When Memory Meets the Market: Investor-led urbicide and heritage sites

Urbicide, the deliberate destruction of urban spaces, is traditionally understood as the physical annihilation of architecture and infrastructure during conflict (Bevan, 2006). This paper argues there is an expanded definition that includes disregard for public memory and historical significance in favour of investor-led urbanism. The case of Belgrade’s Generastaff Building exemplifies this process. Once a symbol of Yugoslav modernism and later a ruin memorialising the 1999 NATO aggression, the site is now at the centre of controversial privatisation effort. It is arguably a textbook example of how governments in their pursuit of foreign capital redefine national heritage as disposable. At the same time, it is a textbook example of the nuances of a post-conflict environment and a need for consideration of historical trauma, as the site has been in a stalemate for decades, with each proposal exacerbating the issue rather than moving towards a solution (Jovic, 2022).

Serbian government's recent agreement with a private investor marks a significant shift in the timeline of this heritage site. While officials claim revitalising it will contribute to Belgrade’s economic future, critics argue its erasure and/or adaptation to proposed space of leisure constitutes an erasure of historical - and recent, therefore still painful memory. This paper argues it can further be understood as an act of urbicide in peacetime, interrogates ideas of urbicide (Coward, 2004; 2009) that occurs through economic policies rather than warfare, and questions ethical implications of prioritising capital over collective historical memory. It contributes to broader discussions on post-conflict urbanism, memory politics and neoliberal developments.

Through Critical Discourse Analysis of media narratives, government policies, and urban planning documents, this paper examines how state actors, private investors, and civil society organisations frame the Generalstaff Building debate. While the former push for its understanding as a modernisation strategy, opposing voices agree it follows a pattern of investor-driven urban transformations that prioritise profit over memory, echoing similar critiques of projects like Belgrade Waterfront (Slavkovic, 2013). The discourse of progress and economic growth, championed by political elites, often marginalises or silences counter-discourses advocating for historical preservation and - particularly pertinent for post-conflict environments, public participation.