We still believe that the winning proposal of the urban design competition for Strosmajer Street is a misunderstood, ironic entry that intends to question the very nature of historism and commercialization of city centres.
Anyway, the entry leads to the question what comes first the chicken or the egg? Images or spatial practices? Images that provide set meanings to spatial practices? Or spatial practices that stem from needs and desires of citizens and lead to uncontrollable images? City administrations and alike mostly prefer set images. Set images can be easily communicated and controlled. Most urban development projects are first branded – instantly turned EXCLUSIVE – and rendered. The city comes then. Considering the unique location of Štrosmajer Street and the diversity of the social fabric the question should be how to create INCLUSIVE images? How to create cityscapes that can accommodate difference while providing for the whole? Cityscapes that enhance existing qualities while allowing appropriation. Cityscapes that support the creation of new identities by reframing or transgressing established ones.