Belgrade Waterfront

Location heritage

The implementation of Belgrade Waterfront has involved the clearance, demolition or replacement of several pre-existing green spaces, buildings and transport structures. These interventions have prompted criticism concerning the loss of mature vegetation, the treatment of older buildings, property rights and the preservation of structures associated with the history of Savamala.

Bristol Park, also known as Svetonikolski Park, was established around the beginning of the 20th century from a garden created by merchant and benefactor Luka Ćelović.^[19] An urban project placed on public inspection in April 2024 proposed constructing a two-level underground garage with approximately 450 parking spaces beneath the park and retaining five of its 86 existing trees.^[20] Location conditions issued later that year required the number of newly planted trees to be no lower than the number found before construction, recommended the preservation of valuable existing trees and required at least 1.5 m (4.9 ft) of soil above the garage to accommodate tall vegetation.^[21] Belgrade Waterfront stated that the reconstructed park would contain approximately 200 trees, including mature specimens planted on the garage's green roof.^[22] By January 2026, however, the previous park had been cleared and enclosed as a construction site leading to the complete disappearance of the existing historic park.^[19]

The former Simpo department-store building was demolished in October 2018 after being acquired by the Serbian state for the development. The structure had been built in 1922 as a warehouse for the Franco-Serbian Bank and was later purchased by furniture manufacturer Simpo, which added two floors and substantially reconstructed it between 1985 and 1987.^[23] Reports preceding the demolition had referred to its possible reconstruction, but it was subsequently reported that its deteriorated condition made demolition the only feasible option.^[23] The state reportedly paid approximately €12 million for the building and land. The Balkan Investigative Reporting Network noted that the joint-venture agreement listed both the Simpo and Iskra properties as containing 1,200 m² (13,000 sq ft), although the Simpo complex alone included 3,431 m² (36,930 sq ft) of retail space and an additional 863 m² (9,290 sq ft) of warehouses and auxiliary structures. BIRN and Transparency Serbia questioned whether the discrepancy meant that Serbia had contributed substantially more property value than had been recognised in the original agreement.^[24]

The property of the company Iskra was also affected during the clearance of Savamala. On 8 May 2015, a fence erected by the company in 1964 was demolished without prior notice, and employees of Millennium Team occupied part of the land used by Iskra on 24 June. Several structures used by the company were subsequently demolished during the wider Savamala demolitions of 25 April 2016.^[25] In November 2025, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the demolition of the fence and the taking of the land had violated Iskra's right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court found that the legal procedures intended to protect against arbitrary interference had been entirely circumvented and that the existence of special legislation for Belgrade Waterfront did not remove the company's right to due process.^[25] The judgment concerned the events of May and June 2015; it did not determine responsibility for the separate April 2016 demolition of Iskra's buildings, which remained the subject of domestic proceedings and investigation.^[25]

The removal of the Old Sava Bridge was also associated with the redevelopment because its right-bank approaches pass through Savamala and the Belgrade Waterfront planning area. Although the bridge replacement is a municipal infrastructure project rather than a building developed by Belgrade Waterfront, the Belgrade Land Development Public Agency states that one purpose of the new bridge is to introduce higher-capacity traffic flows into the area covered by the special-purpose spatial plan for the development.^[26] The bridge, erected during the German occupation in 1942 and retained after the Second World War, was closed to traffic on 1 November 2024. Its steel structure was dismantled during 2025, and its characteristic central arch was removed from the river piers on 30 July 2025.^[27] City officials argued that the old bridge was in poor condition, had insufficient capacity and obstructed the capital's development, while preservation groups, architects and some residents opposed its removal on historical, traffic and procedural grounds.^[27] The city stated that preserved parts of the structure would be inspected and potentially reassembled at another location, but the final location and use of the removed bridge had not been determined when its arch was taken down.^[26][27]

Expansion

In October 2025, the Serbian government adopted amendments to the project's spatial plan, expanding its area from approximately 180 to 330 hectares across the municipalities of Savski Venac, New Belgrade and Čukarica. The expanded planning area includes the Belgrade Fair, Terazije Terrace, the former petroleum-storage site near the fairgrounds, the Topčider River corridor, the Čukarica backwater and part of the left bank of the Sava in New Belgrade.^[28]

The plan designates Terazije Terrace as a public green space and proposes a green corridor along Kamenička Street connecting the Terazije ridge with Karađorđeva Street and the Sava riverfront. At the Belgrade Fair, Halls 1, 2 and 3 and the administration building are to remain a public-use complex, with their future functions to be determined through an architectural and urban-planning competition.^[28][29]

On the New Belgrade side, the plan covers former industrial and storage areas intended for a mixture of commercial, residential, sporting and green-space uses. It also provides for a linear park along the former railway route, with the Old Railway Bridge converted into a pedestrian and bicycle connection between the two banks. The planned corridor continues towards the Topčider River and Ada Ciganlija, while the Čukarica backwater is designated for marina and recreational uses.^[30]

More than 10,000 objections were submitted during the public-review process. Following the review, blocks 51 and 52 at Terazije Terrace and blocks 57 and 58 near Sava Square were excluded from the amended plan.^[28][29]

Construction status

Planning process and governance

The planning and legal framework used for Belgrade Waterfront has been criticised by urban-planning researchers, professional organisations and anti-corruption groups. Academic studies have described the project as an example of an exceptional, centrally directed planning process in which the proposal was incorporated into Belgrade's planning documents after the project's political and commercial framework had largely been determined. Researchers Slavka Zeković, Tamara Maričić and Miodrag Vujošević characterised decision-making as exclusive and elite-driven, noting the absence of an open tender for the joint-venture partner and limited participation by local communities.^[124] Ana Perić similarly argued that the applicable legal framework was used in a manner that restricted meaningful public participation, while Perić and Frank D'hondt placed the development among Balkan megaprojects characterised by special regulations, ad hoc institutional arrangements and the politicisation of planning.^[125][126]

The project was enabled by a 2015 lex specialis establishing project-specific rules for expropriation, construction permits, taxation and land leasing. Transparency International stated that the law permitted expropriation for commercial and residential development that would not ordinarily have been allowed under Serbia's general expropriation legislation, and made it possible to avoid ordinary public-procurement procedures. It also noted that the design process had taken place without meaningful public participation and that the private partner had been selected without an open competition.^[120] Serbia's Anti-Corruption Agency identified corruption risks arising from imprecise provisions and broad discretionary powers granted to public authorities.^[120] The government defended the special legislation by designating the development a project of national importance and emphasising its expected investment, employment, infrastructure and urban-regeneration benefits.^[120][124]

Criticism of the project's governance intensified after the Savamala demolitions of 24–25 April 2016, when masked men demolished buildings in Hercegovačka Street on land intended to be cleared for the development. In June 2016, then-prime minister Aleksandar Vučić stated that senior Belgrade officials were responsible for the operation.^[127] In April 2026, the First Basic Prosecutor's Office said that the masked perpetrators had still not been identified because police had not established their identities, and that not all circumstances necessary to determine the precise criminal classification of the acts had been established.^[128]

Architecture and urban design

Architectural criticism has primarily concerned the master plan's density, scale, relationship to the historic city and treatment of the riverfront, rather than the engineering design of individual buildings. Professional organisations opposed the proposed plan from an early stage and called for an international urban-design competition for the Sava Amphitheatre.^[129] Critics argued that the investor-led plan replaced earlier proposals for a lower-density district containing major public and cultural institutions with a predominantly residential and commercial development aimed at the luxury-property market.^[124][126]

Architect Dragoljub Bakić criticised the height, arrangement and orientation of the riverfront blocks, arguing that their massing created a wall along the Sava, obstructed views from the older city and placed a population and traffic load on infrastructure that had not been correspondingly expanded. He also described the architecture as conventional commercial construction rather than an innovative response to the site.^[130] In 2024, Bojan Kovačević, president of the Academy of Architecture of Serbia, described the development as an act of “urbanistic violence” and a “foreign body” that did not relate adequately to Belgrade's established architecture or riverfront morphology. He argued that the use of towers and luxury apartments had been treated as evidence of modernisation without sufficient consideration of urban context or residential quality.^[131]

Construction quality, permits and worker safety

Complaints about construction quality have been made by some apartment owners. In March 2023, Danas reported that residents of the BW Aurora and BW Arcadia buildings had complained of water entering underground garages, persistent dampness, leaking pipes, sewage problems and alleged faults involving façades, windows, ventilation and fire-protection equipment. Correspondence among residents also referred to repair work and the possible initiation of legal proceedings against the developer, contractor and subcontractors.^[132] According to the report, contractor Strabag arranged a meeting with residents and repair work was under way in some parts of the buildings.^[132] The complaints were based principally on residents' accounts and internal correspondence; the reporting did not cite an independent structural survey establishing that either building was structurally unsafe.

Regulatory questions also arose over Kula Belgrade. Forbes Srbija reported that, although the hotel within the tower had opened in 2024, the Central Register of Unified Procedures showed neither an occupancy permit nor an application for one as of November 2025. The register did show several proceedings concerning fire-protection documentation, some of which had initially been rejected and later approved.^[133] In April 2026, the first published occupancy-permit application associated with the tower appeared in a separate proceeding concerning a system intended to draw technical water from the Sava for heating and cooling. The register did not make clear whether the application covered the entire tower or only the water-intake and mechanical installations.^[134] The developer did not answer the outlet's questions about the reason for the delay.^[133]

Construction-site safety also attracted criticism. On 14 September 2018, two workers employed by subcontractors working under Strabag died after falling from the 22nd floor of a building under construction at the development.^[135] The cause remained subject to investigation in contemporary reporting. Strabag stated that the workers were registered, trained and supplied with the required equipment, while Belgrade Waterfront stated that safety plans and occupational-protection standards were applied at its construction sites and that it would cooperate with the investigation.^[136]

Financial transparency and money-laundering allegations

Financial criticism has centred on the absence of competitive selection for the private partner, the allocation of costs and risks between the state and investor, and the limited initial disclosure of the joint-venture agreement. Under the agreement, the private partner received a 68-per-cent interest and Serbia a 32-per-cent interest, while the state undertook land clearance and major infrastructure obligations. Transparency International argued that the lack of competition may have reduced potential public revenue and described the special legislation as a precedent that placed the requirements of a particular investment outside the generally applicable legal framework.^[120]

Separate money-laundering allegations have nevertheless appeared in reputable reporting. In 2016, the Financial Times reported that the civic group Ne davimo Beograd warned that the development could become a focus for corruption and money laundering because of the project's opaque financing and contracting arrangements.^[137] In 2024, Kovačević alleged that an examination of the project's finances and apartment purchasers would probably reveal money laundering and purchases by businesspeople connected to political interests.^[131]