CC BY
14ADRIENNE CSIZMADY, GÂBOR CSANÂDI
TRANSITIONS IN BUDAPEST'S AGGLOMERATION 1990-2005
Adrienne Csizmady, Research Professor of Sociology, Institute for Sociology, Centre for Social Sciences, Hungarian Academy of Sciences Centre of Excellence, 4 Toth Kalman utca H-1097 Budapest, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Szeged, Hungary; 30-34 Petôfi Sandor sgrt., H-6722, Szeged, Hungary. E-mail: csizmady.adrienne@tk.hu
Gabor Csanadi, Emeritus Professor of Sociology, Department of Research Methodology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest; 1/a Pazmany Péter sétany, H-1113, Budapest, Hungary. E-mail: csanadi.gabor@tatk.elte.hu Abstract
Since the collapse of socialism in Hungary in 1989, political and economic factors increased residential mobility between Budapest and its agglomeration area. Social disparities have become more pronounced not only among the settlements of the agglomeration, but also within them. This paper identifies the different status-dependent paths within the general process of suburbanization using official statistical data, survey and interview analysis. The empirical research was made in 1992 and was repeated in 2002.
We argue that higher status groups used the new opportunities to strengthen their status by choosing to move while the poor were forced to move to less advantageous sectors of the agglomeration. These phenomena are the consequences partly of spontaneous factors and partly of state and local government policies. The effects of market forces can be taken as spontaneous factors and they increased western type suburbanization. Several measures taken by states and local governments increased the impact of these factors, helping higher-status groups to move to favorable areas within and around the cities. The same urban and housing policy measures increased the risk of concentrating poverty in certain areas of cities and they resulted in the not-well-known outmigration of lower-status groups. These groups had to move out of the city because it became too expensive for them to live there. Poverty meant that they were unable to find places in high or middle-status suburban areas around the cities and they had to move to more distant, poorer areas of the country. Keywords: suburbanization; Budapest; Hungary; spatial-residential mobility; socio-spatial differences Citation: Csimady A., Csanadi G. (2020) Spatial Mobility in Budapest's Agglomeration after the Collapse of Socialism. Urban Studies and Practices, vol. 5, no 4, pp. 112-125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/usp542020112-125
1. Introduction
Migration from a capital to its agglomeration area has become one of the defining processes of spatial and social transformation in both cities and the countryside in the 20th century. This topic has been investigated since the mid-nineties in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). [Kubes, 2013] indicates how numerous studies have shown that post-socialist urban development has a unique character. In the former socialist CEE countries, the change of regime created an interesting — almost experimental — situation. In the 1990s, it became possible to examine whether and how changes in power could alter socio-spatial processes. The socialist heritage, different models of transformation, economies of different strengths, and the characteristic pathways of development influence urban development to such an extent that new, non-Western models have been developed (e.g. [Andrusz, Harloe, Szelenyi, 1996; Tsenkova, Nedovic, Budic, 2006]). Several studies have connected post-socialist urban transition and suburbanization. The most recent publications according to [Kovâcs et al., 2019] are [Lisowski, Mantey, Wilk,2014] on Warsaw; [Stanilov, Hirt, 2014] on Sofia; [Leetmaa et al., 2014] on Tallinn; [Stanilov, Sykora, 2014] on Prague; [Pichler, Milanovic, 2014] on Ljubljana; [Slaev et al., 2018] on Belgrade and Sofia; [Sveda et al., 2016] on Bratislava. There are also many studies on Budapest, e.g. on the socio-spatial changes (e.g. [Kok, Kovâcs, 1999; Szirmai et al., 2011; Kovâcs, Tosics, 2014]) on the economic situation of settlements [Koos, 2007; Lux, 2012], population growth and the motivations of
those moving [Dovenyi, Kovacs, 1999; Kovacs, 1999; Csanadi, Csizmady, 2002; Szirmai, 2011]. Research has emerged on conflict [Varadi, 1999; Szirmai, 2011] and on the socio-economic and environmental consequences, and the spatio-temporal changes in land cover [Kovacs et al., 2019].
These changes happened in almost every post-socialist country. For example, in Budapest, the slumming of inner-city neighborhoods and suburbanization flourished after the fall of socialism. However, this was not Western-type suburbanization. Two important differences were visible: First, not only the middle class, but also lower-status inhabitants moved out of the central areas of the cities, and second, the latter groups moved to different areas.
To understand the personal and institutional motives behind suburbanization, it is rational to start with the investigation of the first years of the post-socialist period as we assume that the roots of the current situation must be sought in the years following the change of regime.
After reviewing the change of the population of the agglomeration area, we summarize the main spatial mobility directions from Budapest in the 1990s: three different trajectories within the agglomerations area and one to other parts of the country. Then we describe the main features of settlements belonging to different status zones. Finally, we describe the internal parts of a typical suburban settlement and demonstrate how they are reflected on the mental map of the inhabitants.
Our research indicates that the 1990s fundamentally determined the post-millennium situation. There was no significant change in the status differences within and among the settlements. Therefore, the paper focuses on the social-spatial changes of the 1990s.
2. Data and methods
The focus of the empirical research made in the late 1990s and early 2000s was to understand how the process of suburbanization changed the spatial-social structure of the area and the local communities in question. In the present study, we mainly rely on the same data and the conclusions from our previous studies. This paper is a revised version of Csanadi, Csizmady, 2002.
The statistical yearbooks of the Hungarian Central Statistical Office (HCSO) and census data were used to identify the social-spatial changes. Spatial analysis distinguished the statuses within the agglomeration area of Budapest. According to the social status of the residents, the suburban-metropolitan area was divided into three major parts.
In 1996-97, a survey was conducted in four waves on a county representative sample. A weighted national representative sample was prepared from the samples. The large sample (25,000) provided an opportunity to obtain a sub-sample (2,500) of analyzable size from those who moved to their current place of residence in Budapest and agglomeration after 1990.
The aim of the qualitative research was to explore the points of view of the local people in the settlements which experienced waves of immigration. 32 structured interviews were conducted with households, and 32 mental maps were drawn in 12 settlements of the agglomeration area in 1992 and in 2002. The interviewees were key long-term residents who worked locally and had jobs that meant they were well-acquainted with the structure, population, and day-to-day life of the settlement.
The investigation was built around several questions. How did the internal restructuring of the community take place? What was the social and spatial structure of the settlement area (e.g., closed, segregated poor and/or rich neighborhoods) before the change of regime? How did the spatial and social structure of the settlement change as a result of the immigration of new social groups? The view of those who live there was emphasized. The answers to the questions are structured and analyzed in several large subject groups.
3. Key points in the population development of Budapest and its agglomeration
Budapest's agglomeration (without the capital) (Fig. 1) has grown steadily over the past 30 years: 78 settlements with 567,000 inhabitants in 1990 and 81 independent settlements with more than 850,000 inhabitants in 2020. Approximately 60% of the population living in the agglomeration work in Budapest. The Budapest Metropolitan Region (BMR) (the capital city and its agglomeration together) has more than 2,5 million inhabitants — a quarter of Hungary's population. (HCSO, 2021)
During the first years after the collapse of socialism -, the agglomeration was characterized by a general population decline with significantly different demographic processes for each settlement [Dovenyi, Kovacs, 1999]. From 1993, the population of Budapest continued to decline, but the agglomeration's started to grow (Table 1).
Fig. 1. Agglomerations, agglomerating areas, and urbanized areas in Hungary, 2019
Source: HCSO, 2019: https://www.ksh.hu/docs/teruletiatlasz/agglomerations.pdf
Table 1. Population
1990 2000 2005 2011 2018
Budapest 2 016 774 1 811552 1 697 343 1 729 040 1 749 734
Agglomeration 566 861 640 509 724 488 782 018 850 078
Total Budapest Metropolitan Region 2 583 635 2 452 061 2421831 2 551 058 2 599 812
Source: HCSO, 2006; 2021
The inward migration became significant in 1994, which resulted in an overall population increase of 28% (by the mid-1990s to 618,000 inhabitants). After the turn of the millennium, the outflow of population from Budapest to the agglomeration area gradually accelerated. According to the data of the Hungarian Central Statistical Office (2006, 2021), the number of inhabitants of the agglomeration area had risen to 724,000 by 2005 (and rose even further to 879,933 by 2020). The population of the Eastern sector increased the most (60%) and the Northern and South-Eastern the least (17-18%) between 1990 and 2005 (fig. 2, Table 2).
The inflow of residents moved out from Budapest was uneven for different sectors of the agglomeration: around 27% moved to the Southern, 16-19% moved to the North and Western sectors, and 12-13% moved to the other sectors (Table 2).
The status of the out-migrating groups was similar to the status of the settlements they chose for their future homes. Therefore, the outmigration did not change the relative differences among the sectors of the agglomeration (Table 3). The highest status sectors were the West and North-Western and the lowest status the South-Eastern in 1990. (fig. 2) The order of the differences between the sectors remained the same until 2011, but the differences became larger.
Although further changes are not the subject of this study, we also feel it is necessary to give a brief outline of the whole picture. Between 2001 and 2011, 137,000 people moved from Budapest to the agglomer-
ation and 47,000 from the agglomeration to Budapest. The tendency was interrupted by the 2008 economic crisis. The population flow from Budapest to the agglomeration decreased, and the number of households moving back to Budapest started to increase, although the migration surplus from Budapest to the agglomeration area was permanently maintained. The introduction of state housing subsidies and the revival of economic processes brought another change after the crisis [HCSO, 2014]. After 2014, the inflow to the agglomeration area started to intensify again. The number of people moving from Budapest to the agglomeration was still by 2-6,000 persons higher than those moving to Budapest. This indicates that suburbanization has once again intensified in recent years. The gap between the sectors with the highest status has narrowed. The difference between the sectors also seems to have begun to rearrange. The Northern sector has caught up with the North-Western [HCSO, 2019].
Table 2. Distribution of out-migrants from Budapest to the different sectors of agglomeration, and the total increase of population 1990-2005, %
Sectors 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000-2005 1990=100%
out-migrants from Budapest to total population
Northern 14,5 % 12,6 % 12,1 % 116,8 %
Eastern 13,0 % 15,6 % 16,5 % 161,7 %
South-Eastern 13,4 % 13,0 % 12,5 % 118,2 %
South 27,1 % 26,2 % 27,1 % 133,1 %
Western 13,6 % 12,9 % 12,5 % 131,0 %
North-Western 18,5 % 19,6 % 19,1 % 133,2 %
Total 100,0 % N=85730 100,0 % N=118003 100,0 % N=123390 129,0 % N=724488
Source: HCSO, 2016
4. The stabilization of sectors of different status in the 1990s
To understand the differences in the socio-spatial structure that exist even today, we need to look for the main trends of the transformation in the 1990s. The population of the settlements has been changing at an ever-increasing rate since the change of regime. These changes took place without any significant change in the relative status of the settlements [Csanadi et al., 2010]. Higher-status locations attract higher-status populations, which further increases real estate market prices, boosting the move of higher-status populations. Lower status settlements attracted the less welloff with their low prices. However, a few years later, the rise in demand and the relative saturation
Fig. 2. The sectors and settlements of agglomeration
Source: HCSO, 2011.
of the agglomeration drove up prices in these settlements. For this reason, the less affluent chose more remote settlements as their new place of residence. This was the mechanism of how the elite and medium-sized settlements emerged.
The various strata moved in different directions when leaving the capital. However, there seems to be a correlation between the status of the population moving from Budapest and the settlements they prefer. The main pattern was to Fig. 3. Spatial orientation of different social groups moving out move to settlements with a status
of the capital similar to their own. This increased
the differences between the sectors Source: authors'compilation based on HCSO, 2011. of agglomeration. There was also an
increase in segregation among the different social groups inside settlements [Csanadi et al., 2010]. This pattern has not changed much in the past 30 years.
Table 3. Personal income tax per capita as a percentage of the highest status sector's value in the sectors of agglomeration, 19921, 2001, 2011, 2018, %
| Sectors 1992 2001 2011 2018
| Northern 88.0 74.5 77.1 90.0
| Eastern 86.4 74.8 75.6 88.6
| South-Eastern 73.4 56.3 55.0 78.4
| South 87.6 72.5 70.5 84.8
Western 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
| North-Western 92.9 85.6 82.1 90.6
Source: HCSO, 1991,2001a, 2012,2019a.
The first wave of suburbanization after the change of regime was triggered by the privatization of state-owned rental housing, with different impacts on different social groups [Hegedus, Tosics, 1990]. It also increased the chances and constraints of moving [Hegedus, 2004]. Model-wise, as a result of housing privatization, those who (Group 1 in fig. 3) got an apartment in a favorable location during the privatization and had sufficient equity and family capital, moved to the high-status sector of the Budapest agglomeration (the North-Western sector) [Csanadi, Csizmady, 2002].
Those (Group 2 in fig. 3) whose rented homes were in a less prestigious location only made moderate profits from privatization. Therefore, they moved to the low-status sector (South-Eastern sector) or to other low-status settlements a little further from the capital but still within the agglomeration. There was one group (Group 3 in fig. 3) that moved out of the capital not because they had the opportunity and wanted to improve their status, but because they were forced to. They got into a worse financial situation as a result of the regime change, e.g., they lost their jobs, could not pay rising rents, or were behind with paying utility bills. The move was not so much to improve housing or the symbolic social situation but to escape rent arrears and debt. In their case, family ties played a significant role in the choice of settlement. They usually moved back from where they (or their family) arrived in the 1950s and 1960s. (During the forced industrialization, when the former farmers settled in the city and became mainly unskilled industrial workers.) A significant number of these families had moved to the capital, but a branch of the family retained their rural residence, especially in eastern Hungary.
1 The personal income tax was introduced in 1988. The first statistical data was published by HCSO in 1992.
Those who had no other opportunities moved to these far-away fringes of the country and used the family ties to relocate. They often still had some real estate, even partially vacant houses or apartments, which could be renovated relatively cheaply. Although this solution was risky, and success depended on the one hand on employment opportunities and on the other hand on the strongness and effectiveness of the family support network. [Ladanyi, 2010]. In several cases, the adaptation was not successful in these situations, and the family (or part of it) had to return to the capital in an even worse situation, often as homeless [Csanadi, Csizmady, 2002].
4.1. From high-status areas of Budapest to high-status settlements of the agglomeration.
The development of the Budapest metropolitan area followed a similar path as in western societies. At the same time, it was an important consequence of the transition to a market economy, [Andrusz et al., 1996; Ladanyi, Szelenyi, 1997], similarly to other CEE metropolitan regions, e.g. [Kahrik, Tammaru, 2008; Krisjane, Berzins, 2012; Ourednicek, 2007]. The people who moved to high-status settlements used not only their advantageous real estate market position but also their status in the pre-1990 social structure to occupy the most favorable positions. The reasons they gave for moving were connected mainly to environmental factors. However, the expressed need for "the clean and nearly untouched natural environment" merely legitimized the desire (and ability) to move to a settlement of the desired social status [Csanadi, Csizmady, 2002]. In groups who are relatively free to choose the directions and modalities of spatial mobility, status plays a more important role in determining the directions of moving than the rationalized aspects. In most cases, they define the reason for the move as a consequence of some form of external compulsion. In such cases, the social function of this reasoning is to transform the need for status into an acceptable and/or legitimate rationale. The most obvious example is the need for nature. Out-migrants can only enjoy environmental values to a limited extent. The direct costs of increased traveling time and the cost of shortening free time make the situation even worse
A closer analysis of survey data from 1997 revealed that - for example - references to the desire for a healthier environment merely obscure and legitimize the need for this upper-middle-class group to emphasize their social status [Csanadi, Csizmady, 2002]. The spatial location of the new place of residence supports the social-status expectations of the movers. This entailed significant effort by the new groups to develop the physical environment of these settlements. When these high-status suburban areas were formed with relatively low levels of infrastructure, residents would use their—not insignificant—influence to eliminate these relative disadvantages and, if possible, convert them into benefits [Hegedus, 2008]. This meant to express pressure on local decision-makers, in particular local development, town planning, and regulatory authorities, to pursue their 'legitimate' local interests, which is also the case in Western European countries (e.g. [Scicchitano, Johnson, 2012; Ross, 2014]). Precisely because of their status, they could not only influence the decisions of a small settlement but a whole sector. There were several signs that they were trying to get central means to build a good public road from the place they lived to the capital. Similarly, they tried to ensure that decisions at the regional level — beyond the responsibility of the municipal authorities — were made to allocate more social resources to ensure their local interests. These attempts were often successful, as indicated by our subsequent research [Csizmady, Bagyura, 2021].
The methods for this varied from formal expert suggestions to informal networking. In this respect, the municipal elections held since 2002 were interesting. The 2002 election was the first election in which this social group started to occupy local government positions in their settlements. The candidates from this group were elected to municipal boards or were candidates for mayor in an attempt to assert their interests through electoral procedures. Since then, this process has become increasingly intense. With every municipal council election between 1990 to 2014, the number of settlements where the newcomers gained dominance increased [Bagyura, 2020].
There were concerns about this type of spatial mobility from Budapest. Among others, the fears that the moving away of high-status residents may lead to arising new slums in certain areas of the capital [Kovacs, Tosics, 2014]. Our research indicated that high-status relocations do not significantly affect these processes, as they do not move from degraded areas to high-status locations in the agglomeration [Csanadi et al., 2010]. Rather, it seemed that the risk of physical deterioration increased as the result of middle and lower status groups moving. All of which shows that the causes and directions of these moves and the possible consequences are not as simple as they seemed at first glance [Kovacs, Szabo, 2016].
4.2 From a mid-level ecological position of Budapest to a middle-status settlement
The second type of spatial mobility is that of the middle class and lower-middle-class groups. In their case, the mass moving out took place somewhat later than that of the high-status group. Their primary target area was mainly the North-Eastern and North-Western sectors, which were still affordable for them. Their former home's ecological situation in Budapest was relatively unfavorable. Three major subgroups can be distinguished according to a type of residency: 1) the lower-status detached zones of the outer districts in the eastern part of the city; 2) certain groups of the large housing estates; and 3) the old tenement houses built at the turn of 19th century and located on the border of areas with the deteriorating physical environment in the inner districts. The most important motive for moving out in all three cases is the recognition that, for various reasons, the area may become a slum in the near future. The visible signs of this process were in the detached-housing neighborhoods with poor infrastructure on the fringes of Budapest. The same happened where high maintenance costs appeared with a significant amount of arrears of rents and other costs, and signs of physical deterioration also appeared in some housing estates and in some neighborhoods in the inner city. The proximity of slums also could have a significant effect [Csizmady, Csanadi, 2009]. In this group, social status was higher than ecological status, and moving to the agglomeration was caused by this inconsistency [Csanadi et al., 2010]. They could target only settlements with a slightly lower status than the high-status group since their financial and social capital was weaker. However, the direct improvement in their housing situation seemed to be more pronounced since Budapest's high-status groups were already in high-status areas, so their (the highest status group's) improvement in housing was not visible in a relative sense.
In other words, for the middle-class group, however, poor or relatively poor housing acted as a strong "push" factor, so a rational decision is more obvious in the sense that there are significant positive changes in a number of housing parameters as a result of moving [Hegedus, Teller, 2006].
As mentioned, the resettlement process in this group was facilitated not least by the privatization of housing (in some cases, the purchase of a former rental home was a relatively substantial capital injection). However, the price received for the old apartment had to be supplemented with a relatively significant amount of family capital (e.g. selling the cottage or house and several family members moving in together) to become a buyer (or builder) in the medium-status settlement of the agglomeration. Moving often meant the depletion of the family's financial resources, so in a sense, the step is even more significant than in the high-status group. The search for a better home played a greater role in the decision.
The impact of these newcomers on the host settlements community was closely linked to their position in the new place of residence. The conflicts between settlers and locals depended to a large extent on the nature of the settlement. It is likely that the ability to coordinate the interests of the settlement's original population and the opportunities for newcomers were more balanced than in the first case. Conflicts were smaller and more varied.
Changes in the area they left are likely to be most important in terms of the consequences of moving. The high-status areas of Budapest abandoned by the first group still represented the most sought-after areas of the city. However, the moving out of the second group significantly increased the risk of the areas they left becoming slums, precisely because the area was originally not much better than the lower-status areas of Budapest. Thus, contrary to public belief, the risk of slumming in certain inner districts was not related to the outflow of high-status people from the city. Rather, the real danger is that middle-status or lower-middle-status residents move out of certain neighborhoods, and these areas become slums. This is important because when it comes to addressing the threat of slums, a whole different set of interventions is needed, depending on the groups that should be discouraged from moving.
4.3 From Budapest's low-status neighborhoods to the fringes
Finally, there is the relatively significant type of spatial mobility that is often referred to as poverty suburbanization. People in this category were forced to move from their urban place of residence because of the increased (or constantly increasing) costs [Sailer, Fliege, 1999; Stanilov, Sykora, 2014]. In their case, poor housing in low-status areas was often accompanied by rent and other housing cost arrears. This was frequent in some housing estates, slum areas in the inner districts, and lower quality exterior
district areas. For this group, the privatization of the 1990s was decisive. At first, came the increasing costs of housing. Ownership had a minimal positive effect, as the market values of the properties were low and the additional capital this group could mobilize was so modest that their room to maneuver was severely reduced [Hegedus-Teller, 2007]. This was compounded by the general problem that several generations of "learning" are needed for a disadvantaged social group to operate for its own benefit. That is true even if—at least in principle—the opportunities are provided by the social environment.
Typically, two types of groups moved into their former apartments in Budapest: 1) families of similar status replaced them, and the deterioration spiral continued to intensify; 2) young, firsttime buyers, who often came from the countryside, catalyzed spontaneous gentrification, especially in residential areas on the edges of slums. They bought cheap flats, typically courtyard flats in a round-corridor apartment building. This was particularly the case where city policy had already encouraged investors to build modern housing after the demolition of old municipally-owned houses in poor condition. As a result, the process might be accelerated in the surrounding buildings. The situation was somewhat complicated in the case of low-status housing estates, often serving as first places of residence for those moving from the countryside, but the changes were less visible due to the inflexibility of the physical environment.
According to our 2002 interviews, the success of moving to a new place of residence in the 1990s depended on whether or not a given region of the country was able to recover from economic depression. A significant proportion of the target settlements were located in the poorest areas of the country. Although the housing situation has been temporarily resolved, the complex danger for these families has not diminished and often even increased. Several years later, these kinds of families reappeared in large cities in search of job opportunities and in worse conditions, such as being homeless [Ladanyi, Szelenyi, 2005].
5. Mental maps: residents' perceptions of the socio-spatial structure of suburban settlements
In the second part of the paper, we investigate how the socio-spatial structure of the settlement was reflected on the mental maps of the inhabitants 15 years after the end of socialism. The population structure of the settlements surrounding Budapest changed significantly, as the statistical data show. With the influx of newcomers, the spatial-social structure of the settlements began to change too, first between 1990 and 2005.
In describing the structure of their settlement, the inhabitants always started by saying that it was mixed. Even if they recognized the social differences between the locals and the newcomers, they saw no sign of segregation.
"I think the village is a bit like America. It is populated by so many people from the capital—they moved in a significantly different financial situation from the people living there." (major)
Whereas the new diversity of the population eliminated the former traditional lifestyle. Not only the locals but also the newcomers felt frustrated observing this process. The large group of new arrivals looking for a rural lifestyle experienced its disappearance at an accelerated pace.
"It was like in a fairy tale. This meant that geese were running down the street, sheep grazing, the peasant riding his bike with his scythe on his back, horses [...] this has changed radically." (plant manager)
They remember the "good old days" with nostalgia [Csurgo, 2013] and miss the visible signs of the idyll past.
"There's fewer and fewer of the multi-skirted peasant women who come out to the market and unload their little tomatoes, peppers and sell them." (police officer)
On the mental map of the interviewees, each of the settlements was divided into four large schematic sections: 1) the old village or the old town; 2) the transformed recreation area; 3) the new plots; and 4) the poor neighborhoods. In the residents' minds, the parts were delimited not so much by streets but rather by natural boundaries (e.g. railways, small forests).
5.1. The Old Village
In general, it seemed that the core of the settlements was mainly inhabited by local people who mixed only with a small number of newcomers. The social status of the population—according to the geographical location of the settlement—was middle or lower middle class and relatively homogeneous. This population still preserved the characteristics of rural society, both in terms of occupational structure and habits. Usually, the age structure is typical. While the families living there, on the whole, were not mobile, the younger generations were already looking for homes in other areas.
With the exception of a few intellectuals, the old village was not very popular for newcomers in the 1990s because it was not compatible with the modern lifestyle that was important for them.
"Whoever comes out from Budapest doesn't want to buy these old porch houses, but then they have their own American kitchen, a swimming pool, and such. Instead, they buy a beautiful panoramic site on the hillside and build what they envisioned." (police officer)
As a result of the low mobility, there was no significant segregation within these types of areas. Neither the poor nor the super-rich were typical for these areas. Maintaining this state was also facilitated by the fact that there were no vacant plots forming a contiguous area (e.g. for a new high-status gated community) at that time. As a result, in these traditional central parts, people with very different statuses bought houses side by side and became neighbors. In a well-populated area, a house or shared larger plot rarely entered the property market.
"It is typical of the village that there are a lot of old houses, old residents, usually their children do not live with them, they build elsewhere. When the old people die, strangers usually come in, tear down the house and build a new one. Inside, rather, when someone moves in, there is less exchange of people." (headmaster)
5.2. Transforming recreation/resort areas
Almost every settlement had a resort area dating back to the 1930s. The status of the population visiting here on weekends followed the triple division we outlined in the previous section. For example, in the North-Western sector, intellectuals and industrialists, and in the North-Eastern sector, among others, lower-level managers and officials. The importance of this resort function declined after the war, and then it resumed with the revival of cottages in the 1960s. By the 1990s, the conversion of "weekend" cottages into permanent housing had become popular. In the first wave, former owners (mainly retired) usually moved out. In the second wave, these owners, who were old by the early 1990s, sold the land. As a result, the number of new buyers who were previously unrelated to the settlement increased rapidly. As a result of this influx, inhabitants of resort areas were simply integrated into the settlement as locals - and the builders on the newly developed plots were labeled as newcomers.
"In 1987, [it] seemed so far away so if you didn't move unfortunately, you are now fully built-in." (homeowner)
This area was very heterogeneous in terms of social composition. The proportion of retirees was high, but families with small children increasingly appeared. Their status was often higher than that of the former residents due to the significant rise in property prices in the late 1990s. As a result, the overall status of the population living there began to rise.
5.3. Newly developed areas
From the late 1980s, the commercialization of agricultural land on the outskirts of the settlement for residential purposes began, and it accelerated in the 1990s. The new settlers had a slightly higher status than the locals. They usually came from the capital but kept their jobs and social contacts in Budapest. They gave the rural surroundings a faster pace of life and a new lifestyle that is very closely connected to the capital.
Some communities tried to control population change to some extent while maintaining all the possible benefits. They wanted to keep the people and their grown children who lived there in the settlement. They offered, e.g. new plots to build houses in the early 1990s. But it did not live up to their hopes in the long run.
"Yes, there were significant parcels of land in the early 1990s. In the beginning, the principle was to buy land, if possible, for their descendants. This is how the municipality offered land at affordable prices. Prices were different for locals and non-locals, but the local government could not really influence this process. Very often, the subject of meetings was that someone sold the land that had been acquired for a bargain at a much higher price, which was then taken over by a new owner. Of course, he had to pay back the difference between the discounted price and the real price he was able to sell the plot. As a result, there was a great deal of land that was bought by families unrelated to the settlement." (clerk)
New residential areas that were built before the mid-1990s were generally heterogeneous. In the same area, there were very poor and very rich houses, in the words of a GP, "from palaces of wonders to terraced houses."
Low-priced apartments and houses made it possible for the poorest to move there. They were poorer than the residents of the area, and it was well known in the community that they moved from large housing estates to find more affordable housing. Even so, these apartments were not affordable enough. The poor physical condition of their apartments and the environment and the availability of free land in the municipalities made it almost impossible to sell these apartments for a reasonable price and get more affordable.
The areas of new plots did not really belong to the towns or villages in the minds of the interviewees. They had no real information, only superficial knowledge. The newest plots of land were not even on the maps yet. As if they were indicating that they were still in the process of being developed, not yet with "full rights". Local realtors also had no idea, as the developers of the residential, terraced, and detached housing usually sold the apartments themselves through other channels, mainly in Budapest.
The emergence of new areas was characterized by segregation, often high-status segregation, which was also promoted by advertising. In the uncertain years after the regime change, secluded and safe environments protected from "external influences" were very popular; with pricing attracting only the middle and upper classes. [Csefalvay, 2008]. Families who fled there, mainly from the noise and heterogeneity of the capital, did not give up their previous lifestyles. Often they did not want to integrate into the local community. They stayed bound to their work and friends to the capital. Therefore, they wanted to maintain their separation not only spatially but also mentally. Fences symbolized not only physical but also mental distance [Csizmady, Csanadi, 2009].
5.4. Other external areas of settlement
Almost everywhere in the settlements, we investigated there was a separate gypsy colony, which was more or less integrated into the settlement structure. Even in cases where the gypsy and non-gypsy populations already had a "tradition of living together", there was no chance of reducing segregation). The prejudices were so strong that many of the people were looking for houses in good neighborhoods far from these parts of the settlements.
"... explicitly ask that it should not be an area where Gypsies live, and if they find out [that there are Gypsy families], they don't buy them. The plot is unsellable in practice; although the presence of gypsies in the settlement is not a problem at all, there is no conflict. Whoever comes here doesn't know. No problem, but people are afraid of it and prefer not to go to a place [where gypsies live]." (real estate agent)
On the residents' mental maps, there were only vague images of the outer areas of the settlement before the millennium. These were the areas a little further from the settlement, without infrastructure (e.g., agricultural, often grape growing areas), but with increasing segregation of people of low status. Residents and newcomers here were families with debts, unemployed, or those with low pensions. They have been unable to maintain their living and housing standards and have escaped the
threat of homelessness to an environment where daily life is more difficult but much cheaper. Since the communities have no interest in developing these areas in terms of infrastructure, they continue to attract poorer families.
"The poorest buy houses here; they buy one of the small houses, set up a stove, and live there." (real
estate agent)
After the turn of the millennium, this area also began to change. Investors started to use the last development area near the outskirts, e.g. to build fashionable residential complexes. This brought infrastructure closer to the inaccessible, infrastructure-free area, making it cheaper to expand the infrastructure. These changes led to demand, and the value of the almost worthless property increased. For a while, very expensive houses and huts that had no real value apart from the land existed side by side. The area's transition began in 2005. It was stopped in 2009 due to the global financial crisis and resumed in 2015. In some settlements, the process allowed the poor to sell the land for good money and find better quality apartments further away from Budapest.
6. Conclusions
Budapest and its agglomeration were good examples of the effects of changes in political power on socio-spatial structure in the 1990s. Like all examples, it is instructive in itself but has a significance that goes further. Perhaps the most important conclusion is that the development of the city and its agglomeration simultaneously reflects the consequences of spontaneous processes and urban planning interventions. The spontaneous processes are the effects of globalization, the emergence of more accessible and—above all—desirable Western lifestyles. Suburbanism (through mechanisms not detailed here) was taken as a "normal" lifestyle for the western middle class, representing a desirable and possible way of life for groups that became winners after the change of regime in CEE.
The spatial-social structure of suburban settlements has historical roots and has been artificially shaped over the last few decades. The old village was generally heterogeneous, and it was transformed by habits and tastes which did not favor poor old farmhouses and the cube houses built in the 1960s for a less mobile population. The lack of vacant land and the pricing, usually lower-middle level in the settlement, also contributed to conserving the situation.
Areas of lower status, spontaneously formed or artificially created over the past decades, had created economic or ethnic segregation. The flats here were "valuable" only to people of similar status, while others, despite the very low prices, tended to look elsewhere for housing due to the physical and social characteristics.
In the case of transforming resort areas, we encountered heterogeneous areas with real estate prices somewhere in the middle. The increase in the demand for the supply of plots was reflected in the slowly rising prices and the appearance of new, expensive houses. The new plots had a more homogeneous population. The prices for plots of land were the highest and accordingly attracted a homogeneous high-status population.
Acknowledgments
The research was supported by NKFIH (National Fond of Hungarian Research) K 1249407.
АДРИЕНН ЧИЗМАДИ, ГАБОР ЧАНАДИ
ПРОСТРАНСТВЕННАЯ МОБИЛЬНОСТЬ В АГЛОМЕРАЦИИ БУДАПЕШТА ПОСЛЕ КРАХА СОВЕТСКОГО СОЮЗА
Адриенн Чизмади, доцент социологии, Институт социологии, Центр социальных наук, Центр передового опыта Венгерской академии наук; Директор Института социологии и Департамента социологии факультета гуманитарных и социальных наук Сегедского университета; Petofi Sandor sgrt. 30-34, H-6722, Szeged, Hungary. E-mail: csizmady.adrienne@tk.mta.hu
Габор Чанади, заслуженный профессор социологии, кафедра методологии исследования, факультет социальных наук, Университет Этвеша Лоранда; Egyetem ter 1-3, H-1053, Budapest, Hungary. E-mail: csanadi.gabor@tatk.elte.hu
После смены режима в Венгрии в 1989 году, политический и экономический факторы увеличили резидентную мобильность между Будапештом и его агломерацией. Социальные диспропорции усилились не только между населенными пунктами агломерации, но и внутри них. В этой статье определяются различные зависящие от социального статуса пути в рамках общего процесса субурбанизации на основе официальных статистических данных, опросов и анализа интервью. Исследование было проведено в 1992 г. и повторено в 2002 г.
Мы утверждаем, что группы с более высоким статусом использовали новые возможности для его укрепления, решая переехать, в то время как бедные были вынуждены переезжать в менее выгодные районы агломерации. Эти явления являются результатом как спонтанных факторов, так частично и политик государства и местного самоуправления. Влияние рынка, которое можно рассматривать как спонтанный фактор, способствовало распространению пригородов западного типа. Некоторые меры, принятые государством и местными органами власти, усилили воздействие этих факторов, помогая группам с более высоким статусом переезжать в благоприятные районы внутри и вокруг городов. Одни и те же меры городской и жилищной политики повысили риск концентрации бедности в определенных районах городов и привели к малообсуждаемой миграции групп с более низким статусом. Эти группы были вынуждены покинуть город, потому что жить там стало слишком дорого. Бедность означала, что они не могли найти места в пригородах с высоким или средним статусом вокруг городов, и им приходилось переезжать в более отдаленные и бедные районы страны.
Ключевые слова: субурбанизация; Будапешт; Венгрия; пространственно-бытовая мобильность; социально-пространственные различия
Цитирование: Csizmady A., Csanadi G. (2020) Spatial Mobility in Budapest's Agglomeration after the Collapse of Socialism // Городские исследования и практики. Т. 5. № 4. С. 112-125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/usp542020112-125
References
Andrusz G., Harloe M., Szelenyi I. (eds.) (1996) Cities After Socialism: Urban and Regional Change and Conflict in
Post-Socialist Societies. Wiley-Blackwell. Bagyura M. (2020) The Impact of Suburbanization on Power Relations in Settlements of Budapest Agglomeration. Geographica Pannonica, vol. 24, no 1, pp. 13-24. Dôvényi Z., Kovacs Z. (1999) [The Spatial-Social Characteristics of Suburbanization in the Agglomearion of Budapest]. Földrajzi értesitô [Geographical Bulletin], vol. 48, no 1-2, pp. 33-57. (in Hungarian) Csanadi G., Csizmady A., Kocsis J., Koszeghy L., Tomay K. (2010) Varos-Tervezo-Tarsadalom [Society-Town-Planning].
Budapest: SIK Kiado [SIK Publisher]. (in Hungarian) Csanadi G., Csizmady A. (2002) Szuburbanizacio és tarsadalom [Suburbanization and society]. Tér és Tarsadalom [Space and Society], vol. 16, no 3, pp. 27-56. (in Hungarian)
Csefalvay Z. (2008) Kapuk, faLak, sorompok - a lakoparkok viliga. [Gates, walls, barriers - the world of residential
parks]. Budapest: Gondolat Kiado [Budapest: Gondolat Publisher]. (in Hungarian) Csizmady A., Csanidy G. (2009) From Housing Estates to Gated Communities. Gated and Guarded Housing in Eastern
Europe. Forum Leibniz-Institut für Landerkunde, vol. 11, pp. 9-20. Csizmady A., Bagyura M. (2021) A straight and narrow path to growth. Under submition to a journal. HCSO (1990, 2001, 2011) Nepszimlilis [Census https://www.ksh.hu/nepszamlalas/?lang=en] KSH [Hungarian Central Statistical Office]. Budapest. HCSO (2006) Nepesedesi folyamatok a budapesti agglomericioban [Population Trends in the Budapest Agglomeration]. KSH [Hungarian Central Statistical Office]. Budapest. (in Hungarian) HCSO (2019) Közlemenyek a Budapesti Agglomericiorol, 16 [Announcements on the Budapest Agglomeration
No 16]. KSH [Hungarian Central Statistical Office]. Budapest. (in Hungarian) HCSO (2014) Agglomericiok es települesegyüttesek [Agglomerations, agglomerating areas, urbanised areas]. KSH
[Hungarian Central Statistical Office]. Budapest. (in Hungarian) HCSO (1991, 2001a, 2006, 2012, 2019a, 2021) Budapest Statisztikai Evkönyv [Statistical yearbooks of Budapest] (in Hungarian)
Hegedüs J. (2008) A nagyvirosi korminyzatok es az önkorminyzati rendszer [Governments of the Cities and System
of the Local Government]. Ter es Tarsadalom [Space and Society], vol. 22, no 1, pp. 59-75. (in Hungarian) Hegedüs J., Teller N. (2006) Managing risks in the new housing regimes of the transition countries. The case of Hungary In: Elsinga M., Doling J. eds. Home Ownership: Getting In: Getting From, Getting Out, Part II. Amsterdam, Hollandia. IOS Press, pp. 175-200. Hegedüs J., Teller N. (2007) Hungary: Escape into Homeownership. Home Ownership Beyond Asset and Security: Perceptions of Housing Related Security and Insecurity in Eight European Countries / M. Elsinga, P. De Decker, N. Teller, J. Toussaint (eds.). Amsterdam, Hollandia. IOS Press, pp. 133-172. Hegedüs J., Tosics I. (1990) Moving away from the Socialist Housing Model: The Changing Role of Filtering in Hungarian Housing. In: Van Vliet W., Weesep J.W. eds. Government and Housing. Developments in Seven Countries. Thousand Oaks (CA), USA. Sage, pp. 242-259 Hegedüs J. (2004) The Housing Market and Residential Regional Mobility in the 1990s - the Case of Hungary. The Hungarian Labor Market: Review and Analyses, Budapest, Magyarorszag. Hungarian Employment Foundation / K. Fazekas, J. Koltay, Zs. Cseres-Gergely (eds.). Institute of Economics HAS, pp. 73-80. Kok H., Kovics Z. (1999) The Process of Suburbanization in the Agglomeration of Budapest. Netherlands Journal of
Housing A: The Built Environment, vol. 2, pp. 119-142. Koos B. (2007) A szuburbanizicios folyamat a magyar gazdasigban [The Suburbanization Process in the Hungarian
Economy]. KözgazdasagiSzemle [Economic Review], vol. 4, pp. 334-349. (in Hungarian) Kovics Z. (1999) A szuburbanizicio jellemzoi a budapesti agglomericioban. (Esettanulminyok) [Characteristics of Suburbanization in the Budapest Agglomeration - Case Studies]. Földrajzi Ertesi'tö [Geographical Bulletin], vol. 1-2, pp. 93-126. (in Hungarian) Kovacs, Z., Szabo, B. (2016) Urban restructuring and changing patterns of socio-economic segregation in Budapest. In: Tammaru, T; Marcinczak, S; Ham, M van; Musterd, S (eds) Socio-Economic Segregation in European Capital Cities: East meets West New York USA, London, UK: Routledge pp. 238-260. Kovics Z., Tosics I. (2014) Urban Sprawl on the Danube: the Impacts of Suburbanization in Budapest. Confronting Suburbanization: Urban Decentralization in Postsocialist Central and Eastern Europe / K. Stanilov, L. Sykora (eds.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 33-64. Kovics Zs., Farkas Zs. J., Egedy T., Kondor A. Cs., Szabo B., Lennert J., Baka D., Kohin B. (2019) Urban Sprawl and Land
Conversion in Post-Socialist Cities. The Case of Metropolitan Budapest Cities, pp. 71-81. Kubes J. (2013) European Post-Socialist Cities and Their Near Hinterland in Intra-Urban Literature. Bulletin of Geography, Socio-economic series, vol. 19, pp. 19-43. Ladinyi J. (2010) Market, State and Informal Networks in the Growth of Private Housing in Hungary. In: Forrest. Ray
and Murie, Alan (szerk.) Housing and Family Wealth. New York USA, London, UK: Routledge, pp. 202-214. Ladinyi J., Szelenyi I. (2005) The Marginalization of Roma in Hungary. ACTES DE LA RECHERCHE EN SCIENCES SOCIALES 21: 160 p. 66
Ladinyi J., Szelenyi I. (1997) Szuburbanizicio es gettosodis Szociilis, etnikai es terszerkezeti viltozisok az ezredfor-dulo Magyarorszigin es Budapestjen [Suburbanization and Ghettoization - Social, Ethnic and Spatial Changes in the Millennium of Hungary and Budapest]. Kritika [Critique], vol. 6, pp. 4-12. (in Hungarian) Leetmaa K., Tammaru T., Anniste K. (2009) From Priority-Led to Market-Led Suburbanization in a Post-Communist Metropolis. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie [Magazine for Economical and Social Geography], vol. 100, no 4, pp. 436-453.
Lisowski A., Mantey D., Wilk W. (2014) Lessons from Warsaw: The Lack of Coordinatedplanning and Its Impacts on Urban Sprawl. Confronting Suburbanization: Urban Decentralization in Postsocialist. Central and Eastern Europe/ K. Stanilov, L. Sykora (eds). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 225-255.
Lux G. (2012) Fejlesztési problémak és területi egyûttmûkôdési kapcsolatok magyar nagyvarosi agglomeraciokban [Development Problems and Territorial Cooperation Relations in Hungarian Metropolitan Areas]. Az agglom-eraciok intézményesitésének sajàtos kérdései [Specific Issues Concerning the Institutionalization of Agglomerations] / E. Somolydyné Pfeil (ed.) Pécs: Publikon [Pécs: Publikon Publisher], pp. 153-180. (in Hungarian)
Nuissl H., Rink D. (2005) The 'Production' of Urban Sprawl in Eastern Germany as a Phenomenon of Post-Socialist Transformation. Cities, vol. 22, no 2, pp. 123-134.
Pichler-Milanovic N. (2014) Confronting Suburbanization in Ljubljana: From "Urbanization of the Countryside" to Urban Sprawl. Confronting suburbanization: Urban Decentralization in Postsocialist Central and Eastern Europe/ K. Stanilov, L. Sykora (eds.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 65-96.
Sailer-Fiege U. (1999) Characteristics of Post-Socialist Urban Transformation in East Central Europe. GeoJournal, vol. 49, pp. 7-16.
Slaev A. D., Nedovic-Budic Z., Krunic N., Petric J., Daskalova D. (2019) Suburbanization and Sprawl in Post-socialist Belgrade and Sofia. European Planning Studies, vol. 26, no 7, pp. 1389-1412.
Stanilov K., Sykora L. (eds.) (2014) Confronting Suburbanization: Urban Decentralization in Postsocialist Central and Eastern Europe. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Stanilov K., Hirt S. Sprawling S. (2014) Postsocialist Suburban Growth in the Bulgarian Capital. Confronting suburbanization: Urban Decentralization in Postsocialist Central and Eastern Europe / K. Stanilov, L. Sykora (eds.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 163-191.
Statistical Yearbook of Budapest, KSH (1991) [Hungarian Central Statistical Office]. Budapest.
Statistical Yearbook of Budapest, KSH (2001) [Hungarian Central Statistical Office]. Budapest.
Statistical Yearbook of Budapest, KSH (2012) [Hungarian Central Statistical Office]. Budapest.
Sveda M., Madajova M., Podolak P. (2016) Behind the Differentiation of Suburban Development in the Hinterland of Bratislava, Slovakia. Czech Sociological Review, vol. 52, no 6, pp. 893-925.
Szirmai V., Varadi Zs., Kovacs SZ., Baranyai N., Schuchmann J. (2011) Urban Sprawl and Its Spatial, Social Consequences in the Budapest Metropolitan Region. Urban sprawl in Europe / V. Szirmai (ed.). Budapest: Aula Könyvkiado [Aula Publisher], pp. 141-187.
Szirmai V. (2011) Urban Sprawl in Europe: An Introduction. Urban Sprawl in Europe: Similarities or Differences?/ V. Szirmai V. (ed.). Budapest: Aula Kiado [Aula Publisher], pp. 15-44.
Tsenkova S., Nedovic-Budic Z. (eds.) (2006) The Urban Mosaic of Post-Socialist Europe. Physica-Verlag Heidelberg.
Varadi M. (1999) Hova megyünk lakni? Szuburbanizacios mintak és konfliktusok a budapesti agglomeracio budai oldalan. Esettanulmany [Where are We Going to Live? Suburbanization Patterns and Conflicts on the Buda Side of the Budapest Agglomeration. Case Study]. Tàrsadalmi-gazdasàgi àtalakulàs a budapesti agglomeracioban [Socio-economic Transformation in the Budapest Agglomeration] / G. Barta, P. Beluszky (eds.). Budapest: Regionalis Kutatasi Alapitvany [Budapest: Regional Research Foundation], pp. 115-129. (in Hungarian)
