Challenges of Comparative Urban Research in CEE Zoltán Kovács (University of Szeged)

Transcription

1 Challenges of Comparative Urban Research in CEE Zoltán Kovács (University of Szeged) MOBILITY, SEGREGATION AND NEIGHBOUHOOD CHANGE Tartu, March 2013

2 Theoretical framework I. socialist city concept [French, R. A. and Hamilton, F. E. I. (1979): Is there a Socialist City? In: French, R. A. and Hamilton, F. E. I. eds. The Socialist City. pp New York: John Wiley.] socialist city post-socialist city

3 FEATURES OF THE SOCIALIST CITY ECONOMY SOCIETY FUNCTIONS LAND USE dominance of heavy industry homogenisation, anti-segregation policy no land market, mixed functions wasting land, explosion on the periphery PLANNING strong control, large-scale interventions MORPHOLOGY compact city

4 Theoretical framework II. Convergence-divergence dilemma Convergence with the West (are terms and concepts applied in the western literature applicable?) Convergence within the region (can speak of a universal model? Is there a postsocialist city?).

5 Challenges of Comparative Urban Research 1. Lack of efficient, comparative data 2. Different historical pathways 3. Substantial differences in framework conditions and transformation policies 4. Weaknesses and limitations of the concepts/terms used in Western urban studies under the post-socialist context Are these cities comparative at all?

6 1. Lack of efficient, comparative data Example Transformation of the city centre (CBD)

7 CITY-EXPANSION AS A CONSEQUENCE OF Boom of service sector Flow of foreign investments The rise of headquarter economy Boom in tourism FUNCTIONAL CONVERSION

8

9

10 Densification of cityfunctions in Budapest downtown (Survey July 2005) New functions after 1993 Bank, insurance Tourism services Hotels

11 Conversion of residential buildings to Businesses, July 2005 Firms operating in dwellings

12 2. Different historical pathways

13 Urban development in CEE prior to 1945 Industrialisation and modern urbanisation was belated and distorted in CEE Huge differences within the region: Highly urbanised areas (e.g. Saxony, Thuringia, Bohemia, Silesia) Less urbanised areas (Eastern Poland, Slovakia, Eastern Hungary, Transylvania) Hardly urbanised areas (the Balkan States)

14 Novi Pazar - Serbia

15 Freiberg - Saxony

16 % 12 Annual growth of urban population in East Central Europe ( ) GDR Poland Czechoslovakia Hungary Romania Bulgaria Yugoslavia Albania

17 % 00 Proportion of urban population in East Central Europe GDR Czech Republic Slovakia Poland Hungary Romania Bulgaria Yugoslavia

18 3. Differences of framework conditions after 1990

19 Framework conditions of urban development after 1990 Politics Economy Society

20 Political factors Re-establishment of self-governance Political fragmentation Neo-liberal urban policy Conflicts of national-local interests

21 Economic factors Privatisation (property and businesses) Tertiarization, de-industrialisation Globalization Emergence of new (post-fordist) economy

22 in per cent Tenure structure by case study regions (results of the survey) owner occupied flat/house rented flat/house 0 Budapest Leipzig Sofia St.Petersburg Vilnius

23 Social factors after 1990 Growing income differences, growing segregation Increasing poverty rates New housing preferences New life-style (work, leisure) Ageing

24 in per cent MOST popular type of housing single family home in suburbs modern gated and guarded complex close to the centre renovated historical building close to the centre modern guarded multi-storey housing complex renovated building (Gründerzeit) 0

25 in per cent LEAST popular type of housing large housing estate from the 1970s/80s single family house in the suburbs 40 old building close to the centre new multi-storey building at the urban fringe in the city-centre housing quality not important 0 Budapest Sofia St.Petersburg Vilnius Leipzig

26 4. Limitations of concepts developed and widely used in Western urban studies Examples: Gentrification Large housing estates

27 Gentrification

28 Development of inner-city quarters during state-socialism Disinvestment (dilapidation of the building stock) Prevailing residential function (weak business function) Ageing of population Social downgrading (weakening of middleclass profile)

29 Public rental dwellings in downtown Budapest (2001)

30 Middle- Ferencváros

31

32 FEATURES 1992: SEM IX Co. 3P with 51% of the shares owned by the district Rapid displacement of residents Top-down gentrification

33 Gentrification in Middle-Ferencváros Rent-gap ø Landlords ø Value-gap (!) Pioneers ø Gentries (?!) Invasion-succession ø

34 Middle-Józsefváros

35 FEATURES 1997: Rév8 Co. 60% of the shares are owned by the district, 40% by Budapest Slow displacement of residents Soft gentrification

36

37 Large housing estates

38 Peculiarities of housing estates in CEE compared to the West Size of the estates Social status Quality of built environment Level of services

39 Comparative analysis of large housing estates

40 Population and housing indicators of the investigated cities Leipzig Budapest Vilnius Sofia Population (2006) Population change (%) 1992 to to 2006 Share of owner-occupied housing (2005) Ratio of population living in large housing estates (2000) -6.6% a +2.7% -15.3% -2.4% -7.1% b + 0.2% 12% 92% 97% (2001) +23.6% +17.3% 94% (2001) ca. 20% ca. 30% ca. 50% ca. 60%

41 Sofia Vilnius Budapest Leipzig Per capita living space (m 2 ) (2005) Process of privatisation ø (traditional owneroccupation) Privatisation mass privatisation restitution Dominant ownership structure owneroccupation owneroccupation owneroccupation private rental Housing market shortage balanced balanced oversupply (15% vacancy) Demographic development growing shrinking stagnating Urban planning deregulated?? decentralised organized regulated

42 Leipzig - Grünau

43 Budapest- Havanna

44 Vilnius - Karoliniškės

45 Sofia - Mladost

46 Housing by tenure on the estates 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Grünau (N=148) Havanna (N=153) Karoliniskes (N=157) Mladost (N=80) rental owner occupied

47 Level of residential mobility Mladost (N=53) Karoliniskes (N=133) Grünau (N=106) Havanna (N=112) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% up to

48 Level of satisfaction with current dwelling 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% totally dissatisfied fairly dissatisfied satisfied very satified 0% Grünau (N=148) Havanna (N=153) Karoliniskes (N=157) Mladost (N=80)

49 Rejection of large housing estate Leipzig/Grünau Budapest/Havanna Residents of housing estates Residents elsewhere Karoliniskes/Vilnius Sofia/Mladost -100,0-80,0-60,0-40,0-20,0 0,0 total refusal (%)

50 Planned mobility Do you plan to move in the near future? Havanna (N=130/141 Karoliniskes (N=143/152) Inner city Large scale housing estate Mladost (N=92/88) Grünau (N=138/139)

51 Some conclusions We should avoid oversimplification and overgeneralisation, We should engage in collaborative work and projects in which difference is worked through and understandings are developed.

52 Thank you for your attention!