Velimir Stojanović

DOI Number
First page
Last page


The urban structure has no clearly visible boundaries between the content, function, form, and other, which is a consequence of the city’s spatial development and a multitude of influences connected within this process. The city, however, has been created as a product of periodic construction and all possible interventions related to such a course of development. Plans, planning activities, projects, cycles, etc. have not eventually given a clear overview of the total urban structure and shown it as a clear and, to all of us, desirable whole. In order for such a structure to be understood, it was also necessary to review each individual situation where, due to the complexity, the city should be divided into appropriate parts and subparts, which can then be given different names (city element, part of the city, structural area, etc., but of all names, the concept and term ‘segment’ is most commonly used). In order to be analyzed, recognized and planned in the future, designed and built, the whole of the city must rely on such a division. The notion of an urban segment is related to the nature and number of elements of its content, and with such qualitative and quantitative nature, it becomes the basis for any further analysis. Analytical procedure of the segment also implies an additional analysis - of their mutual interactions or border areas. These areas are as significant as a segment, sometimes even more significant as they contain necessary information connecting the city into a whole


urban structure, segment, influence, information, border area.

Full Text:



C. Boyer, “The City of Collective Memory, Its Historical Imagery and Architectural Entertainments”. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1994.

M. De Waal, “The City as Interface: How New Media Are Changing the City”. Rotterdam: NAi010 Publishers, 2014.

J. Habermas, “The Theory of Communicative Action”. Boston: Beacon Press, 1984

H. Heynen, “Architecture and Modernity”. Cambridge, Massachusetss and London: M.I.T Press, 1999.

P. Healey, “Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies”. London: Macmillian Press, 1997.

E. Karminia, “Public spaces and behavioural pattern: thesaces of Lijehdmstorget in Stocholm”. Proceedings of the 21th international Seminar of Urban Form; 03 - 30 July 2014. Accessed June 15, 2015.

M. Laguerre, “The Digital City – The American Metropolis and Information”. Berkeley, LA: University of California Press, 2005.

C. Landry, “The Creativy City: A Toolkit for urban innovators”. London: Earthschan, 2005.

K. Lynch, “The Image of the City”. Cambridge, Massachusetss: MIT Press, 1960.

K. Lynch, “Good City Form”. Cambridge, Massachusetss: The MIT Press, 1981.

M. Manheim, “Hierarchical structure: A model of Desing and Planining Processes”: M.I.T Report ,no 7, 1980.

M. Mumford, “Technics ang civilization”. London: Routledge, 1946.

C. Norberg – Schulz, “Existence, Space and Architecture”. New York: Preaper, 1971.

C. Norberg – Schulz, “Genius Loci”. London: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture Academy Editions, 1980.

L. Sklar, “Space, Time and Spacetime”. Los Angeles: University of California Press Berkley, 1976.

S. Giedion, “Mechanization Takes Comand”. New York: Oxford University Press, 1948.

Author, 2015

Author, 2015

Author, 2016


  • There are currently no refbacks.

ISSN 0354-4605 (Print)

ISSN 2406-0860 (Online)