Population and housing dynamics in Budapest metropolitan regionafter 1990 (draft paper)

Zoltn Kovcs1

The collapse of state-socialism generated far-reaching social and economictransformation in Central and Eastern Europe after 1990. These processes led to fundamentalchanges in the spatial organisation and internal structure of cities and urban agglomerations aswell. In this respect we can truly say that 1990 represented the beginning of a new era in theurban development of the region, therefore it is no surprise, that the transformation of cities inEast Central Europe has generated great academic interest.

Following the long decades of central planning these cities became subjects of marketconditions, and the question was repeatedly put forward by researchers whether these citiesfollow the paths of western urbanisation or they retain certain specific features in theirdevelopment. This issue was examined in several thematic volumes (Andrusz, Harloe andSzelnyi 1996, Enyedi 1998a), and individual papers focusing on certain countries and cities(Sailer-Fliege 1999, Standl and Krupickaite 2004, Ruopilla and Khrik 2003, Sykora 1999,Tasan-Kok 2004, Weclawowicz 1997, 1998). The transformation of Budapest, as a dominanttwo-million city of the region has also attracted great attention, which is well reflected by thegrowing number of academic publications in the field (Bernyi 1994; Dingsdale 1997;Kovcs 1994, 1998; Kovcs and Wiessner 2004; Ladnyi 1997).

This paper examines the population and housing dynamics of the different functional-urbanzones within the metropolitan region of Budapest. For this purpose social and housingindicators from the 1990 and 2001 censuses were selected and compared. The main aim of thestudy was to analyse the changing levels of residential segregation in the city, thegeographical pattern and dynamics of residential mobility within the urban region, and thequestion of investment and disinvestment in the in the building, and not least the housingstock. In the empirical part of the presentation the issues of urban up-grading (gentrification)and down-grading (ghettoisation) processes are demonstrated and examined on specific casestudies. Social and environmental impacts of running rehabilitation programmes are alsoinvestigated. At the end of the paper a general model is introduced in which we try tosummarize the lessons of post-socialist urban transition.

Conditions of urban development before and after transition

During the state-socialist period the political, economic and social life of Budapest aswell as its internal structure could be characterised by the following features. Thesecharacteristics were also typical to a great extent for other cities in East Central Europe.

Local decision making was fragmented between the party, the central state and industry;and there was a complete absence of local self-government. Budapest was ruled by ahand-picked council which followed the instructions of the communist party. Localinterests could not be articulated urban planning and urban development followed a stricttop-down model. Despite the increasing de-industrialisation, what was also forced by the central state prior

to 1990, the industrial function of Budapest remained strong, and the weight of service

1 Geographical Research Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences (zkovacs@mail.iif.hu)

sector fell below the western standards. Industry occupied vast areas in the adjoiningzone of the densely built up inner city. Some of these areas became already industrialslums well before the collapse of the communist system. During state-socialism urban land was transferred to state ownership, or at least largely

withdrawn from private right of disposal. Due to the lack of free property market landrent lost its significance in urban development. As a consequence Budapest and othercities of socialism remained fairly compact with large, relatively homogeneousfunctional areas. CBD (Central Business District) with strong service sector according towestern standards could not evolve. Suburbanisation or any kind of urban sprawl hardlytook place. The role of the state in the field of housing construction and renovation was dominant.

New housing construction took place nearly exclusively at the outer fringe of the city,mostly in the form of large housing estates. On the other hand the housing stock of theinner quarters built before World War II deteriorated visibly, mainly due to the neglect.This resulted also changes in the social pattern of Budapest, the status of inner-citydeclined, whereas the peripheral zone became younger and better off, due to theimmigration of young, better educated households. In spite of the growing social differences, especially from the late 1960s, the level of

residential segregation remained relatively low. The state intervention both on the labourand housing market was rather strong; the main goal of social policy washomogenisation. Secure work-place and cheap housing constituted the corner stones ofthe communist system, what were thought to be the main tools towards the dream ofclassless society.

This system changed entirely after 1990. With respect to urban change an importantcomponent of the political transformation was the return to self-governance and thesubsequent shift of control from central (state) to local (community) level. This gave cities ingeneral more power to control and influence their own development. At the level of majorurban agglomerations like Budapest, however, the decentralisation of decision making veryoften meant the weakening of city-wide government and increasing the power and influenceof the individual districts (Bennett 1998). After 1990 in Budapest the 23 districts became themain actors of urban development, and the planning system was switched suddenly to a veryliberal and decentralised buttom-up model.The collapse of the former COMECON (Council for Mutual Economic Assistance) proved tobe a kind of shock therapy leading to bankruptcy and mass-liquidation of companies. Thedisintegration and privatisation of large state companies, especially in the socialist heavyindustry, played an outstanding role in the economic restructuring of city. The fall of the IronCurtain made the direct penetration of the global economy and its main actors thetransnational corporations possible. The introduction of a capitalist economy also meant thatthe market rather than government planning became the principal allocator of land andmoney. As a consequence, the landscape and the internal structure of Budapest, similarly toother Hungarian cities have undergone tremendous changes since 1990.

Functional division of Budapest urban region

For the purpose of the analysis the urban region of Budapest was divided into smallergeographical units, which can be considered both functionally and architecturally more or lesshomogeneous. Due to its marked physical geographic conditions (hill-plain) and the strict

control of planning over urban development in the past, it was not a difficult task to subdividethe city and its agglomeration according to these criteria.The ecological structure of Budapest shows astonishing coincidence with the physical featuresof the city. In order to demonstrate the existing dimensions of social and residentialsegregation, we selected the proportion of highly educated residents (i.e. people with collegeeducation). The indicator reflects a very strong east-west polarisation in the social structure ofthe city (Figure 1.).

Figure 1. Percentage of people with college education

The traditional high-status areas of the city can be found on the hilly Buda side, whereas theplain Pest, east of the Danube is the traditional stronghold of working class. Moving from theDanube towards the urban periphery, the social status of the residents gradually declines. It isalso remarkable how stable the spatial structure of residential segregation even after thecollapse of communism.On the other hand, architecturally Budapest was carefully planned. Planning regulations wereset out by a powerful body, called the Council of Public Works established in 1870. Thecouncil elaborated an imposing master plan which laid down the main features of spatialdevelopment, setting the direction of expansion, earmarking the functions of the differentdistricts, and dividing the city into land-use zones. As a consequence, structurally themetropolitan region of Budapest can be divided into seven major zones following thetraditions of the classical human ecology (Figure 2). Each zone can be characterised bydistinct socio-economic, functional and architectural features, thus, the boundary between theindividual zones is fairly clear. This concentric structure is the outcome of the organic growthof the city in the last 130 years, when the expansion of Budapest has occurred concentricallyfrom the centre of the town outwards.

Figure 2. Spatial structure of Budapest

1. The CityThe City is the oldest part of Budapest where the building stock was built in the 1880sand 90s. This is a densely built up area stretching on the flat Pest side of the town, insidethe arc of the Grand Boulevard (Nagykrt). (Some classification includes also theCastle District on the other side of the Danube in this zone.) This is a commercialdistrict and the traditional shopping centre of Budapest, including also the governmentalquarter (Liptvros). The street layout here is regular, with representative publicbuildings from the late 19th century including the Hungarian Parliament, the NationalMuseum and the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Another important characteristic, thatdespite the constant decrease of population (already 2 per cent between 1880 and 1935)the residential function of the City remained dominant up until the political changes of1989/90 (Enyedi and Szirmai 1992). This was mainly due to the lack of marketeconomy, as retail trade and service sector took up only a relatively small area of theinner city, the growth of a sizeable CBD similarly to West-Europe was simply notpossible.

2. Inner-urban residential quarterMoving from the city centre towards the periphery we reach a densely built residentialarea on both sides of the Danube, with 3-4 storey blocks of flats from the late 19th

century. This is the so-called inner-urban residential quarter of Budapest, whichprovides housing mostly for the elderly. In terms of the quality of the building stock andthe social status of the residents the zone is rather heterogeneous. On the Buda side, andin the northern sector of the zone on the Pest side the quality of housing is better and thesocial status of residents is higher. On the other hand towards the eastern edge of theinner residential zone, extensive slum areas are stretching. Many dwellings in theseareas date from the turn of the 20th century, when they were built on a speculative basis,and provided housing for the poor. As there was no proper maintenance of buildingand/or regeneration of old housing stock during socialism, these quarters started todecline irresistibly and became slums. Younger and better off families gradually movedout to the newly erected housing estates in the 1960s and 1970s, and they were replacedby other less affluent strata (e.g. Roma) (Ladnyi 1997).

3. Zone of transitionClose to the former administrative boundary of Little Budapest (i.e. the city before1950) a wide zone of industrial and transport functions was developed from the 1880swhen the first wave of industrial revolution reached Budapest. As pressure on the landwas relatively low the use of land here is less intensive, follow areas and low quality,low-rise housing for the working class are mixing with industrial estates, warehouses,transport areas (railway stations etc.). The name of the zone is symbolising that once itwas the very periphery of the city, the place of urban-rural transition. The use of thiszone became more intensive during the early phase of state-socialism as thedevelopment of industry speeded up again. New plants were settled here others werefurther developed in the 1950s. However, as the city entered the post-industrial phase ofits development the decay of the transitional zone started to accelerate. Between 1968and 1981 approximately 250 industrial plants were closed down or removed fromBudapest, mainly for ecological reasons. Virtually all of them were located in the zoneof transition. Some part of the newly evolving derelict land was re-used in the 1970s and1980s, mainly for housing purposes of smaller housing estates. This gave new impetusto the re-development of the zone, though large scale regeneration could not take place.

With the collapse of socialism, most of the industrial plants were closed down, and amassive brown-field zone of derelict industrial areas has evolved.

4. Housing estatesAfter World War II similarly to other socialist cities a ring a housing estates weregradually developed in Budapest. The peak of development in this zone was generatedby the socialist housing policy in the 1960s and 1970s. To ease the serious housingshortage the state started to produce a vast number of almost identical 2-roomed flats inthe form of housing estates. These modern housing estates were located nearlyexclusively on virgin sites close to the city boundary. According to their size, thetechnology applied and the physical appearance different generations of housing estatescan be distinguished in Budapest. The first generation of estates, built in the 1950s and60s was built close to the zone of transition and made use of existing transport and otherinfrastructure links. In typically low rise (2-3 storey) socialist-realist or Stalin baroquestyle, they became symbols of the new political system. However, from the late 1960sthe state housing industry relied increasingly on prefabricated technology and theestablishment of gigantic housing factories. These factories were able to buildextremely high density and high-rise estates of 12-15,000 dwellings housing 40-50,000people. Due to site constraints, these estates were constructed on undevelopedgreenfield sites in peripheral locations. Most estates were poorly served by transportand other facilities and the organic link with the city was broken (Kovcs and Douglas2004).

5. Zone of garden citiesThe rise of what is now the outer residential ring started at the beginning of the 20th

century when the lack of building plots and the extremely high rents within (Little-)Budapest fostered the growth of suburbs. Later the immigration waves from thedisintegrated territories of Hungary after World War I and the world economic crisisgenerated mass movements towards the suburbs. As a consequence the population of thesuburbs of Budapest increased from 130.000 to 530.000 between 1900 and 1949. Mostof these settlements were commuter villages or small towns prior to 1914 with low-rise,rural character. Some of them grew to big cities with 60-70 thousand inhabitants due tonew industrial functions arriving here in the inter-war period (e.g. jpest, Kispest,Csepel). In 1950 as part of the newly introduced communist type administrative system(council system) these suburbs, altogether 23 independent settlements, were forcefullyattached to mainland Budapest. As a consequence, the total area of Budapest wasenlarged from 207 to 525 square kilometres, and the population grew from 1 to 1,6million. Despite its excessive development during state socialism this zone retained itsrural character with lots of green areas and predominantly single family houses.

6. Villa-quarter of BudaIn general the Buda side is dominated by hilly landscape with forests. The rise of theBuda Hills started in the late 19th century when aristocrats and industrial magnateserected their elegant villas with spacious gardens. They were followed by members ofthe middle class who built their summer cottages in the upper lying regions in thesubsequent decades. After World War II these villas and cottages were nationalised anddivided into smaller dwelling units. A new renaissance of the Buda Hills started in the1970s and 1980s when members of the communist ruling class started to build theirsingle family homes and row-houses, reflecting the increasing polarisation of thesocialist society. This is the stronghold of the middle class, comprising not only

successful private entrepreneurs, but also some representatives of managerial andintellectual elites, most of whom made their fortunes rapidly in the favourable climatewhich emerged for them following the collapse of communism.

7. Zone of AgglomerationThis zone comprises the suburban settlements around Budapest which maintain strongties with the city, lying in its daily commuting zone. After the decapitation of theformer suburban zone around Budapest in 1950 gradually a new zone of agglomerationevolved. Through the development of the metropolitan transport network the cityexpanded its zone of influence dynamically in the 1950s and 60s. Already the NationalSettlement Development Plan (OTK) approved in 1971 specified a new zone ofagglomeration around Budapest, which consisted of 44 independent settlements. Thefunctional connections between the suburban settlements and Budapest were furtherintensified after 1990; this was also recognised by regional planning, when theHungarian government extended the boundary of the agglomeration with its decree in1997. Today the agglomeration of Budapest officially consists of 78 settlements, someof them are towns of middle rank.

In order to be able to determine the directions of transition within the urban region weaggregated socio-economic indicators from the 1990 and 2001 censuses for the individualzones. Basis of the aggregation was the system of urban planning units, which arefunctionally and morphologically more or less homogeneous neighbourhoods, and whichcontain the census tracts. For the agglomeration we considered the data of the 78 officiallydesignated settlements for both years.

Urban transition after 1990

After 1990 the political and economic transformations have generated far reaching changes inthe internal socio-economic structure of Budapest. Due to large scale privatisationprogrammes, the liberalisation of the housing and labour markets, and the growing presenceof global capital, the former socialist city of Budapest underwent rapid changes. The linkbetween social and neighbourhood differentiation is constituted by residential mobility.

The total population of the urban region sank from 2,57 million to 2,44 million between 1990and 2001, which is a decline of 5,3 percent. During the same time wrap the population of thecountry decreased by 1,7 percent, thus we can state that the metropolitan region of Budapestas a whole belonged to the regions with considerable population loss. This was connectedmainly with accelerating out-migration, as suburbanisation expanded already far behind theboundary of the official agglomeration, and even dezurbanisation tendencies could also beobserved towards the early 2000s (most preferred areas in this process were the region ofLake Balaton, and the hilly areas lying north and west of Budapest).Within the urban region there was a considerable shift of population between the core and theperiphery. The population figure of Budapest mainland decreased by 14,3 percent between1990 and 2001, whereas that of the agglomeration grew by 18,9 percent (Figure 3). This canbe explained by the massive de-concentration of the population mentioned earlier.Consequently the balance between the core-city and the agglomeration has also shifted, in1990, 22 percent of the population of Budapest urban region lived in the agglomeration zone,in 2001 already 27,6 percent.

Figure 3. Change of populaton by functional zones 1990-2001

City

Inner-urban quarter

Zone of transition

Housing estates

Garden Cities

Villaquarter

BUDAPEST

Agglomeration

Urban Region Total

-300000

-250000

-200000

-150000

-100000

-50000

0

50000

100000

150000

The selective deconcentration of the population resulted in radical changes of the social anddemographic characteristics of the local society. Generally, the social status of theagglomeration increased. This is confirmed by the growing presence of highly educatedresidents, the proportion of people with college education (within the age group 15+)increased from 3,2 to 12,7 percent between 1990 and 2001.The invasion of younger and better off Budapest families into the suburbs meant also a shiftin the development of the housing market. The number of inhabited dwellings in Budapestproper decreased from 791 to 742 thousand between 1990 and 2001, on the other hand thehousing stock of the agglomeration expanded by 21 percent. In the period of 1990-2001 78thousand new dwellings were built in the urban region of Budapest, about half of them wereconstructed in the agglomeration (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Ratio of dwellings built after 1990

0,00

2,00

4,00

6,00

8,00

10,00

12,00

14,00

16,00

18,00

City

Inne

r-urb

anqu

arte

r

Zone

oftra

nsitio

n

Hous

ing

esta

tes

Gard

enCi

ties

Villa

quart

er

BUDA

PEST

Agg l

omer

ation

Urba

n Reg

ionT

otal

If we look at the individual zones we can also figure out tremendous shifts. There are twoecological zones where we can observe high dynamism in urban development though forentirely different reasons the inner-city and the periphery (KOVCS & WIESSNER 1997).In the first case the growing presence of global capital and foreign investments, in the latterthe migration of young families and the dynamic expansion of service sector are the mainreasons. In the rest of the ecological zones we can observe both positive and negativetendencies, which is the result of spatial polarisation of investments within the actual zones.In the following we try to summarise and evaluate the most important features of transitionafter 1990 in the different functional zones.

City centre explosion of business functions

The post-socialist urban development has been overwhelmed by rapid and intensivereinvestment at the urban core, which resulted in the spectacular regeneration and expansionof the city centre (KOVCS & WIESSNER 2004). The reasons should be sought in the widerrestructuring of the economy, which brought about high dynamism of tertiary activitiesespecially in the field of business services, commerce and tourism. Generally, this led to agrowing demand for non-residential (business, office etc.) space in the city centre. The re-establishment of real estate market, based upon land-rent, made the rapid functionalconversion in the centre of Budapest possible. Many new firms bought flats in the centre ofthe town for office purposes, and gradually changed the function of the buildings (KOVCS1994). Statistically this process is also measurable, the number of inhabited dwellings in thecentre of Budapest decreased by 11 thousand between 1990 and 2001.As a consequence, the city centre is loosing its earlier residential profile, which is alsojustified by the fact that the population number of the core has decreased by 29 percentbetween 1990 and 2001. This was the highest rate among the ecological zones. In addition tothat the composition of the population is also changing. The local society of the city centrehas become younger and better educated since 1990. The proportion of elderly (60+)decreased from 29,6 to 27,2 percent, whereas the proportion of college educated increasedfrom 20 to 25 percent between 1990 and 2001. These changes are clear signals ofgentrification in the city centre. Equally reliable indicator for the changing image of inner-cityneighbourhoods is the market prices of properties (Figure 5). In 1997 the most expensive andhighest status areas in the inner-city could be found exclusively on the Buda side, the CastleDistrict and Gellrt Hill. These neighbourhoods are the traditional strongholds of upper-middle class. By 2003 the picture changed considerably, and areas with high property pricesexpanded to the city-centre east of the Danube. Moreover, the impacts of regenerationprogrammes on the property market are also visible, with extraordinary high values in someformer working class neighbourhoods (e.g. Middle-Ferencvros). We should also note that inthe six years of investigation dwellings prices in the upmarket category increased threefold,despite moderate annual inflation rates (on average 10 percent).The volume of commercial and business investment has also been growing in the city centre.Large part of the headquarters of foreign companies and newly established domesticenterprises are also concentrated in the centre of Budapest which directly contributes to thephysical upgrading of the city-centre. The weight of the CBD in the new form of capitalaccumulation is well demonstrated by the mushrooming of new office buildings, large scalecommercial and tourist investments. There is an obvious connection between the functionalchange and revitalisation of inner city neighbourhoods and the growing integration ofBudapest to the world economy.

Figure 5: Property price variations in the centre of Budapest (1997-2003)

Inner-urban residential quarters up- and down-grading

Deregulation of the housing market and the growth of income differentials are automaticallyproducing new forms of polarisation in the urban space. In Budapest this process is mostvisible in the inner-urban residential quarters.In the densely built-up inner quarters of Budapest state ownership of housing used to beextreme high (above 95 percent) before 1990. In terms of social composition, neighbourhoodsalong the Danube and inside the arc of Grand Boulevard have always had better-qualityhousing and thus higher social status. Moving outwards from the line of Grand Boulevard thequality of housing stock and the status of residents rapidly declined. The traditional workingclass districts of Budapest were stretching east and south-east of the city centre. Due to theneglect and the lack of maintenance during communism this densely built up residential zonedeteriorated to a great extent and became a slum area by 1990. These areas were stuck in avicious circle of social erosion and further physical decline after 1990.The worst slums are located in Jzsefvros (8th District) where a high proportion of thepopulation is Roma, and that part of Erzsbetvros (7th District) where the Jewish ghetto waslocated in the final stages of World War II. Migration trends after the fall of communismfurther intensified the ethnic character of these districts (KOVCS 1998). As economicrestructuring hit hard the north-eastern regions of Hungary, the traditional stronghold of Romaminority, a gradual migration of poor, unemployed Roma could be observed from theseregions towards the larger cities and Budapest. Most of the newly arriving Roma concentratein the two above- mentioned neighbourhoods, which constitute the first real examples ofethnic-based urban ghettos in post-communist Eastern Europe (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Proportion of Roma in the centre of Budapest (2001)

On the other hand, we can already find also positive examples for urban regeneration in thesedilapidated inner-city residential neighbourhoods. Perhaps the earliest and most successfulexample is the SEM IX. project, which aimed at the comprehensive rehabilitation of theMiddle-Ferencvros (9th District). The long years of communism brought a substantialphysical decay and a social downgrading in Ferencvros as well, which in turn resulted asevere social exclusion already by the late 1980s. In 1992 the local government has startedhere the first large scale rehabilitation programme in the history of Budapest includinghousing renovation and construction of new dwelling units (partly public rentals),improvement of the green environment and public spaces etc. The project was designedaccording to the French SEM model (Societ dconomie Mixte) which is a public-privatepartnership by the local government (with 51 percent) and a Hungarian-French consortium ofinvestors (OTP Bank from Hungary and the French Caisse des Depts Consignations withaltogether 49 percent). The first ten years of the rehabilitation project has proved to be verysuccessful and innovative under Hungarian and East European circumstances. Roughly 100buildings with obsolete conditions with 700 dwellings were torn down. In their place, newbuildings were constructed with over 1000 dwelling units, and almost as many apartmentshave been completely renovated. The project created an attractive residential environmentwith green inner-courtyards and a small pedestrian zone, and it can be seen as the flagshipproject of urban rehabilitation in Budapest (KOVCS & WIESSNER 2004).

Zone of transition slow conversion

Due to the lack of investment the industrial and commercial belt (the so-called zone oftransition), that was established in the late 19th century between the inner residential quartersand the outer zone, became and industrial blight area by the early 1990s. The decline of thezone started already in the 1970s and 1980s when many heavily polluting industrial plantswere either closed down or removed to the country-side by the communist power. Theexpansion of derelict industrial spaces was further intensified by the economic restructuringand the collapse of state socialist industry after 1989-90.Among the derelict industrial and commercial spaces low quality housing can also be foundmainly in the form of single blocks of flats or small scale housing estates built typically forthe workers. The proportion of dwellings without bathroom is the highest here among theecological zones of Budapest with 12 percent in 2001. Consequently, the social status of thebelt is also traditionally low, in 1990 only 8,7 percent of the inhabitants held university orcollege degree, which increased to 13,3 percent by 2001, nonetheless this is still the lowestfigure among the functional zones.As a new phenomenon, economic transition has brought about new investments in the zone oftransition since the late 1990s. Over the last few years we have seen more pronounceddevelopments in the belt that are targeted mainly at locations with good accessibility andtransport connections (Figure 7). Geographically, the investments concentrate mainly alongthe radial main roads (e.g. Vci t, lli t). Once again, international companies are thefront-runners among the developers, and the purpose of investment is mainly office and retailoutlets. There are several mega-projects in the zone, like the Duna Plaza, a large shoppingcentre in the 13th District along the Vci t, or the InfoPark project in the 11th District near theDanube. Latter can be considered the first technopolis of Hungary with altogether 100thousand sqm office space. The Hungarian state is also among the major investors, with thenew campus of the Faculty of Science of the Etvs Lornd University and the new NationalTheatre located on either side of Danube, south of the city centre.

Figure 7: Revitalisation of the zone of transition after 1990

Boundary of Budapestbefore 1950Large scaleinvestmentsafter 1990

Housing estates time bomb of communism

Housing estates can be considered generally the losers of the transition. The popularity ofhousing estates in Budapest was at its peak in the 1970s, when large scale estates weredeveloped at peripheral locations by the central government. Dwellings located at housingestates were very popular at that time especially among young families with children due totheir relatively high level of comfort. On the eve of political changes already 36 percent of thepopulation lived on housing estates in Budapest, which comprised altogether 268 thousanddwelling units (typically 2 roomed flats).After 1990 there was no new housing estate project developed in Budapest. On the otherhand, existing housing estates lost their popularity rapidly because of their architecturalmonotony, lack of green spaces, decreasing security and relatively high costs of amenities(especially heating). This reflected very well in the mass out-migration of younger and betteroff people from these estates. As a consequence more than 110 thousand people left thehousing estates and the total population of housing estates decreased by 15,2 percent between1990 and 2001. The pace of population loss at housing estates was similar to that of the citycentre. Due to the highly selective out-migration the social composition of housing estates hasalso been changing, the ratio of elderly is increasing, just like the socially disadvantagedfamilies.Due to the decreasing demands towards such dwellings the housing estates of the communistperiod, especially the pre-fab high-rise housing estates, became increasingly isolated on thehousing market. With growing social and income differentiation, and concomitant increasingdegrees of segregation, there is a real potential for such estates to become ghettos in thefuture. The problems here are very similar to the inner-urban slums, and they need equallycomprehensive rehabilitation actions. These are not seen yet.

Zone of garden cities new dynamism

This is the only zone within the administrative boundary of Budapest where we could observea population growth between 1990 and 2001. This reflects immediately the growingdynamism of the zone of garden cities after the political changes. The most importantadvantages of this formerly socially mixed and rather insufficiently developed zone are: itslow rise character with lots of green spaces, the relatively good accessibility and the unlimitedquantity of plots for new developments. These factors made the zone attractive both forindividuals and some major real estate developers who realised their housing projects in thisbelt increasingly. As a consequence, nearly half of the 40 thousand new dwelling units thatwere built in Budapest between 1990 and 2001, was realised in this zone.A new phenomenon under the Hungarian circumstances is the mushrooming of the so-calledresidential parks (lakpark). These residential parks are very similar to the North-Americangated communities, as they are perfectly cut off from the surrounding areas and provide lotsof additional services for the residents (e.g. guard and security system, parking facilities, play-ground). According to Bres (2002) the boom of residential parks started around 1998/99 aspart of the general investment boom on the real estate market. By 2002 already about 50residential parks have been constructed in Budapest and another 30 in the agglomeration.Most of the residential parks are located on the Buda side and at the periphery of Pest, fittedinto green. The average size of residential parks is about 130 dwellings, but there are muchlarger units containing 500-600 dwellings as well. Dwellings of such residential parks are soldby the developer on the free market at a price level which is 2-3 times higher than the average.Since these dwellings are affordable only for better off Hungarian households and foreignersthe construction of residential parks resulted in the growing status of the zone of garden cities.The ratio of inhabitants with higher education grew from 10,5 to 16,6 percent between 1990and 2001, and at the same time the society of this belt became also younger. The recent takeoff of the garden city belt can be considered a kind of internal suburbanisation in Budapest.

Figure 8: New residential parks in Budapest 2002

54040100

100150

150650Boundary ofBudapestprior to 1950

Source: Bres J. (2002)

Number ofdwellings

Villa quarter of Buda ageing wealth

The villa quarter of Buda is the traditional enclave of upper-middle class households. Theattractive Buda Mountains preserved, or even strengthened their upmarket position after thepolitical changes of 1990. With the division of existing plots or creation new ones on theexpenses of green areas, and the extension of former residential buildings the housing stock ofthe Buda Mountains grew dynamically by 11,7 percent between 1990 and 2001. Despite theexpansion of the housing market the population of the quarter did not grew, but even we couldobserve of a modest (4,8 percent) population decrease between the two censuses. This alreadyindicates the ageing process what hit the quarter in the last decade. This is also confirmed bystatistics, the ratio of 60+ age group increased from 20,7 percent to 23,0 percent between1990 and 2001.Despite the accelerating ageing the social status of the zone has not changed, and it is still thehighest status belt in Budapest. In 1990, already 33,5 percent of the inhabitants held auniversity or college diploma in the quarter which grew to 42,6 percent by 2001. This figurewas twice the Budapest average in both years. In the future we can expect a further populationdecrease and concomitant ageing process in the Buda hills. The availability of sites for newhousing construction has in the meantime strongly diminished, on the other hand thepopularity of the suburban belt or the zone of garden cities with the residential parks is clearlyhigher among young and affluent families.

Zone of agglomeration limitless urban sprawl

As it was pointed out earlier, one of the most spectacular features of the post-socialistdevelopment in Budapest is the excessive growth of the suburbs. As in the western countriessuburbanisation was fuelled here both by residential mobility and the relocation of businessfunctions from the city to the periphery. In this process we could observe two stages ofsuburban development after 1990. First the wave of residential suburbanisation took off onthe eve (or even before) the political changes.The main thrust of residential suburbanisation affected mainly villages located to the northand west of Budapest, which is a hilly landscape offering very attractive environment for thenewcomers. The housing construction in these villages reached its peak by the end of the1990s beginning of 2000s, above all in the form of detached family homes, terraced housingand some residential park projects. According to empirical research most of the newhouseholds are younger families with children (KOK & KOVCS 1999). However, a specificfeature of suburbanisation around Budapest is that not only the middle-class families, but alsolower class and elderly people are leaving the city, who are suffering from rising living costswhat they can hardly afford. Their main destinations are however, the municipalities locatedto the east and south of the city, where the plain landscape offers less attractive residentialenvironment. In spite of these tendencies the average social status of the suburban belt isclearly growing, the new suburbs with their luxurious environment are in sharp contrast withthe decaying inner urban neighbourhoods or high-rise housing estates.In addition to residential suburbanisation we could also distinguish clear sings ofsuburbanisation of commercial functions from the late 1990s. however, we should note thatthe suburban companies are less frequently relocations from the centre of the city, althoughthere are several examples (e.g. Pannon GSM) also for that, but more often new commercialinvestments, mainly by foreign companies. The newly erected shopping and leisure centres, aswell as office complexes are mostly in the form of green field investments. This process of thede-concentration of the economy led to the emergence of new economic growth poles, kind ofedge-cities in the agglomeration zone of Budapest of which perhaps the most pronounced is

the Budars-Trkbalint concentration at the western gate of Budapest, along the motorwayleading to Vienna (BURDACK, DVNYI & KOVCS 2004).The growing relocation of work places and the dynamic increase of car ownership creatednew pattern of daily commuting around Budapest. On the whole the relative de-concentrationof the population and firms resulted in a new spatial pattern of the agglomeration of Budapest(Fig. 9).

Figure 9: New spatial structure of the suburban belt around Budapest

Source: Burdack-Dvnyi-Kovcs (2004)

48 0002 000

Npessgszm

1

2 ab

3

4

5

6

1. NEW EDGE-CITY2a TRANSFORMING TRADITIONAL CENTRE2bTRADITIONAL CENTRE3. CENTRE OF LOGISTIC4. GROWTH POLE, TRANSPORT AXIS5. NEW TRADE CENTRE6. AREAS WITH RESIDENTIAL SUBURBANISATION

Vc

Gd

Dunakeszi

BUDAPESTPcel

Gdll

Szentendre

Pomz

Budars

Budakeszi

rd

Szigetszentmikls

Gyl

Gymr

DUNA

M7

M0

M5

M3

M1

Concluding remarks

Budapest as the capital city of Hungary and a major hub of international business corporationsis a rapidly transforming city. The transformation process was launched by the political andeconomic changes of the early 1990s. The different zones of the urban region were affecteddifferently by the transformation, which is market-led and generates both up- and down-grading processes in the city. There are two major areas where upward processes are mostevident in metropolitan Budapest: the central business district and the suburbs.Neighbourhoods lying between these two dynamic zones reveal some more controversialdevelopment. In most of the inner urban residential neighbourhoods that were severelyneglected during the communist era a further decline can be observed. In some of theseneighbourhoods physical deterioration is accompanied by extreme forms of social segregationand social exclusion. Only a limited number of neighbourhoods provide examples for upwardtrajectory, these are mostly the core areas of urban rehabilitation actions. Neighbourhoodsaffected by rehabilitation programmes are going through rapid population change, the old andless affluent population is being displaced in a gentrification process that resembles verymuch the western cities. The biggest challenge for the future development of the city iscaused by the high rise housing estates. These large scale monotonous housing estates arebecoming more and more the shelter of the urban underclass.

References

Andrusz, G. Harloe, M. Szelnyi, I. (eds.) (1996): Cities after Socialism. Oxford,Blackwell. 340 p.

Bennett, R. J. (1998): Local Government in Postsocialist Cities. In: Enyedi, Gy. (ed) SocialChange and Urban Restructuring in Central Europe. Budapest, Akadmiai Kiad. pp. 35-54.

Bernyi, I. (1994): Transformation of the Urban Structure of Budapest. GeoJournal. 32. 4. pp.403-414.

Bres, J. (2002): A lakspiac feltrekvszegmensei: a lakparkok terjedse Budapesten.[New segments of the housing market: the spread of residential parks in Budapest]. MAThesis, Budapest, ELTE. 62 p.

Burdack, J. Dvnyi, Z. Kovcs, Z. (2004): Am Rand von Budapest Die MetropolitanePeripherie zwischen nachholender Entwicklung und eigenem Weg. PetermannsGeographische Mitteilungen. 148. 3. pp. 30-39.

Dingsdale, A. (1997): Re-constructing Budapest's urban landscape. Trent GeographicalPapers. 2. pp. 73-87.

Enyedi, Gy. (ed.) (1998a): Social Change and Urban Restructuring in Central Europe.Akadmiai Kiad, Budapest. 287 p.

Enyedi, Gy. (1998b): Transformation in Central European Postsocialist Cities. In: Enyedi, Gy.(ed.) Social Change and Urban Restructuring in Central Europe. Akadmiai Kiad, Budapest.pp. 9-34.

Enyedi, Gy. Szirmai, V. (1992): Budapest - a Central European capital. London, BelhavenPress. 183 p.

Gorzelak, G. (1996): The Regional Dimension of Transformation in Central Europe. RegionalPolicy and Development Series 10. Jessica Kingsley, London. 152 p.

Grime, K. (1999): The role of privatisation in post socialist urban transition: Budapest,Krakw, Prague and Warsaw. GeoJournal. 49. 1. pp. 35-42.

Grime, K. Kovcs, Z. (2001): Changing urban landscapes in East Central Europe. In:Turnock, D. (ed.) East Central Europe and the former Soviet Union. Environment andSociety. London, Arnold. pp. 130-139.

Kok, H. Kovcs, Z. (1999): The process of suburbanisation in the agglomeration ofBudapest. Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment. Vol. 14. No. 2. pp.119-141.

Kovcs, Z. (1994): A city at the crossroads: social and economic transformation in Budapest.Urban Studies. 31. 7. pp. 1081-1096.

Kovcs, Z. (1998): Ghettoization or gentrification? Post-socialist scenarios for Budapest.Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment. Vol. 13. No. 1. pp. 63-81.

Kovcs, Z. Douglas, M. (2004): Hungary from socialist ideology to market reality. In:Turkington, R. Kempen, R. van Wassenberg, F. (eds.) High-rise Housing in Europe:Current Trends and Future Prospects. Housing and Urban Policy Studies 28. Delft UniversityPress, Delft. pp. 231-248.

Kovcs, Z. Wiessner, R. (2004): Budapest Restructuring a European Metropolis. EuropaRegional. 12. 4. pp. 22-31.

Ladnyi (1997): Social and ethnic residential segregation in Budapest. In: Kovcs, Z. undWiessner, R. (eds.): Prozesse und Perspektiven der Stadtentwicklung in Ostmitteleuropa.Mnchener Geographische Hefte 76. Passau. pp. 83-95.

Ruoppila, S. Khrik, A. (2003): Socio-economic residential differentiation in post-socialistTallinn. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment. 18. pp. 49-73.

Sailer-Fliege, U. (1999): Characteristics of post-socialist urban transformation in East CentralEurope. GeoJournal. 49. 1. pp. 7-16.

Standl, H. Krupickaite, D. (2004): Gentrification in Vilnius (Lithuania) the example ofUzupis. Europa Regional. 12. 1. pp. 42-51.

Sykora, L. (1999): Processes of Socio-spatial Differentiation in Post-communist Prague.Housing Studies. 14. 5. pp. 679-701.

Tasan-Kok, T. (2004): Budapest, Istanbul, and Warsaw Institutional and spatial change.Eburon Academic Publisher. Delft. 333. p.

Turnock, D. (1997): Urban and regional restructuring in Eastern Europe: the role of foreigninvestment. GeoJournal. 42. pp. 457-464.

Weclawowicz, G. (1997): The changing socio-spatial patterns in Polish cities. In: Kovcs Z.und Wiessner, R. (eds.): Prozesse und Perspektiven der Stadtentwicklung in Ostmitteleuropa.Mnchener Geographische Hefte 76, Passau. pp. 75-82.

Weclawowicz, G. (1998): Social Polarisation in Postsocialist Cities: Budapest, Prague andWarsaw. In: Enyedi, Gy. (ed.) Social Change and Urban Restructuring in Central Europe.Akadmiai Kiad, Budapest. pp. 55-64.

Wiessner, R. (1999): Urban Development in East Germany - specific features of urbantransformation processes. GeoJournal. 49. 1. pp. 43-51.