Challenges of Comparative Urban Research in CEE Zoltán Kovács (University of Szeged) MOBILITY, SEGREGATION AND NEIGHBOUHOOD CHANGE Tartu, 14-15 March 2013
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. 1-22. New York: John Wiley.] socialist city post-socialist city
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
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?).
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?
1. Lack of efficient, comparative data Example Transformation of the city centre (CBD)
CITY-EXPANSION AS A CONSEQUENCE OF Boom of service sector Flow of foreign investments The rise of headquarter economy Boom in tourism FUNCTIONAL CONVERSION
Densification of cityfunctions in Budapest downtown (Survey July 2005) New functions after 1993 Bank, insurance Tourism services Hotels
Conversion of residential buildings to Businesses, July 2005 Firms operating in dwellings
2. Different historical pathways
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)
Novi Pazar - Serbia
Freiberg - Saxony
% 12 Annual growth of urban population in East Central Europe (1950-1990) 10 8 6 4 2 0-2 GDR Poland Czechoslovakia Hungary Romania Bulgaria Yugoslavia Albania 1950-1960 1960-1970 1970-1980 1980-1990
% 00 Proportion of urban population in East Central Europe 1950-1990 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 GDR Czech Republic Slovakia Poland Hungary Romania Bulgaria Yugoslavia 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
3. Differences of framework conditions after 1990
Framework conditions of urban development after 1990 Politics Economy Society
Political factors Re-establishment of self-governance Political fragmentation Neo-liberal urban policy Conflicts of national-local interests
Economic factors Privatisation (property and businesses) Tertiarization, de-industrialisation Globalization Emergence of new (post-fordist) economy
in per cent Tenure structure by case study regions (results of the survey) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 owner occupied flat/house rented flat/house 0 Budapest Leipzig Sofia St.Petersburg Vilnius
Social factors after 1990 Growing income differences, growing segregation Increasing poverty rates New housing preferences New life-style (work, leisure) Ageing
in per cent MOST popular type of housing 70 60 single family home in suburbs 50 40 30 20 10 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
in per cent LEAST popular type of housing 80 70 60 50 large housing estate from the 1970s/80s single family house in the suburbs 40 old building close to the centre 30 20 10 new multi-storey building at the urban fringe in the city-centre housing quality not important 0 Budapest Sofia St.Petersburg Vilnius Leipzig
4. Limitations of concepts developed and widely used in Western urban studies Examples: Gentrification Large housing estates
Gentrification
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)
Public rental dwellings in downtown Budapest (2001)
Middle- Ferencváros
FEATURES 1992: SEM IX Co. 3P with 51% of the shares owned by the district Rapid displacement of residents Top-down gentrification
Gentrification in Middle-Ferencváros Rent-gap ø Landlords ø Value-gap (!) Pioneers ø Gentries (?!) Invasion-succession ø
Middle-Józsefváros
FEATURES 1997: Rév8 Co. 60% of the shares are owned by the district, 40% by Budapest Slow displacement of residents Soft gentrification
Large housing estates
Peculiarities of housing estates in CEE compared to the West Size of the estates Social status Quality of built environment Level of services
Comparative analysis of large housing estates
Population and housing indicators of the investigated cities Leipzig Budapest Vilnius Sofia Population (2006) 506 576 1 698 106 554 409 1 377 531 Population change (%) 1992 to 2006 2001 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%
Sofia Vilnius Budapest Leipzig Per capita living space (m 2 ) (2005) 41 35 24 17 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
Leipzig - Grünau
Budapest- Havanna
Vilnius - Karoliniškės
Sofia - Mladost
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
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 1990 1991-2000 2000-2007
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)
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 (%)
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) 0 10 20 30 40 50
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.
Thank you for your attention!