Urbani izziv, volume 28, no. 1, 2017
83
UDC: 711.581(497.6Banjaluka)(481Trondheim)
DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2017-28-01-001
Received: 29 Sept. 2015
Accepted: 16. Jan. 2017
Igor KUVAČ
Markus SCHWAI
Three elements in the construction  
of spatial identities in Mađir (Banjaluka, Bosnia and 
Herzegovina) and Ilsvika (Trondheim, Norway)  
neighbourhoods
The modern world is facing rapid urbanisation, increas-
ing urban population, constant growth of cities and the 
construction of new neighbourhoods. Moreover, new 
neighbourhoods often lack the elements of identity in 
the context of the place and the people who live there. 
Therefore, it is necessary to construct these identities to-
gether with the physical and natural structure of place 
and the cultural identity of the people. The construction 
of spatial identities has been studied in two case studies 
of “new” neighbourhoods, Mađir  (Banjaluka, Bosnia-
Herzegovina) and Ilsvika (Trondheim, Norway), using a 
qualitative analysis method. The comparison makes use of 
a triangle model that includes three elements of identity 
construction as three points of analysis: a) spatial context, 
b)  participation in processes of planning and construc-
tion and c)  action in place. The two cultural contexts 
and two ways of constructing spatial identity in the new 
neighbourhoods studied show certain similarities and dif-
ferences. The study points to the universal significance of 
this phenomenon and indicates that the process could be 
improved in each case by applying positive experiences 
from the other, with adaptation to the specific context. 
Considering the importance and interrelation of the three 
elements involved in construction of spatial identities, 
they should be harmonised in all stages of development.
 
Keywords: elements of construction, spatial identities, 
new neighbourhoods, Mađir  (Bosnia-Herzegovina), Ils-
vika (Norway)
Urbani izziv, volume 28, no. 1, 2017
84 I. KUVAČ, M. SCHWAI
1 Introduction
The increasing number of people living in cities across the 
world has promoted the constant growth of cities and the 
construction of new neighbourhoods. However, in many cases 
urban development does not reflect a proper relationship to-
wards the context that makes it distinctive, and the new urban 
form does not contribute to the place identity. Therefore, the 
construction of identities, as an integral part of place-making, 
should be considered in parallel with the construction of the 
physical and natural structure and the cultural identity of the 
place.
Åshild Lappegard Hauge (2009) states that spatial identity can 
be seen as one of many manifestations made up of many ele-
ments, but here only three elements of identity constructions 
are highlighted and analysed as three points in the triangle 
model. We use David Seamon’s  (2012) approach to the peo-
ple-place relationship that can be described as a triad of three 
dimensions of place: 1) geographical ensemble, 2) people-in-
place and 3) spirit of place (Figure 1a). In order to adapt this 
model for specific research, we have transformed this triad into 
the three elements of identity construction: a) spatial context, 
b)  participation in planning and construction processes and 
c) action in place (Figure 1b).
As Seamon (2012) states, identity is an integral dimension of 
a triadic understanding of place experience and place-making. 
Many writers have defined identity in a similar way, and it is 
always as an essential element of the construction of the place. 
Kevin Lynch  (1974) defines it in the sense of equality with 
something else, but with the meaning of individuality or one-
ness, and Stuart Hall  (2000) argues that it forms in relation 
towards someone else. According to this, one of the key char-
acteristics of a personal identity and a place identity is in the 
communication between these two identities. By saying that 
“we are becoming increasingly aware that we are, and always 
have been, intrinsically spatial beings, active participants in 
the social construction of our embracing spatialities,” Edward 
W. Soja (1998: 8) argues that identity must be theorised as a 
socio-spatial phenomenon. William V. J. Neil (2004: 11) states 
that “construction of identities is always connected with the 
constitution of a space” and Manuel de Solà-Morales i Ru-
bió  (2003) also considers urban life as a social construct, so 
Henri Lefebvre (2013) ultimately concludes that urban space 
is interconnected with social relations and vice versa.
Just like a city or an individual, identity is always in a process 
of development and is never finalised  (Neil, 2004) or com-
plete (Hall, 2000), especially if we take into account the free-
dom to express individual identities that equally participate in 
constructing a single unity of a place  (Seamon, 2012). Based 
on great freedoms in personal identities, the unity of a nation’s 
or a cultural space’s identity is increasingly being considered 
somewhat outdated in a modern world, and so the concept of 
hybridity is being introduced into the discourse (Hall, 2000). 
Hans Ibelings (2010) states that nothing and no-one entirely 
coincides with a single identity and Isidora Karan (2014) adds 
that hybrid identity along with different cultural influences 
can also be seen as a collection of hybrid personal identities 
that are present in every space. However, the mere presence 
of a number of personal identities  (i.e.,  the existence of this 
hybridity alone) is not enough to construct spatial identities 
because the kind of socio-spatial relationship they have with 
the place is questionable. For example, through the process of 
constructing new neighbourhoods, people of varying societal 
groups and identities become neighbours, but suddenly they 
do not know how to act and communicate in the public space 
they have in common (Murphy, 2011).
In the socio-spatial context, place identity can be perceived as 
the set of meanings that people associate with a particular place 
and its personal identities, but also with the construction of 
social identities. Authors who theorised these relations (Nor-
berg-Schulz, 1979; Watson  & Bentley, 2007; Dovey, 2010; 
Karan, 2014) state that construction of spatial identity deals 
with the complex relationship between natural, morphologi-
cal, socio-economic, cultural and other factors. The elements 
such as physical setting, urban activities and meanings enable 
orientation in place and identification with it. More precise-
ly, on the scale of neighbourhood, Aksel Tjora et  al.  (2012) 
state that housing facilities, public spaces and the community 
achieved almost always affect the people’s social life and their 
sense of belonging to a neighbourhood. Living in a certain 
type of neighbourhood could be regarded as an expression of 
an identity statement but in many cases people cannot identify 
with their places of residence.
That is why communication is very important in this process 
of constructing a neighbourhood and its identity, although 
it is very often hard to achieve. According to Visar Hoxha 
et  al.  (2014) social construction of space is perceived as the 
complex transformation of space through social exchanges and 
daily use of the material setting into spaces and actions with 
a particular meaning. Similarly, Seamon (2012) points to the 
actions, processes and situations by which a place might be 
improved and transformed through a thoughtful understand-
ing of how places work and what contributes to their virtuous 
and vicious spirals.
To conclude, although the question of identity is very complex 
to define because it is never straightforward, unambiguous or 
comprehensive  (Hall, 2000; Castells, 2009; Ibelings, 2010), 
Urbani izziv, volume 28, no. 1, 2017
85Three elements in the construction of spatial identities 
there is no doubt of the relationships between the cultural 
context, social activities and spatial identity. Identity construc-
tion is a continuous process that neither starts nor finishes with 
the physical construction of a neighbourhood. Therefore, it is 
important to achieve communication between all participants 
in the construction of neighbourhood life and identity as soon 
as possible, at the beginning of the construction process, and to 
maintain it throughout all stages of development, planning and 
construction. We attempt to understand the ways identity is 
constructed based on the relationship towards the neighbour-
hood and public participation in the community throughout 
the entire development process.
The construction of identities is studied in two different case 
studies of “new” neighbourhoods: Mađir (Banjaluka, Bosnia-
Herzegovina) and Ilsvika (Trondheim, Norway). The inspira-
tion for this unusual pairing of two “small nations” [1] is found 
in Isadora Sekulić’s travelogue Letters from Norway (Pisma iz 
Norveške, 1914) and essay The problem of a small nation (Prob-
lem malog naroda, 1932). Although Hall  (2000) claims that 
nations do not have just one cultural identity, there are some 
general representations of unique “national” identity. The two 
“nations” of Norway and Bosnia-Herzegovina  (formerly part 
of Yugoslavia) are compared in a discussion of their spatial 
identities according to their different cultures formed by ge-
ography, history, mentality and size. No matter how much 
the characteristics of one “nation” define it, personal identity 
therefore depends on who individuals really are, what they 
own and what they look like, and Sekulić (1932) argues that 
this ideology is fully applicable to nations as well.[2] Using a 
triangle model, we address this complex issue by conducting 
three types of qualitative analysis: 1)  urban analysis, 2)  field 
observations and 3)  a qualitative analysis of semi-structured 
interviews. The cross-case analysis compares two different cases 
of new parts of neighbourhoods as two opposite poles, more 
than 2,500 km away from each other. The study points to the 
universal significance of the phenomenon and suggests that the 
process can be improved by using others’ positive experiences, 
taking into consideration a certain level of adaptation to the 
specific context.
2 Research method
2.1 Two cases
1)  Mađir is a housing neighbourhood on the northeast edge 
of Banjaluka  (Figure  2a), the second largest city in Bosnia-
Herzegovina with 150,997  residents  (Institute of statistics 
of the Republika Srpska, 2014) and an area of 1,232  km². It 
emerged in an informal urban fabric from the need to urgently 
resolve the “roof over the head” problem, in a spontaneous and 
unplanned way. It is characterised by the war  (1992–1995), 
suffering and destruction, which was followed by migrations,[3] 
ongoing transition and other deviant phenomena resulting in 
devastating consequences for the country (Ministry of finance 
and treasury of Bosnia and Herzegovina & Office of the UN 
resident coordinator in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2013). Al-
though there is an everyday struggle for the “bare essentials”, 
people continue to remain positive. Their mentality is char-
acterised by warmth and the broad Slavic soul, temperament, 
spirituality and irrationality that have been shaped for centu-
ries (Cvijić, 1966). Its influences included various conquerors, 
the reigns of the greatest European empires, four religions and 
the intersection of a number of cultural influences that give it 
an identity of rich diversity.
2) Ilsvika is collective housing neighbourhood on the west bor-
der of Trondheim (Figure 2b), the third largest city in Norway, 
with a population of 178,021  residents  (Internet  1), situated 
on the south shore of Trondheim Fjord at the mouth of the 
river Nidelva. Ilsvika was established within a formal urban 
Figure 1: Illustration of analysis used: a) Seamon's the people-place triad (source: Seamon, 2012); b) the triangle model (illustration: Igor Kuvač).
the people-place triad triangle model
genius loci
geographical 
ensemble
people-in-place
(C) action in place
(B) participation 
in construction(A) spatial context
(3) semi-structured 
interview
(1) urban analysis
(2) observation on the field
a b
Urbani izziv, volume 28, no. 1, 2017
86
fabric based on market needs and it respects the given stand-
ards, laws and regulations. The wider context is determined by 
economic progress in one of the richest and most developed 
countries of the world, with high economic stability and so-
cial security  (OECD, 2014). Norway is characterised by its 
high level of democracy, human rights and freedoms and also 
by a high standard of living in harmony with nature and the 
importance of private space, which is largely reflected in the 
identity of urban space. On the other hand, its isolated and pe-
ripheral position in the far north of Europe, harsh climate with 
cold winters and lack of sunlight has had an influence on the 
specific psychology of the people (Hamsun, 1927; Sejranović, 
2010). In an inaccessible and sparsely populated country, rich 
in vast natural beauty, a “small nation” lives characterised by 
modesty and patience, but also by loneliness, depression and 
cold (Sekulić, 1914).
2.2 Triangle model
A qualitative research method was used to explore the issue of 
construction of spatial identities, which depends on different 
factors that cannot be easily quantified  (Mason, 2006). Ac-
cording to Manuel Castells  (2009), the process always takes 
place in a context marked by power relationships and includes 
varied elements from history, geography, religion, sexuality 
and so forth. According to the qualitative triangle model 
used  (Kvale  & Brinkmann, 2009), this study includes three 
elements of analysis: 1)  urban analysis, 2)  field observations 
and 3) a qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews. The 
main emphasis is on the interviews, a method that can illustrate 
identity as a frame that gives meaning to current behaviour 
patterns in space and the interviewees’ responses to the ways 
in which their new neighbourhoods were created. This triangle 
includes three elements of construction of spatial identities: 
a)  spatial context, b) participation in planning and construc-
tion processes and c) action in place (Figure 1). The timeframe 
of twenty years (1995–2015) encompasses the period from the 
end of the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina and a period of intensive 
development of both neighbourhoods analysed.
A semi-structured interview was conducted with a small num-
ber of participants. A nonpurposive sampling technique was 
used because of its power to gain access to the subjects and 
describe everyday life. It is recognised that the explorative po-
tential of personal and subjective perspectives in an interview 
that enables qualitative descriptions provides a respective un-
derstanding and leads to well-controlled findings. Therefore, 
qualitative narrative interviews do not test hypotheses, but 
rather reflect common sense and interpretations in which dif-
ferent readers can find different meanings depending on their 
subjective impressions, and their findings are not generalisable.
Seven in-depth interviews were conducted with residents of 
the Mađir neighbourhood in Banjaluka from 22 to 30 Decem-
ber 2014. The interviewees were four men and three women 
varying in age, occupation and social status and included both 
old and new residents in addition to representatives of the 
NGO and local community sectors. Interviews in Trond-
heim with the residents of Ilsvika were conducted from  9 
to  16  March  2015. Five in-depth interviews were conducted 
with randomly chosen interviewees, all men varying in age, 
occupation and social status. 
Interviews followed a research protocol that leads to follow-up 
questions and a critical common-sense understanding (Kvale & 
Brinkmann, 2009). They were formed of three sets of questions 
around which the conversation developed, with a duration of 
approximately 45 minutes. The research instrument included 
derived constructs that link the three elements of spatial iden-
tity construction mentioned: a)  urban structure and relation 
to the old part of the neighbourhood and the city, b) interests 
in the planning process and influences on the design solutions 
Figure 2: Position of the neighbourhoods in the city: a) Mađir and b) Ilsvika (illustration: Igor Kuvač).
a b
I. KUVAČ, M. SCHWAI
Urbani izziv, volume 28, no. 1, 2017
87
and c) the use of open public spaces, quality of life and feelings 
about place attachment.
The analysis of the qualitative information obtained is the 
result of a bricolage technique, which combines elements of 
analysis into one descriptive hybrid evaluation. The urban anal-
ysis and field observations were crossed with the interviewees’ 
responses, which facilitated understanding of the construction 
process of the new neighbourhoods and their identities. Ac-
cording to the triangle model, responses are grouped into three 
categories (Table 1).
3 Elements of identity
Using the triangle model that informs the study, this section 
presents the findings of the three approaches mentioned with 
special reference to the key comments from the interview re-
sponses, which enriched the conclusions of the urban-archi-
tectural analysis, observations and predictions. The qualitative 
analysis explores the similarities and differences between each 
of these elements in both processes of neighbourhood con-
struction observed.
3.1 Spatial context
Mađir is situated on the right bank of the Vrbas River four kilo-
metres away from the city centre, between protected natural 
elements: the Mađir fields in the west and the Trapisti forest 
in the northeast. It follows the configuration of the terrain 
and the spread of the previously parcelled agricultural land 
determined by the inherited ownership structure, accesses and 
spatial use. Groups of individual single-family houses that form 
the old part of the neighbourhood are sparsely arranged in all 
directions and oriented towards the narrow, curving streets. 
The traditional vernacular architecture is modest but meets 
high standards of housing quality with respect to dimensions, 
function, construction and form (10 × 8 m, G + 1, gable roof; 
Figure 3a). 
The new part of the neighbourhood was built through small 
private investments by refugees and internally displaced per-
sons, who were the main agents of this informal new construc-
tion. The new matrix interpolated itself into the prior parcel 
structure, relying on the field configuration and extending the 
street grid along contour lines. Parcellation was determined 
Table 1: Grouping of responses
Categories of responses Responses by categories
Spatial context R1
Physical and natural structure
Relation to old part of neighbourhood
Relation to the city
Participation in processes R2
Interest in local politics and planning processes
Design of neighbourhood
Design of housing units
Social activities R3
Using of open public spaces
Quality of life
Place attachment
Figure 3: Old a) and new b) parts of the Mađir neighbourhood (photo: Igor Kuvač).
a b
Three elements in the construction of spatial identities 
Urbani izziv, volume 28, no. 1, 2017
88
using an adapted traditional housing model that allows the 
construction of single-family houses and outbuildings, as well 
as the custom of having a garden. The fragmented physical 
structure integrates with the natural structure and existing 
low-density rural structure. It stretches along main transit 
routes and has a disperse spread, occupying agricultural and 
forest land around existing urban areas. Self-constructed hous-
ing intended for three generations of one family continues to 
be the only type of housing  (10  × 8  m, G  + 1  + A, a gable 
roof ) and the basic unit of the neighbourhood. Many houses 
remain unfinished due to economic reasons, one of the key 
features of the building process. Although they are not con-
sidered aesthetically pleasing, they preserve a traditional way 
of life (Figure 3b) and relationship with the environment, thus 
contributing to identity values. There is a complete lack of basic 
infrastructure, transport routes and public facilities.
Ilsvika is located in the west of the city on the periphery (Fig-
ure  2b) and it is peaceful because of the quiet natural sur-
roundings of the woods, hills and sea. The majority of the 
neighbourhood is an old fishing village, Ilsvikora, about two 
kilometres away from the centre, in a picturesque setting. It 
consists of small single-family houses  (8  × 4.8  m, max. two 
floors) in traditional wooden architecture with sloping gabled 
roofs, which are arranged in blocks along regulation lines (Fig-
ure 4a). Public space within the village is reduced to two little 
squares that appear at the crossroads of the main transit routes.
The new part of the neighbourhood represents a very strong 
urban structure on the shore of the fiord, giving it the value of 
high level of urbanity. This new urbanisation is based on the 
existing structure of the “village”. It goes by the existing urban 
matrix and respects natural features, the dominant directions 
of the facilities and the existing open public spaces, but the 
accomplished relationship is not well enough articulated to 
achieve integration between the new and the old parts. The 
urban matrix developed along the central transit route in an 
east-west direction, parallel to the coast and two perimeter 
routes: a pedestrian one to the north and a service one to the 
south. The fjord’s coast is the northern border with recrea-
tion facilities, whereas the road no. 715 is the southern border 
with a roundabout as the main access. Its physical structure 
extends along the east-west axis, consisting of mostly multi-
family residential and a few business buildings, but there are 
also some other facilities such as education, sports and other 
services. The average building dimensions range from ca. 12 × 
36  m to  14  × 54  m and from G  + 2 up to G  + 5 floors, so 
the urban density is very high (Figure 4b). Despite this high 
level of urbanity, the residents pointed to proximity to nature 
as the main characteristic of the neighbourhood, including its 
position in relation to the centre of the city and its excellent 
transport connections.
Analysis of the spatial context includes the relation between 
old and new parts of neighbourhoods as an important element 
of identity and the cultural context related to place.
3.1.1 Old vs. New
These relations show connections with tradition and atti-
tudes towards its preservation and protection. The new part 
of Mađir is interpolated between existing dispersed structures, 
fully compatible with and maintaining a homogenous con-
nection by interpolating itself into and repeating the existing 
matrix (Figure 3). However, the village does not become a city, 
so the cultural gap between city and village increases despite 
of the reduced physical distance and newly-formed dominant 
cultural layer. Residents define it as a neighbourhood with a 
character between suburban and rural.
The complexity of the old and new Ilsvika is generated by the 
integration of the village into the neighbourhood structure 
by having the new part frame the old one  (Figure  4). The 
new part supplements the old one as an evolutionary process, 
a b
Figure 4: Old a) and new b) parts of the Ilsvika neighbourhood (photo: Igor Kuvač).
I. KUVAČ, M. SCHWAI
Urbani izziv, volume 28, no. 1, 2017
89
which is common and acceptable as a part of the wider con-
text, as residents explained. The specific structure of the vil-
lage contributes to the continuity of relations to tradition, as 
well as preservation of inherited values that also facilitate this 
interaction even in modern surroundings. The new urbanisa-
tion uses all the assets of the existing identity that represents 
a specific place, based on which it forms its advantages. As the 
city grows, the village becomes closer and more accessible, but 
on the other hand its residents state that it loses a part of its 
identity. Although it does not surpass the old image that still 
exists the new physical appearance of the city is very meaning-
ful. In the conflict of the new and the old, the quantity of the 
new is the winner versus the quality of the old.
The next section looks at the importance of this relationship 
between the old and new parts of the neighbourhoods through 
their urban social activities and residents’ attachment to place.
3.1.2 Place attachment
The Bosnian people in Mađir lead a rich social life, so they have 
intense communication with one another that makes them feel 
vibrant regardless of the low density and small number of resi-
dents in their neighbourhood. In addition, the neighbourhood 
development is ongoing and dictates everyday activities that 
depend only on financial and weather conditions. Because 
the process of construction is never fully complete and many 
residents maintain the tradition of having a garden, “there is 
always something to do”  (Meili et  al. 2012). While residents 
are working, they make noise with their tools and also chat 
with their neighbours, family members and passers-by. This 
makes it seem that the neighbourhood is more vivid than it 
really is. At the same time, this constant activity and the com-
munication achieved certainly contribute to a stronger place 
attachment. Indeed, it turns out that the informality of con-
struction as a long-term project has positive effects on identity 
construction (Figure 5).
Their peripheral position in the far north of Europe, harsh 
climate with cold and snowy winters, lack of sunlight and the 
midnight sun phenomenon had an impact on Norwegians’ 
specific mind-set. Christian Norberg-Schulz (1979) says that a 
Norwegian must like the cold, forest, fog and so on, and Bekim 
Sejranović (2010) writes of the anguish and dusk in the snowy 
a b
a b
Figure 5: a) Sport activities and b) house construction in Mađir (photo: Igor Kuvač).
Figure 6: Empty open public spaces in Ilsvika (photo: Igor Kuvač).
Three elements in the construction of spatial identities 
Urbani izziv, volume 28, no. 1, 2017
90
Norwegian mountains that produces the vast Nordic sadness 
as part of the Norwegian identity. Considering that modern 
“northern” individuals are liberated from the everyday strug-
gle to survive and to build a house, instead they build their 
spirit, individuality and diversity through an accumulation of 
inner energy (Sejranović, 2010). As Neil (2004) points out, a 
messy interiority produces inner peace and discovery for some 
people, and also internal reconciliation with an identity that 
may not be outwardly manifested.
This implies a specific way of life that is complete in itself and 
does not show the need for interaction in space. This is also 
reflected in the formal way of constructing a neighbourhood, 
in which resolving the “roof over the head” issue is not a prob-
lem, but just one in a series of tasks, which is normally resolved 
by buying a fully constructed flat. The living space in collec-
tive housing in Ilsvika is reduced to a unit, in which residents 
“only had the opportunity for some small changes in interior 
design, not more than that”. The attitude towards construction 
is diametrically opposed to that in Mađir, because it is not 
part of the people’s lifestyle or identity, which is constructed 
in a different way. This is also transposed to the place attach-
ment. Construction and enhancement of identity within this 
framework is reduced to a minimum. Analysis of the residents’ 
presence in a public space during particular periods of the day 
confirmed the absence of everyday visible activity despite the 
high density and number of residents (Figure 6).
3.2 System of (un)planning
The main objective of new construction in the Mađir neigh-
bourhood was the urgent need to resolve the “roof over the 
head” problem, which was essential for dozens of displaced 
newcomer families. Neither the state nor the city were pre-
pared for this process, and so they did not provide plans for 
new construction. Scarce and outdated planning documenta-
tion did not suit conditions for new neighbourhood expansion 
and so the only possible way for construction to take place was 
informal. On the other hand, Skotte et  al.  (2015) point out 
that authorities acknowledged the situation, and did help the 
settlers in a way by not intervening, which Meili et al. (2012) 
calls the “stability of the informal”. The new population could 
not wait for a systemic reaction, so spontaneous informal self-
construction has been going on without any mediator, follow-
ing a kind of a bottom-up system. Considering the limited 
financial resources mentioned above as one of the key features 
of construction, residents say they “could not pay for expensive 
technical documents and building permits”. However, most of 
them at least have started the process of obtaining a permit 
for the construction or post facto legalisation,[4] because they 
were afraid of making a mistake and wanted to formalise their 
activities according to the law.
The interviewees state that “the problem should be resolved 
within a shortest time possible, without complications and 
with minimum costs”. By writing that “we never had enough 
time to develop our culture in peace”, Sekulić (1932) consid-
ered this as a continuous part of the Yugoslav identity almost 
a century ago. In such conditions, the informal self-builder 
is focused only on himself and his own life. He does not 
have the need to communicate with institutions he does not 
trust  (Transparency International Bosnia and Herzegovina, 
2014), and thus does not build any relationship with public 
space and does not show any kind of interest in future develop-
ments. This mind-set has become obvious, because the ongoing 
problem of habitat is placed as a priority without considering 
their future lifestyle needs (Aranya & Ulset, 2015).
The self-directed process starts with the choice of the location 
and buying a parcel, whereby individuals face a big challenge 
to their own knowledge of the construction conditions on the 
site and construction itself. Residents state that “necessary in-
formation about the microclimate, way of life, convenience for 
the construction, customs, tradition and so on,” were obtained 
through contacts with the locals. During the process, which 
takes anywhere from several months to several years, informal 
self-builders communicate with neighbours, who loan them 
tools, materials and electricity, offer refreshments, help with 
manual work, meet the workers, exchange experiences and so 
on. Skotte (2004) explains this as a strategy in which housing, 
as a node, activates the constitution of the society. In building 
a house, people build themselves in relation to the neighbour-
hood and so they express the spirit of place (Norberg-Schulz, 
1979).
In contrast, the interest in the construction of the Ilsvika 
neighbourhood is expressed in the form of private invest-
ment and construction for the market. The main objective is 
profit, and so the process is conducted by a series of analyses 
looking for the most cost-effective solution. The project is led 
by rational business decisions according to laws and regula-
tions  (Internet  2), but also by taking care of only one’s own 
interest. An interviewee who worked at a development com-
pany said that “because the price of planning and the land was 
very high and the market was not developed, the profitability 
of the project dictated its design, high density and relation to 
the old structures”.
Meeting the neighbourhood’s common public needs was 
conditioned just by minimal standards. Although the process 
was and still is open to citizens  (Internet  3) they are not in-
terested in participating and are rarely involved. The public 
interest was protected only partially by the residents of the 
old “fishing village”, who formed a non-governmental organi-
sation  (NGO) and opposed the maximalist demands of the 
I. KUVAČ, M. SCHWAI
Urbani izziv, volume 28, no. 1, 2017
91
developers (Internet 4). As such, the small fishing village pre-
served its autonomy as a protected complex due to minimal 
compliance with existing legislative acts, but no more than 
that. In general, there was no common interest and it did not 
lead to integration of the old and new parts of neighbour-
hood, so the opportunity for better spatial and social results 
was missed. The village remained isolated and surrounded by 
a new high-density development, although it could serve as a 
good model for new construction, considering its urban quali-
ties and social cohesion.
There is a great deal of trust in the competence of authorities, 
agencies and institutions in Norway, which are supposed to 
find the best solutions for the benefit of citizens and ensure that 
there are no failures. It is believed that the regulated state and 
its institutions manage resources in best possible way and that 
experts deal with all segments of social development including 
the plans, design and construction. Because spatial planning 
documentation is designed according to the highest standards, 
it is “understood that spatial results and the quality of life in 
those spaces should be satisfactory”. However, Nataša Bratina 
Jurkovič (2014) states that “planners often neglect users’ expe-
rience and values, and space consequently does not suit users’ 
needs and requirements”.
Unfortunately, the ultimate appearance of the neighbourhood 
and social interaction show that the results are not the best. An 
interviewee claims that “real democracy is not very present in 
the decision-making processes”, regardless of the high level of 
human rights and freedoms Norway provides. It is observed 
that a top-down system shows a number of disadvantages. Al-
though all the listed parameters have been applied, sociological 
analysis shows that people are not satisfied and that there is 
something missing (Tjora et al., 2012). The residents say that 
the neighbourhood is not suitable for personal needs, require-
ments or preferences because is formed according to general, 
unified and generic rules. “We didn’t have any impact on the 
planned solutions. Because it was developed according to the 
model of most profitable solution, the individuals fit into an 
Figure 7: a) Open spaces in Mađir: F – forest, Fi – field, A – agricultural land, C – direction of city centre, O – occupied space that is used as 
public space, Pf – public facilities, Sf – sport facilities, Sq – improvised squares; b) old and new urban matrix in Mađir (illustration: Igor Kuvač).
Figure  8: a) Open spaces in Ilsvika. Fo – forest, Fj – fjord, C – direction of city centre, 01–09 – types of public spaces; b) old and new urban 
matrix in Ilsvika (illustration: Igor Kuvač).
a b
a b
Three elements in the construction of spatial identities 
Urbani izziv, volume 28, no. 1, 2017
92
already completed project, buying their flats on a ‘key in the 
hand’ basis without any opportunity to change it”.
It is assumed that additional identity construction should hap-
pen after moving in and after coexisting with others, but this 
does not always happen. Although there is an opportunity 
for “coexistence” in public spaces, and although residents are 
not satisfied with the social interaction and integration with 
the neighbourhood, they still remain confined to “their own 
four walls”. The third element of analysis, action in place, is 
considered below.
3.3 Action in place
Action in place is analysed through the patterns of living and 
using open public spaces, and is considered as the third com-
ponent of construction of identities (Jurkovič Bratina, 2014). 
The notable difference between the two ways of identity con-
struction is in the relationship between people and space and 
the social interactions achieved.
Urban activity in open public spaces almost does not exist in 
Mađir, because there are no public spaces constructed. The 
“public space” is reduced only to the street and extensions 
next to it in the zone between the street and private, fenced 
front gardens. Residents became “aware of this when they had 
resolved the main problems, but by then it was too late”. On the 
other hand, due to its location on the border between urban 
and rural areas, the neighbourhood is close to nearby hills, 
forests, fields, river banks and agricultural land, which are con-
sidered a type of provisional public space. Even though some 
of these are private properties, residents use them as public 
ones in an informal way. This use begins spontaneously from 
a desire to explore, meet and “conquer” the space, but also 
from the need for interaction. Because they are not marked or 
equipped, interaction is reduced only to casual meetings, and 
conditionally to a later conversation (Figure 7a).
As they self-constructed their houses and neighbourhood, resi-
dents felt that they also had the right to occupy some other 
spaces, so they feel free to usurp space that does not have a 
public function. In a way, the process of “conquering” and 
subsequent creation of a kind of “public” space was a natural 
consequence of constructing a neighbourhood, but neither 
one was complete. They had numerous limitations, especially 
considering the temporariness and questionable legality of 
these actions. Finally, in many cases the actual owners of these 
private properties have arrived to give them their own final 
purpose. Thus, the residents remain without important parts 
of the space that marks the only common public life of the 
neighbourhood, and they are forced to find alternatives or they 
just give up, tired of searching.
The relationship towards neighbourhood is radically different 
in Ilsvika. Apart from many typical public spaces, there are 
also empty open public spaces for different activities and open 
spaces between housing buildings: yards, paths, piers on the 
beach and so on.  (Figure  8a). There is also a system of open 
spaces in natural surroundings that has a great effect on the 
quality and way of life in the neighbourhood (Bratina Jurkovič, 
2014). Despite of this wide-ranging typology, open spaces are 
not used enough, which leads to a lack of social activity and 
the sense of a void. None of the interviewees said that they use 
open public spaces in their neighbourhoods and they them-
selves have noticed that some spaces, like the central square 
near the main street, “are constantly empty, grey and dusty”. 
Even though the neighbourhood has the predisposition of a 
pleasant place to live, interviewees state that “something went 
wrong”.
Considering the excellent transport connections and the op-
portunities to spend their free time wherever they want, resi-
dents mostly do not hang out in the neighbourhood. However, 
when they are there, they usually spend their free time in their 
own private flats within multi-family housing. Thus, the im-
portant parts of the living space are semi-private spaces  (flat 
terraces) that emerge from connection with private ones in-
stead of public ones. They are formed around regular zones of 
housing units that are designed with large glass surfaces and 
oriented towards semi-public green spaces between buildings; 
that is, towards their neighbours  (Figure  6b). In this frame-
work there is no visible action in place, and no urban activities 
that would produce a sense of belonging with neighbourhood 
life can be expected.
4 Conclusion
The findings result from a qualitative analysis using a triangle 
model with three recognised elements of neighbourhoods’ 
identity construction. As mentioned above, these are: 1) spa-
tial context, 2) participation in neighbourhood planning and 
construction processes and 3) action in place. They have been 
qualitatively analysed through: a)  an analysis of urban plan-
ning documentation, b) field observations and c) a qualitative 
analysis of semi-structured interviews. Accordingly, all simi-
larities and differences found are connected with these three 
common points, bearing in mind that different elements have 
different impacts on the identity issues. Conclusions are drawn 
with regard to physical structure (urban patterns of construc-
tion), public participation (unplanned cooperation) and place 
attachment (relativisation of identity).
I. KUVAČ, M. SCHWAI
Urbani izziv, volume 28, no. 1, 2017
93
4.1 Urban patterns of construction
Construction of spatial identity in both cases mostly takes 
place according to the urban patterns of the place identity 
already present in its particular context. The existing urban pat-
tern is simply repeated (i.e., moved from place to place through 
a certain type of transformation). Whereas in Mađir there is 
literal repetition, in Ilsvika there is creative transposition.
The new urban pattern in Mađir follows the existing rural 
structure of the neighbourhood by repeating the local context 
and fitting it into the existing urban frame. The vernacular 
self-builder intuitively respects traditional construction quali-
ties, and so this approach has positive effects on spatial iden-
tity. However, it is not aware of the scale of transformation, 
leading to a clumsy urban structure and degradation of the 
environment and the traditional model used. Urban evolu-
tion is denied, and “urbanisation” means “ruralisation” of the 
neighbourhood and the city. The positive side is that both 
old and new achieve a certain coherence (Figures 2, 5, 7) and 
have some positive effects on the continuity of urban identity.
In contrast, the new urban pattern in Ilsvika creatively trans-
poses the existing urban model, keeping some of the exist-
ing rural elements but achieving urbanisation. However, the 
existing model is transposed beyond recognition, so that the 
new part is much bigger than the old one, which completely 
surrounds it and dominates it. Although it is somewhat pro-
tected, the old structure remains isolated without real inte-
gration and is more like a monument in relation to the new 
one  (Figures  3,  6,  8). In this way, the new physical structure 
decreases the significance of the existing one as a symbol of 
identity, which is lost due to the neoliberal capitalist model 
of construction and development.
In general, the lack of diversity is felt in both new neighbour-
hood sections. The new urban structure without additional 
values is predominant, and so both the new constructions take 
on a monotonous character. This shows that none of formal 
or informal approaches to new constructions improved the 
quality of the place. In both cases the old part of neighbour-
hood maintains its characteristic spatial identity, which is at 
the same time minimised. In order to get the new part of the 
neighbourhood to follow existing qualities of the place, old 
and new units should have better connections and achieve a 
kind of integration by respecting the scales of transformation. 
It turns out that the construction of spatial identity is much 
more complex than just apparent protection (Ilsvika) or rep-
etition of existing urban patterns (Mađir), and that a creative 
approach that combines the two methods applied might be 
satisfactory. Our analysis suggests that the real integration of 
existing values with the new parts of the neighbourhood can 
contribute to a stronger place attachment and have a special 
sensitivity to protection and improvement of urban identity.
4.2 (Un)planned cooperation
Lappegard Hauge  (2009) states that people can be divided 
into three groups when it comes to awareness of their dwell-
ings as communicating identity: 1) people who do not think 
much about it, 2)  people who think a little about the issue 
and 3)  people who discuss the issue spontaneously and are 
concerned about the matter. Unfortunately, none of these 
groups are inspired to direct action, and the analysis shows 
an undeveloped relationship towards the ongoing processes 
in the neighbourhoods, which does not contribute to place 
identity. Guided by the principle of “I don’t care about any-
thing unless it’s happening in my backyard,” the residents of 
both cities do not participate in urban planning processes. In 
Mađir they “took matters into their own hands” and acted 
outside of the planning system, which at the same time did 
not work. Although they self-constructed their homes, they 
did not construct public spaces, which they now lack. Taking 
the initiative to construct these afterwards and to maintain the 
community energy from the period private house construc-
tion has not shown satisfactory results. On the other hand, 
although the residents had opportunities to act, this process 
was left to the responsible institutions in Ilsvika, with the ex-
pectation of good results. Because they did not participate in 
the development process, the residents of Ilsvika did not con-
struct feelings toward the place and they do not feel the need 
to create a neighbourhood social life.
The (un)planned system of construction and other factors are 
obvious in terms of the  (in)efficiency of a neighbourhood’s 
identity construction. Twenty years after construction began, 
everything is missing in Mađir apart from built but unfinished 
houses. The number of unresolved spatial problems is causing 
growing discontent and social interaction is declining because 
self-constructing their houses was not enough to offer a satisfy-
ing quality of life. In contrast, Ilsvika is completely finished 
and life takes place normally, but without place attachment. 
We conclude that in the case of Mađir the construction of 
the neighbourhood was exclusively about the small “personal” 
interest of the vernacular builder, whose main goal was to sat-
isfy basic needs, whereas in the case of Ilsvika it was about the 
“private” interest of a big investor, whose main objective was 
to generate profit. The disadvantages of these approaches show 
that creating a living space should not be a subject of interest 
to only of “one small vernacular builder” or just “one large 
investor”. As a common right of all citizens, urban space must 
be a subject of broader social debate and a large number of 
participants led by experts, residents and responsible insti-
tutions in all phases of development. The interest of both 
Three elements in the construction of spatial identities 
Urbani izziv, volume 28, no. 1, 2017
94
residents and the public towards urban space can be directed 
through creative participation in urban spatial planning and 
the design of new activities, as Bratina Jurkovič  (2014) sug-
gests.
4.3 Relativisation of identity
According to the triads, spatial identity is  (not) being con-
structed in the interaction of three elements that make place. 
As the analysis showed, general social interaction during con-
struction was not enough, and therefore the construction 
of identity was not complete. A “free man” in Mađir lives 
without trusting institutions and without awareness of the 
need to build confidence in them. Residents think that their 
self-constructed houses express their newly self-constructed 
identity but unfortunately this is not complete, and it does 
not reflect at the level of the neighbourhood as a whole. On 
the other hand, personal freedoms in Islvika are way ahead of 
the community and have already surpassed it. Residents show 
realistic attitudes towards identity, but they do not consider 
it an important subject. There is no feeling of absence because 
identity is not in question and because it is considered as an 
already present component. There is not enough awareness in 
either case for the construction of identities as an important 
part of the space. The forms of urban space achieved do not 
lead to an adequate relationship towards the community nor 
do they stimulate actions in place. Mutual influences of social 
and spatial identity are left aside so the cohesion between them 
is not really achieved. Although spatial identity should be one 
of the priorities in new constructions, it is relativised and sup-
pressed compared to other aspects of the urban environment. 
It always exists as in a certain form but its influence and es-
sential meaning are unclear. Identity construction that meets 
the standards of high-quality life in the neighbourhood should 
include cooperation in every phase of planning, construction 
and the use of space. Only through the real integration of vari-
ous needs for urban activities it would be possible to construct 
a valuable spatial identity. We must consider the historical and 
essential relationship between people and place: new urbani-
sations should have more appropriate attitudes toward the 
meaning of spatial identity, which is undoubtedly affected by 
new construction whether it is denied, changed or improved.
Igor Kuvač
University of Granada, Department of Urban and Spatial Planning, 
Granada, Spain
E-mail: igropop@gmail.com
Markus Schwai
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Archi-
tecture and Fine Arts, Department of Urban Design and Planning, 
Trondheim, Norway
E-mail: markus.schwai@ntnu.no
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the Department of urban design and plan-
ning (NTNU, Trondheim, Norway), Join EU-SEE scholarship scheme 
and Professor José Luis Gómez Ordóñez (Department of urban design 
and planning, University of Granada, Spain).
Notes
[1] Sekulić was writing at the time when several South Slavic peoples 
lived in the unified country of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Due to 
their cultural connection, no difference has been made between the 
various peoples of the former Yugoslavia in this paper.
[2] “Nation” refers to the unique mentality of the specific region, and 
not only one nation.
[3] Approx. 100,000 people were killed and 300,000 wounded 450,000 
house units destroyed or damaged and 2 million people displaced 
from their homes or became refugees (UNHCR, 2004).
[4] Physical Planning and Building Act (Serb. Zakon o prostornom 
uređenju i građenju, 2013); Decision legalising illegally started or con-
structed buildings or parts of buildings in Banjaluka (Serb. Odluka o 
legalizaciji bespravno početih ili izgrađenih objekata ili dijelova objekata 
na teritoriji grada Banjaluka, 2011).
References
Aranya, R. & Ulset, V. (2015) Incipient informality in Delhi's “formalized” 
suburban space. In: Chakravarty, S. & Negi, R. (eds.) Space, planning and 
everyday contestations in Delhi, pp. 91–110. New Delhi, Springer.
Bratina Jurkovič, N. (2014) Perception, experience and the use of public 
urban spaces by residents of urban neighbourhoods. Urbani izziv, 25(1), 
pp. 107–125. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2014-25-01-003
Castells, M. (2009) The power of identity: The information age: Economy, 
society, and culture. New York, Wiley-Blackwell.
Cvijić, J. (1966) Balkansko poluostrvo i južnoslovenske zemlje. Belgrade, 
ZIU SR Srbije.
Dovey, K. (2010) Becoming places. London, Routledge.
Gillis, J. R. (1994) Memory and identity: The history of relationship. 
In: Gillis, J. R. (ed.) Commemorations: The politics of national identity, 
pp. 3–24. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Hall, P. (1996) Cities of tomorrow. Oxford, Blackwell Publishers.
Hall, S. (2000) “Who needs ‹identity›?” In: du Gay, P., Evans, J. & Redman, 
P. (eds.) Identity: a reader, pp. 15–30. London, Sage Publications.
Hamsun, K. (1927) Pan. New York, Alfred A. Knopf.
Hoxha, V., Dimitrovska Andrews, K. & Temeljotov Salaj, A. (2014) Cultur-
al factors affecting urban planners’ intentions to regulate public space 
in Prishtina, Kosovo. Urbani izziv, 25(2), pp. 76–89.  
DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2014-25-02-001
Ibelings, H. (2010) Restart: Arhitektura Bosnia-Herzegovina 1995–2010. 
Sarajevo, BuyBook.
Institute of statistics of the Republic of Srpska (2014) Preliminary results 
of the Census of population, households and dwellings in BH 2013, for 
cities and municipalities of Republika Srpska. Second, corrected release. 
Banjaluka.
I. KUVAČ, M. SCHWAI
Urbani izziv, volume 28, no. 1, 2017
95
Internet 1: http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=POP&f=tableCode%3A240 
(accessed 16 Mar. 2015).
Internet 2: https://geoinnsyn.nois.no/trondheim/?project=trondheim 
(accessed 2 Mar. 2015).
Internet 3: https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2008-06-27-71 (ac-
cessed 25 Mar. 2015).
Internet 4: http://www.gulesider.no/f/ilsvik%C3%B8ra-velforen-
ing:85353683 (accessed 16 Mar. 2015).
Karan, I. (2014) Trebinje on the border between East and West. Heritage 
and memory of Trebinje Bosnian-Herzegovinian town, Bitacora, 24(2) 
pp. 31–41.
Kvale, S. & Brinkmann, S. (2009) Interviews, Learning the Craft of Qualita-
tive Research Interviewing. London, Sage Publications.
Lappegard Hauge, Å. (2009) Housing and Identity. The meaning of hous-
ing in communicating identity and its influence on self-perception. Doc-
toral thesis. Trondheim, NTNU.
Lefebvre, H. (2013) La produccion del espacio. Madrid, Capitan Swing 
Libros S. L.
Lynch, K. (1974) Slika jednog grada. Belgrade, Građevinska knjiga.
Mason, J. (2006) Mixing methods in a qualitatively driven way. Qualita-
tive research, 6(1), pp. 9–25. DOI: 10.1177/1468794106058866
Meili, M., Diener, R., Topalović, M. & Muller Inderbitzin, C. (2012) Bel-
grade. Formal / informal: A research on urban transformation. Basel, 
Verlag Scheidegger & Spiess.
Ministry of Finance and Treasury of Bosnia and Herzegovina & Office of 
the UN Resident Coordinator in Bosnia and Herzegovina (2013) Progress 
towards the Realisation of Millennium Development Goals in Bosnia and 
Herzegovina. Report. Sarajevo.
Murphy, M. A. (2011) Boundaries to socially and environmentally equita-
ble communal spaces – finding common ground for a sustainable urban 
existence in multicultural Oslo. Master’s thesis. Trondheim, NTNU.
Neil, W. J. V. (2004) Urban planning and cultural identity. London, Rout-
ledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780203402245
Norberg-Schulz, C. (1979) Genius loci: towards a phenomenology of 
architecture. New York, Rizzoli.
Odluka o legalizaciji bespravno početih ili izgrađenih objekata ili dijelova 
objekata na teritoriji grada Banjaluka. Službeni glasnik grada Banjaluka, 
no. 11/11. Banjaluka.
OECD (2014) OECD Economic Surveys. Norway. March 2014. Overview. 
Available at: http://www.oecd.org/eco/surveys/Norway-Overview-2014.
pdf (accessed 26 Mar. 2015).
Relph, E. (1976) Place and placelessness. London, Pion Limited.
Seamon, D. (2012) Place, place identity, and phenomenology: A triadic 
interpretation based on J.G. Bennett’s systematics. In: Casakin, H. & Ber-
nardo, F. (eds.) The role of place identity in the perception, understanding, 
and design of built environments, pp. 3–21. Sharjah, Bentham Science 
Publishers. DOI: 10.2174/97816080541381120101
Sejranović, B. (2010) Ljepši kraj. Sarajevo, Buybook.
Sekulić, I. (1914, 2001) Pisma iz Norveške i drugi putopisi. Novi Sad, 
Stylos art.
Sekulić, I. (1932) Beleška o malom narodu. Srpski književni glasnik, 35(6), 
pp. 422–426.
Simonović, D. (2010) Pejzažni gradovi, poređenje razvoja urbanog identi-
teta Banjaluke i Graca. Banjaluka, Arhitektonsko-građevinski fakultet.
Simonović, D. (2013) Rehabilitation of urban identity of cities in the 
Banjaluka region through urban form regulation. SPATIUM International 
Review, 30(12), pp. 28–32. DOI: 10.2298/SPAT1330028S
Skotte, H. (2004) Tents in Concrete. What internationally funded housing 
does to support recovery in areas affected by war. The case of Bosnia and 
Herzegovina. Doctoral thesis. Trondheim, NTNU.
Skotte, H., Čengić, N. & Svendsen, S. E. (2015) Now it’s mine. How and 
why Sarajevo’s new post-war residents have self-settled in and around the 
city. Typescript.
Soja, E. W. (1998) Thirdspace: journeys to Los Angeles and other real-and-
imagined places, Malden, Blackwell.
Solà-Morales i Rubió, M. (2003) Las formas del crecimiento urbano. 
Barcelona, Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña.
Tjora, A., Henriksen, I. A., Fjærli, T. & Grønning, I. (2012) Sammen i byen: 
en sosiologisk analyse av urbane naboskap, nærmiljoe og boligens betydn-
ing. Trondheim, Tapir Akademisk Forlag.
Transparency International Bosnia and Herzegovina (2014) Percepcija 
javne uprave, Bosna i Hercegovina 2014. Banjaluka. Available at: http://
ti-Bosnia-Herzegovina.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/TI-BOSNIA-
HERZEGOVINA-Percepcija-Javne-Uprave-Bosnia-Herzegovina-2014.pdf 
(accessed 24 Apr. 2015).
UNHCR (2004) Returns to Bosnia and Herzegovina reach 1 million. Avail-
able at: http://www.unhcr.org (accessed 9 Sep. 2014).
Watson, G. B. & Bentley, I. (2007) Identity by design. Oxford, Elsevier Ltd.
Zakon o prostornom uređenju i građenju Republike Srpske. Službeni Glas-
nik Republike Srpske 40/13. Banjaluka.
Three elements in the construction of spatial identities