Kreiranje arhitekture socijalnog stanovanja bila je jedna od važnijih odrednica većine gradova u njihovoj ekspanziji tijekom prošlog stoljeća.
Nijedan segment arhitekture nije tako artikuliran društvenim i sociološkim gibanjima kao stanogradnja. Bez obzira na to radilo se o socijalističko-planskom konceptu ili kapitalistički poticanoj gradnji, arhitekti su u oba slučaja bili izmđ|u “čekića i nakovnja”.
Jedan od otvorenijih (ili fleksibilnijih) primjera europske socijalne stanogradnje bio je berlinski koncept nazvan IBA u
osamdesetim godinama prije pada Zida. Berlin je u to doba naglašavao dvije društvene kategorije koje su u interakciji rezultirale socijalno-stambenom arhitekturom značajnih dosega. Prva je kategorija bila otvorenost kao politički prioritet, čime se izolirani grad sustavno čuvao od prijeteće bolesti “željezne zavjese”. Druga je bila izrazita socijalna osvije{tenost, koja je izgra|ivana dugogodišnjim prisustvom Willyja Brandta i SPD-a u politici. Otvorenost prema Europi
u zajedničkim idealima socijalnog društva iznjedrila je “pozivnice” većini eminentnih arhitekata u nadmetanju za izgled novog socijalnog stana.
Gdje smo mi bili tih godina?
Još početkom osamdesetih naš model stanogradnje zahvatio je stabilizacijski virus i efekt “kresanja proračuna”. Posljednjih deset
godina prije sloma SFRJ socijalno stanovanje mutiralo je tako da je smanjeni intenzitet gradnje kompenziran afirmacijom elitnijeg tipa gradnje za dobrostojeće socijalističke odlikaše.
Raspad bivše države doveo je do sloma sveprisutnih stambenih zadruga, a animozitet prema
svemu socijalnom ili društvenom uništio je svaku volju prema stambenom planiranju. Jedan
sustav je ugašen, a drugi nije stvoren. U ratnom vihoru bilo je tisuće važnijih problema, iako je
bilo očito da rat stvara beskućnike i da je nužno kreirati postratne vizije obnove. Konačno, 1996. godine država uzima stvar u svoje ruke te preko Ministarstva razvitka i obnove pokušava pokrenuti zaustavljeni zamašnjak. U nedostatku šire
fronte stambenog zbrinjavanja, inženjerski kadrovi Ministarstva organiziraju mrežu ad hoc investicija. Jedan od njihovih vitalnijih programa bavio se zbrinjavanjem stradalnika Domovinskog rata. Glavna šarišta planiranja bili su ratom
najoštećeniji gradovi: Vukovar, Osijek, Vinkovci, Karlovac, Gospić, Zadar, Dubrovnik...
Arhitekt Dario Gabrić završava
studij nakon preseljenja iz Sarajeva u Zagreb. Dolaskom u ured splitskog Konstruktora neizbježno
je na stolu zatekao zadatke koji obiluju postratnom tematikom. Jedan od takvih projekata bila je i zgrada za stradalnike u Dubrovniku, u predjelu Hladnice.
(.....)

The architecture of social housing was one of the major determinants of urban expansion in the 20th century. There is no single segment of architecture as well defined by social and sociological tides as public housing. Whether driven by socialist plans or capitalist subsidies, architects were always between the devil and
the deep blue sea. One of the most open (read flexible) public housing concepts in Europe
was the “IBA” in Berlin in the 80s, that is, before the fall of
the Wall. At the time, Berlin emphasised two social features which together produced influential social-housing architecture. The first feature was openness as a political priority and sustained counteraction to the risk of infection posed by the Iron Curtain. The second feature
was the remarkable social awareness maintained by the long presence of Willy Brandt and the SPD.
Openness toward Europe and the common ideals of the
welfare society were invitations to many an eminent architect to outdo each other in creating a new type of social housing. Where were we at the time?
As early as the beginning of the 80s our public housing model was infected by the virus of “stabilisation1 ” and budget cuts. The last decade of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia saw a mutation in public
housing inasmuch as the reduction in quantity was compensated for by an elitist type of building intended for
well-to-do prominent socialist figures.
As the country broke apart, so did various housing co-operatives, and in the meanwhile the animosity toward anything that was public or social led to
a complete absence of housing programmes. One system went down, but no other was devised to replace it. The turmoil of war redefined thousands of priorities, although it was obvious that the war had produced
homelessness and that a postwar reconstruction programme was imminent. Government administration eventually took the matter in hand in 1996 through the Ministry of Public Works, Reconstruction and
Construction which sought to restore the lost momentum. In the absence of a wider public housing programme, the
Ministry engineers established an ad hoc investment network. The housing of war victims was one of the most crucial programmes, with centres in the most affected towns such as Vukovar, Osijek, Vinkovci, Karlovac, Gospić, Zadar, and Dubrovnik.
Having moved from Sarajevo to Zagreb, architect Dario Gabrić graduated and then joined the office of “Konstruktor” in Split, where he was bound to encounter tasks related to postwar issues. One such project was a building for war victims in the locality of
Hladnice in Dubrovnik.
(....)