСТОЛ

Во оваа прилика би сакале да изјавиме дека и ние, како и г-динот Тодоровиќ, 1.400те граѓани од урбаната заедница „Роберт Гајдиќ“ и новиот градоначалник на о. Центар, сме против “архитектите” кои го дале предлогот да се градат десеткатници во зеленилото спроти Бристол.

Со оглед на тоа што веќе се извршени значителни земјени работи на предметната локација, размислувавме во насока на искористување на ископот  за смесување на подземен  простор за паркирање, а надземниот дел да биде повторно наменет за подигнување на градско зеленило (кое може да се уреди, на пример, преку распишување на конкурс на кој ќе учествуваат студентите од Архитектонските факултети :)

Во прилог ги доставуваме нашите, набрзинка склопени, фото-монтажи:

[gickr.com]_94376a6f-ebc9-3a54-5d17-a423da99418e

мар 29

Модерна архитектура во Скопје се појавува пред земјотресот во 1963та, но својот најголем замав го има во годините по земјотресот, односно во градењето на новото Скопје. Нашиот град тогаш станува полигон за модерната архитектура и во тој период ви нашиот град имаме извонредни премери на овој стил кои малку сме ги подзаборавиле или запоставиле. По повод 4 години од Првото Архитектонско Востание сакаме заедно да се прошетами низ неколку значајни објекти од модерното Скопје  да раскажеме помалку или повеќе познати факти за нив.

Pozadi Fasadite 2013

мар 12

from Polis – a collaborative blog about cities across the globe.

3.01.2012

How Architecture Students Became Activists in Macedonia


Flier for citizen protest to protect a public space in Skopje, Macedonia.

For more than 20 years, since Macedonia became independent from Yugoslavia and replaced a socialist system with a capitalist one, the country has been in a period of seemingly endless transition and privatization. This period has been characterized by extensive building activity, but this has been informal, prioritized private over public interests and had weak regulation. Up to 2009, there were also few investments in public buildings, and these were almost always problematic in terms of location, finances or design competition process (e.g., the competition for Mother Theresa Memorial House).

These controversial developments were usually followed by petitions or similar action from the public, always ignored by officials. With few exceptions, the professional elite have been inert in recent decades — too passive, unorganized and perhaps unprepared for the changes in the society.

What started to happen in 2009 was unprecedented. The government announced large-scale developments for the most valuable empty spaces in the city center, without prior professional debate, a wider analysis or civic inclusion. Because this was the first big investment in public buildings after independence, most people preferred having something built through a non-transparent process rather than having nothing built at all, as before. Another important fact about Macedonian society is the strong party divisions and low democratic awareness among people. Most people would loyally defend the position of their party rather than making demands on those they elected.


One of the new state-supported buildings placed in a problematic location — an area near the river zoned as public space for recreational use and threatened by flooding.

These government projects continued the “private urbanism” of the past 20 years: changing plans overnight (or having no real plan at all) and using planners to execute the wishes of those in power. There were no higher standards of public participation or respect for the creative freedom of the architect, public space or built heritage, not to mention aesthetic or environmental considerations. Instead, these projects made the city’s malfunctioning “transitional architecture” into official policy. Grand groundbreaking ceremonies for big new buildings in problematic locations and with inauthentic, imported and outdated styles were announced in the media every day before the 2009 presidential elections. This may be a well-known campaign tool, but planning must still be a long-term process. Dissatisfaction, especially among architecture students, was rising. Few professors or architects were criticizing the process publicly, and we, the architecture students, couldn’t stand still.

Anger spread on online forums, on Facebook, at home and in gatherings after classes — but no one was doing anything. We were accumulating energy and not more than a Facebook group was needed to start thinking of some kind of real action. But when things are decided behind closed doors and you find about them after the contracts are signed, probably the only thing left to do is protest. Unusually for architects, we decided to organize a protest.

The core of the group was created after classes at the architecture faculty at the University St. Cyril and Methodius, where people were staying and talking for hours. New individuals were joining all the time, and the informal group was given a name: First Archi Brigade. With support from other youth, cultural activists and groups, we organized the protest “First Architectural Uprising.”

We decided to make a broader manifesto summarizing our demands:

Fellow citizens,

OUR city is rapidly and definitely drowning in kitsch of a previously unseen extent and of yet uncertain consequences. The public space in OUR city is subject to plans and projects of politicians-economists and some of their friends, the villain architects, that would build even the Eiffel Tower if wanted by the client. Independent views raised by art historians or other experts are ignored. Instead of public and professional debates about the development of the city, competitions and plans are made in secret. Instead of solving the needs of the citizens, the intent is to solve the problems of political parties. 
.

Therefore, fellow citizens, it’s time to stop criticizing only on Internet forums; it’s time to stand up from our comfortable TV chairs and to join the INITIATIVE: FIRST ARCHITECTURAL UPRISING, instigated by us, the students of the Faculty of Architecture, for the good of Skopje. These are our demands:

1. We demand an official position of the Faculty of Architecture in Skopje on developments concerning the city’s public spaces in the interest of society.

2. We demand a professional debate before every key venture for building projects.

3. We demand transparent competitions, announcements and urbanistic surveys, as well as commissions with representatives and consultants from Macedonia and abroad,

NON-PARTY bodies that will decide about such buildings. The final decision must be sanctioned through a referendum, as practiced in European cities in such cases. Until then, a moratorium for construction must be in place!

4. We demand of politicians to – instead of investing in kitsch architecture, building artificial villages for developing rural tourism, drawing up new urbanistic plans, building on extremely inappropriate parcels – focus on spending public funding on the maintenance of the authenticity and originality of the old buildings that already exist but are decaying due to neglect.

5. We ask that the citizens wake up and for once think with their own heads, and become actors in the building their city’s future instead of remaining merely passive observers.

We then decided to focus the action in one location: a public space where the government planned to erect a building. The site is one of the liveliest places in Skopje, frequented by pedestrians and small happenings. Here, two pedestrian streets conjoin, creating a kind of piazzeta attached to the south-east side of the main square. The initial idea was to stage an urban performance in which people would come from four different sides like a flash mob, creating a human wall that would show passersby how much public space would be occupied by the building. We strongly believed that this place had to be preserved as public space and did not have the spatial capacity for such a big building.


A graphic of pedestrian movement on the piazza.

The project was also problematic from another perspective. This was not just a government building, but a church built with state support. Although Macedonia is a multicultural society, the government was planning to give the location to the church for free and help build it with state money. Therefore, some people supported our protest in the name of the secular character of the state. Other people joined because the project was not economically justifiable: It was too expensive, and as there are three other churches in walking distance, a developing country has more important things to invest in.

The event was open to all the citizens, so anyone could have joined, officially registered with the police, and publicized in the media. But when we arrived on Saturday morning, March 28, 2009, there was a much bigger group already standing there. Most of them had been brought by bus from different towns and carried religious symbols and good-quality fliers (compared to ours, printed at home) supporting the church. Although they claimed they had gathered spontaneously, they were obviously well-organized.

Their main argument was that each European capital has a church in the main square. They also claimed that a church had existed where the city’s shopping center was today and had been destroyed in the 1963 earthquake. They were calling the process of building a new church with totally different architecture, location and urban context a “reconstruction” of that church.


Protesters and counter-protestors in Skopje.

We were unable to make the human wall in the planned spot, so we made it on another part of the square. Some of the counter-protesters used that moment to attack us by shouting offensive words. We responded by singing a children’s song, “Skopje, you will be a joy.” Police stood still and did not enable us to exercise our democratic right to protest. They didn’t even try to stop the aggressive counter-protesters. We didn’t have any choice except to leave.

When we were making the banners (”Do not rape Skopje”) at the faculty the previous night, we had no idea how big this was going to become. It opened up questions beyond urban planning itself, like the rule of democracy and the right to protest. At first, we prayed for any kind of media attention to our action. Afterwards, it was the main news for some time. If the counter-protesters had not come, the event would not have had as much media attention (if any at all). Unfortunately, we were thrown into a media war, political party war and wars of every kind of polarity you can imagine in a society. Both the governing party and the opposition tried to take advantage of the situation. It was a life lesson for us.


Protestors and counter-protestors.

We were called pro-opposition, Muslims, paid traitors, and so on. In fact, the protesters were architecture students, architects and concerned citizens from various religious, ethnic groups and political backgrounds, and the protest was organized with a total budget of 50 euros for hammers and paint spray. Some experts described it as the first civic protest since Macedonia’s independence.

After the event, legal action was started against the attackers among the counter-protestors as well as against participants of our protest who went to the police as witnesses. In the end, all charges were dropped, but the equal treatment of peaceful protesters and attackers was very disappointing for some people. Others saw it as inspiration to continue being proactive.

In the end, the government decided not to build the church there, but not to preserve public space. There was strong political pressure from the Muslim community, who asked for reconstruction of a mosque destroyed around a century ago on the other side of the same square. More as a joke, a group was also asking for a Jedi temple. Faced with a very complex situation, the government decided to keep the square without any religious buildings. But the possibility that the plot can be activated at any moment for a building with another usage unfortunately still exists. A building in this location would be even more illogical now, after a triumphal gate and a monumental statue of Alexander the Great were built there as part of the Skopje 2014 project, because it would block the view between them.

Since the protest, there has been a lot more discussion about architecture and urbanism, even among non-architects. These issues are slowly becoming important subjects to citizens, artists and the media, as they should be. Architects have seen how much architecture and planning are interconnected with other factors. They have realized that no one will give the profession the place it deserves in society unless they ask for it themselves.

In the three years since the protest, First Archi Brigade has remained an informal group and contributed to the architectural debate through events we organized or joined, locally or internationally. We have demanded an international competition for the city center, written letters to the municipal council, initiated establishment of an architectural centre in Skopje, exhibited students’ projects in public spaces, promoted different approaches and initiated open dialogue between professionals and officials. Despite our professional qualifications, gaining acceptance for anyone who thinks differently is a slow and difficult process.


“Don’t Rape Skopje” poster torn by the counter-protestors.

Meanwhile, Skopje’s center has totally changed its image with new developments as part of the Skopje 2014 project. No one could have predicted such a big transformation. From today’s perspective, everything that has been happening in city planning and architecture in Skopje since independence, especially in the last three years, was the logical consequence of some societal processes or lack of others in the previous years.

The protest was a risk that was worth taking, even though it caused us huge troubles and still does. Slowly, but surely, the energy of architects and activists has started to channel into the processes that precede the built product: education, actions, dialogue, raising awareness. This architecture that is not physical, but equally real and alive — one that affects city life today and what will be built in the future. To what degree depends on all of us. 

Snezhana Domazetovska is a student in the Faculty of Architecture at the University St. Cyril and Methodius in Skopje, Macedonia, and a member of the First Archi Brigade.

Credits: Images from First Archi Brigade.


фев 06

Reconstruction plan for Skopje


model for the city center

In January 1965, Kenzo Tange received a telegram from the United Nations asking if he would be interested in participating in an international planning competition for the reconstruction of Skopje, the regional capital of the Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. A severe earthquake hit the city in July 1963, kiling more than 2,000 people and destroying roughly 65 percent of the buildings in the city. Reconstruction following the earthquake was carried out by the Yugoslavian government with support from foreign countries and international organizations. The United Nations set up a special fund for preparing a master plan for the city. The Greek architectural firm Doxiades Associates and Polish architect Adolf Ciborowski drew up a regional plan for Skopje in 1964, but they left its center city – an approximately two-square kilometer area – open, with the intention of undertaking a more detailed study through an international competition. Tange considered this project significant not only for its international influence, but also because it would make “a model case of urban reconstruction,” so he accepted the invitation.

The competition involved eight design firms, four of them from Yugoslavia and one each from Holland, Italy, Japan and the United States. The Jury awarded the first prize to Tange and the second prize to Yugoslavian architects Radovan Mischevik and Fedor Wenzler, but proposed that the two winning firms work together to develop a final plan. The architects were Kenzo Tange (Japan), Van den Broek and Bakema (Holland), Luigi Piccinato (Italy), Maurice Rotival (USA), Aleksandar Dordevik (Yugoslavia) , Eduard Ravnikar (Yugoslavia), Radovan Mischevik and Fedor Wenzler(Yugoslavia) and Slavko Brezorski(Yugoslavia). The other architects from Tange’s office included Sadao Watanabe and Yoshio Taniguchi.

Therefore a design team was formed, consisting of both Japanese and Yugoslavian architects as well as engineers. Arata Isozaki led the architects team from tange’s office. Tange’s proposal was based on two metaphorical concepts, the “City Gate” and “City Wall.” They referred to the two major elements of the city with distinct characters. The proximity of residential areas to the business district was expected to bring vitality back to the city. The plan for Skopje demonstrated the remarkable continuity of Tange’s approach to city design. The concept of City Gate was based on a linear axis concentrating all urban functions related to communication and business operation. In the middle of this stretch was gigantic gateway structure resembling incoming traffic from regional highways. The axis ended at Republic Square, Skopje’s principal civic space on the River Vardar and surrounded by state and municipal facilities.

master plan for skopje

The City Gate literally a gate into the city, would be put in the area where a new train station and gateway structure for highway entries to the city would be build similar to the composite transportation center in Le Corbusier’s Ville Contemporaine, the City Gate was characterized by the convergence of all traffic systems – rail, car, bus and pedestrian movement – and served as the point of transition between regional traffic and local traffic. The railway terminal was designed as an underground structure. Occupying different levels above it were automobile parking decks, transit terminals, and pedestrian zones. The transportation center was joined by a central business district known as City Gate Center, to form the city main axis. Along the axis were clusters of buildings include a number of office towers, a library, banks, exhibition halls, cinemas, hotels, shops and restaurants – all connected to the railway and bus terminals with elevated motorways.

Skopje linear axis stared from the transportation terminal also linked central business district and civic square that formed the backbone of the city. Like Tange’s previous urban projects, the plan for Skopje granted the city infrastructure . monumental scale and sophisticated details, organizing various transportation modes on a three-dimensional system. Following the prototype developed in Kofu, architectures in both the City Gate and the City Wall were characterized by the repetitive pattern combining cylindrical towers housing circulations and services and horizontal inhabitable spaces for residential or business uses. What distinguished the Skopje projects from Tange’s earlier schemes, however, lay in the symbolic meaning of the the urban structures, which the architect had started to explore in his Tokyo Bay project but had not fully developed until the Skopje project. The entire city was bound together with the symbolic concepts of its “gate” and “wall,” serving both as programmatic features and metaphors for the urban form. In fact, these metaphors constituted the springboard for the whole design. Tange recalled: We made ample use of this [symbolic] attitude at Skopje. For instance, in applying the name City Gate we not only gave ourselves the hint that we should use something physically gate-like in this area, but we also planted in the mind of the people the understanding that this is the gate through which one enters the city of Skopje. If the design is false to the name, the citizens will reject it.

The City Wall, too, gained fame, and even though at one point the opinion emerged that perhaps the Wall was an obstacle that we should abandon, the people of the city were opposed to doing away with it. They understand the city wall, and it became the center of our image of what symbolizes the city. Now we are told that we definitely should not abandon the Wall. We learned through experience that it is necessary for a variety of symbolic processes to emerge during the operation of structuring.

Tange contended that, through the metaphors of a city with traditional constituents, his plan conveyed meaning beyond the level of physical form and enabled communication with residents and visitors in order to recover the vitality and humanism of the city. Tange’s symbolic return to the classical vocabulary of urban form recaptured some characteristics of Louis Kahn’s 1961 plan for Center City Philadelphia. Kahn called his project “Viaduct Architecture.” The plan developed from his studies of traffic patterns and earlier projects for Philadelphia, and it envisioned that the whole city would be surrounded by a multilevel highway loop (the “viaduct”). The concept of viaduct reflected an abstract mastery of Roman forms, as Kahn wrote: “This architecture of movement may be compared to the Viaduct architecture of Rome which was of a scale and consistency different from the architects of of other useful buildings. The viaducts in his plan for Philadelphia, carrying high-speed automobile traffic, defined the boundary of the modern city while allowing unencumbered connection between areas on both sides of the boundary. Several gigantic parking towers standing beside the viaducts served as gateways to the city. Kahn believed that the city would flourish with the viaducts serving automotive traffic and protecting downtown from the invasion of incoming traffic flows. Like Kahn, Tange used the metaphors of classical form to to reinterpret modern infrastructure, providing those large- scale constructions with legibility and cultural significance. Transitions in Tange’s attitudes toward historical context and locality can be detected between his two monumental plans: the 1960 Plan for Tokyo and the 1965 Plan for Skopje. The Tokyo project was dominated by a strong forward-looking aspiration. Tange criticized the city’s existing organization as a “closed structure” which belonged to a “medieval town,” obsolete and dysfunctional for a city of Tokyo’s magnitude. In Skopje, the architect turned to the construction of a “City Gate” and a “City Wall,” seeking to recover the meaning of a traditional town. The urban scene in Skopje after the violent earthquake could not be less chaotic than the urban scene in Tokyo in 1960. However, instead of rebuilding the city, Tange tried to preserve the remaining structures in Skopje and used the City Wall to frame the historic areas. He also treated the city’s geographical characteristics in a delicate manner.

skopje model

In fact, the competition jury applauded Tange’s scheme for its successful “incorporation of Kale Hill into the composition of the center” and the “integration of the left and right banks of the Vardar [River] by their development with public buildings, shops, bridges, and pedestrian squares and platforms.” Tange’s transition to a more sophisticated approach to history and local conditions could be justified by the fact that the Skopje plan was proposed for actual implementation, rather than being a theoretical project like the Tokyo Bay Plan. It was also certain, however, that by turning to historical metaphor and localism, Tangedemonstrated his awareness of the cultural implication of urban structures and attempted to expand his language of urban design through employment of methaphorical and symbolic elements.

In Tange’s vision, Skopje remained a planned city under an architect’s complete control. He later recalled that, when working on the Skopje project, he had to make a decision between two approaches to formulating the building guidelines. The first approach would “lean strongly in the direction of allowing the city to grow and alter in a dynamic and recurrent pattern;” the planner’s responsibility would mainly involve “establishing space usage and wall lines that guarantee open spaces and flow,” leaving other things for free construction and urban growth. With the second approach, “an ultimate form for the whole is designed on a virtually constitutional basis and all development is made to agree with this form;” this method would “make it possible to produce a total image. Tange chose the second approach because he felt that the Skopje project was less about stimulating the growth and redevelopment of a living city than it was about establishing a total image around which a devastated city could be resurrected.

Political factors in Skopje also influenced Tange’s decision. The architect later wrote: “Yugoslavia is a Socialist country in which land is not privately held, the city government had sufficient power to make it possible to introduce our total plan.” He believed public land ownership was on his side in realizing his grand plan . Tange’s comment to a certain extent echoed Le Corbusier’s admiration of the authority of the Soviet Union in the interwar period, to which he dedicated his Ville radieuse. In Japan, dispersed private land ownership made it difficult to carry out large-scale urban redevelopments within existing political parameters. Tange’s and the Metabolists urban projects thus remained theoretical speculations. Just as Le Corbusier had turned to Soviet Russia.

Tange found Skopje a promising land to realize the idea of a total plan that he had put toward theoretical proposals for Tokyo. Tange concepts of City Gate and City Wall persisted in all.

Tange noted that the urban planing authority of Skopje required architects of individual buildings to abide by the master plan and the building guidelines even in building designed by Tange. This gigantic building included a railway station with a vast elevated platform fifteen meters above the ground. Underneath was a bus station. It became a landmark of the new Skopje, but it was often criticized for being too grand for a relatively modest city of only 430.000 residents. Nevertheless, Tange’s plan played an important role in guiding the process of Skopje’s reconstruction, which was a remarkable success in terms of its efficiency and international cooperation. The city soon regained its vitality and enjoyed an economic boom. Under the guidelines framed by the planning team, the new buildings tended to be “progressive” in design style, a tone set by Tange’s response to the demand of “a new architecture for a new revolutionary society.”

мар 25

sk28 03 2011_V3_beli bukvi_net

И годинава организираме изложба на најинтересниот градски изложбен простор.Повторно ќе ги употребиме металните панели од градилиштето на нашиот плоштад за да укажеме дека процесот на планирање треба да се отвори и да овозможи натпревар на идеи и слободна авторска мисла.

Ќе бидат изложени проекти на студентите по архитектура. Овие проекти покажуваат дека Скопје има студенти кои размислуваат современо.

Ќе ја презентираме и публикацијата „ПРВА АРХИ БРИГАДА- Најнекомплетна архива“.

Уште нешто важно што ќе претставиме е иницијативата за основање на Архитектонски центар.

Зошто на Скопје му е потребен Архитектонски Центар?

Задачата на еден Архитектонски центар е:

- да го архивира архитектонското минато (преку библиотека со публикации, перманентна изложба за архитектонската историја на градот, архива на видеа, мапи, планови, макети, фотографии итн.),

-да ги регистрира, презентира и анализира тековните настани во архитектурата (преку објавување на активни урбанистички планови, фотографии од актуелни проекти и објавување на архитектонска критика)

-да ги разгледува можните идни архитектонски правци. (преку презентирање на сработени истражувачки проекти за различни аспекти кои го засегаат градот и конкретни визии за градот инциирани од граѓаните или професионалците и дебатирање на одредени теми)

Поради одредени случувања како на пример големата градежна активност за време на османлиската окупација, обновата по катастрофалниот земјотрес во 1963-та, проектот „Скопје 2014“… нашиот град е честа тема на интерес на многу научни истражувачки проекти од  целиот свет. Секојдневно дознаваме за нови статии, публикации, конференции и трудови кои се посветени на нашиот град. Со основање на Архитектонски центар би се овозможила подобра соработка со колегите од надвор и презентирање на овие трудови посветени на Скопје,но најважно од се е што ќе се придонесе и кон унапредување на изградената средина кај нас, вистинско вреднување на добрата архитетура од минатите периоди и отворено планирање на иднината.

Архитектонскиот центар ќе биде место каде ќе се сретнат интересите на професионалците од архитектурата и урбанизмот, градските власти, граѓаните, истражувачите. Резултатот кој се очекува е подобрување на состојбите во архитектонската професија во Македонија и подобрување на квалитетот на живеење во градовите тука. Центарот истовремено ќе служи и како информативна точка за сите граѓани, но и туристите за архитектонските аспекти на градот.

Скопје заслужува и има потреба еден добар Архитектонски центар.

ПРВА АРХИ-БРИГАДА